Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Hello, I don't know if this is intentional or not but a lot of the content on this page is lacks the words "allegedly", especially in the sections that need it the most. For example, the torture section lacks the use of this word in regards to Mihrigul Tursun's confession of being tortured. Her confession of course can not be verified.

In the "Denial" section it brings up some sources like The Grey Zone but then none of their arguments they use are brought up. Some which I believe hold up. For example, while the decline in Birthrates in Xinjiang has decreased, it is still above the national average. Decreased poverty levels, access to women's health services, and the large scale decline in births occurring in all regions of China aren't even mentioned and this could easily at least explain in part the decline in Birth rates. This page also fails to mention that Andrew Zens, the researcher behind most of these articles on here is a Far-Right born again Christian who is the opposite of impartial. lots of his own citations come from dubious sources, mostly from other far-right think tanks like the JamesTown foundation which has multiple alleged ties to the CIA. The Wikipedia article on it even says this. Qfmysteryman23 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased article

We have deleted the deniers of the Uyghur genocide category. Nevertheless this article still falsely uses the word "deny", which causes Western bias regarding the events happening in China. Madame Necker (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How is use of the word deny "false"? — Czello 22:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czello I'm unable to understand your point. Madame Necker (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You said "this article still falsely uses the word "deny"" but the linked discussion doesn't establish that the use is false, thats why Czello is asking how you came to that conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back If it isn't wrong why was it deleted? Madame Necker (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it didn't fit how we use categories, it was a housekeeping call not a human rights call... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought we deleted the page because it used the word deny. Thanks for correcting me. :) Madame Necker (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Genocide denial"

The section "Denial", which links to "genocide denial" as the main article, strongly implies, in authoritative Wikivoice, that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. There was previously an RfC here that determined that we cannot call this event a "genocide" in Wikivoice. Not only that, but there was also a discussion over at genocide denial, in which a consensus formed that listing "denial" of the "Uyghur genocide" as an example of "genocide denial" would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

The term "genocide denial" refers to denial of widely acknowledged genocides. Someone who disputes that an event constitutes a genocide is only a "genocide denier" if there is a broad consensus that the event is, indeed, a genocide. As was established in the RfC, there simply is no such consensus in this case. The claim that there is a "Uyghur genocide" is heavily disputed, even by the US State Department's own legal advisors, who were tasked with evaluating the question.

Creating a section called "Denial" and linking it to "genocide denial" strongly implies that we are now, in our official, factual voice, labeling this a "genocide," and that anyone who disputes that label is a "genocide denier." We already went through this in the RfC here. We already went through it at genocide denial. Why are we going through this a third time?

I attempted to rename the "Denial" section and remove the main-article link to genocide denial, but was immediately reverted by Horse Eye's Back: [1]. Horse Eye's Back took part in the discussions both at the RfC here, and over at genocide denial, so they are well aware of the consensus that we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice, and of the consensus that labeling criticism "genocide denial" is also POV. I think their instant reversion to reinstate content that of they know to be against this consensus is a behavioral problem that should be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Properly pinging Horse Eye's Back this time, since I misspelled their username before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Does it imply it or does it state it in authoritative wikivoice? It can only do one of those at a time, they are mutually exclusive after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You and I went through this over at genocide denial. There, you also tried this same argument, that "implying" something in Wikivoice that we cannot "state" in Wikivoice is fine. And over there, consensus went against you, as well it should. Circumventing an RfC by intentionally "implying" the thing you're not allowed to state is too cute by a little. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't imply anything in wikivoice either, thats not how see also works. See also means something is related, it doesn't mean they're the same thing. For example if the page for Bill Clinton has "See also:Barry Goldwater" that doesn't mean that we are implying that Bill Clinton is Barry Goldwater. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also if thats your memory I suggest you take a peak at, Talk:Genocide denial because its not really backed up by the page... Also note that Sunderland Renaissance has been indeffed by arbcon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see a consensus among several editors at genocide denial that the inclusion of the "China" section was inappropriate. I think you know that the Bill Clinton / Barry Goldwater example is not at all analogous. You have labeled "denial" of the existence of a genocide in Xinjiang "genocide denial". You've done this despite knowing that there's an RfC (that you took part in) that says we can't state that there's a genocide in Xinjiang. When I raise this, you say that it's fine, because you're only "implying" that there's a genocide in Xinjiang - which is the exact same argument you made at genocide denial, when the consensus went against you. When you tried this the first time, over at genocide denial, that was already questionable, because it was already clearly an attempt to strongly imply a POV in Wikivoice that you know you can't just put into the text. But to do this again, now at this page, is really pushing it. This sort of deliberate circumvention of an RfC in order to insert a POV that the RfC said could not be inserted is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The "see also" was already on the page when that discussion took place in February[2]. Your narrative is fiction.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that POV material was on the page before February doesn't make it better. Unless you're going to argue that we can call rejection of the "genocide" label "genocide denial", the section title has to change and the main article link to genocide denial has to go. It's as simple as that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You never established that it was POV material. That section is not for the rejection of the "genocide" label, we cover that elsewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Thucydides411, that linking to genocide denial is inherently implying that anyone who disagrees that the human rights violations in China fail to meet either the legal, or common definitions of genocide - or that the case remains as yet unproven - is engaging in an act of deception/self-deception, comparable to holocaust denial and the link's inclusion is therefore highly, inappropriately PoV. It also strongly implies that a genocide is a fact, contrary to the RfC. The section is mainly about the PRC, and a few apologists, claiming that nothing bad, or at least no serious HR abuses are occurring. If we were more specific in the section title about what was being denied and removed the genocide denial link, the matter would be solved imo. I myself removed the link long ago but it was restored on the - largely semantic grounds - that anyone who denies that this is genocide is engaging in genocide denial! Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this to the right section, if you're against it too I withdraw my support for the see also. Those are more or less completely at editorial discretion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Section renaming

Thucydides411 why do you want to rename the section to "Chinese government response"[3]? The section isn't about the Chinese government's response. The Grayzone etc are not part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you created the "Denial" section in November 2021 ([4]), and that the main article link to "genocide denial" was added shortly afterwards. You took part in the RfC, in which it was determined that we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice. You also took part in the discussion at genocide denial, in which there was a consensus that labeling rejection of the "genocide" label in this case "genocide denial" is POV, because the existence of a genocide is not established in the first place. As we discussed there, "genocide denial" refers to denial of firmly established genocides, not any and all statements that a certain event is not a genocide. Otherwise, people who correctly dispute the racist "white genocide" theory would be "genocide deniers" - something that would be obviously absurd.

By labeling the section "Denial" and linking to "genocide denial" as the main article, you are strongly implying, in Wikivoice, that people who don't believe there's a genocide in Xinjiang are "genocide deniers", that there's undisputedly a genocide that's going on.

I renamed the section and removed the POV main article link. My edit summary briefly explained what I've just stated above. As you've taken part in the relevant discussions, you must have understood what I was saying. You restored the section, knowing that this would be considered POV, based on previous discussions that you've taken part in. And then in this discussion, you start trying to make the same arguments about "implying" vs. "stating" that you made over at genocide denial, as if it's okay if we just deliberately "imply" an egregiously POV claim (but not "state" it, wink, wink). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The RfC (which was not about content on this page) occurred in February 2022 not February 2020, your timeline doesn't work. Also note that you're completely dodging the question... Why do you want to section to be called "Chinese government response"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be clear to you from the response that the objection was to calling the section "Denial" with a link to genocide denial. Wikipedia policy requires that articles clearly distinguish between facts and opinions. Incidentally, comparing everyone you don't like to Hitler is hackneyed. TFD (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is comparing anyone to Hitler? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The concept of genocide denial was created to describe the tactic of Nazis and neo-Nazis who claimed that the Holocaust had not occurred. Genocide was a term created to describe events such as the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a genocide carried out by Hitler's government. When you call people genocide deniers you are comparing them with Nazis. That's why some people use the term. However, writers in reliable sources do not question the facts, as Holocaust deniers do, but whether the facts meet the definition of genocide. Policy says that we should not use articles to present our personal opinions as facts (even if they are right) but should describe the range of opinions in accordance with their acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On the theory side the concept was actually first applied to the Armenian Genocide. Organized neo-Nazi and German nationalist denial of the Holocaust doesn't actually emerge until later and the end of war denials were limited and disparate arguments made by desperate men on trial for their life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. The reason for calling people who believe the human rights abuses to not meet the definition of genocide "deniers" is to compare them with Holocaust denial. Why else would you use the term and provide the link? This plausible deniability is more suited to polemics. Articles should not make implications but should state accusations explicitly, including who made them. TFD (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with @The Four Deuces. Better for us to focus on facts, specific allegations, and specific responses, as opposed to these rhetorically-weighted labels. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Would renaming to "Denial of abuse" clear up any remaining concerns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea from my perspective. I just adopted your suggestion and made the change. Personally, I favor a construction of denial of "abuses," rather than denial of "genocide" as use of the latter term is significantly more debatable than the former. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats what it was always for, it was never for genocide denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Denial of abuse(s) seems fine to me. TFD (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as this looks to be resolved by rough consensus, I've removed the NPOV tag. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad we could all come to a consensus. Thanks everyone! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

New Washington Post article

There's a new Washington Post article that says the crackdown is easing. Should it be added to this article and if it is, how so? The Account 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it could be used, although the reporting seems a bit thin to me; no serious figures and no non-CCP data to back the author's impressions. More of a travel story than a serious piece of investigative journalism. Doanri (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that this isn't the first article claiming this: AP wrote a similar article last year too. Here's Xinjiang Victims Database also saying that there's some limited easing, but that many many people remain detained. From my following of China experts, the primary problem right now about Xinjiang seems to be most camp detainees being transferred from camps to prisons and the remaining forced labor program. The problem is that Xinjiang doesn't seem to be a big topic right now (very much overshadowed by many other events inside and outside China) so we don't have anyone affirming or challenging these claims. The Account 2 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's worth adding but not overemphasizing given that it is, as @DoanriDoanri correctly points out, thin on the hard facts. I added a few sentences under "Regulations since 2017" following the VETC paragraphs, see if you are in agreement that this strikes the right balance. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree this would be the way to do it.

Estimates for the number of fatalities?

The article should provide it, and in the lead. There are some scattered information in the article, primarily about the deaths in the camps ("mass"... "5 to 10%"). This really needs systematizing and summarizing in the lead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In comparable situation we've only gotten good estimates on fatalities after the fact, until academics have a chance to go over the official records there most likely won't be anything usable. Not that every genocide needs to be compared to the Holocaust but there we didn't have good estimates for the number of fatalities there until the early 1950s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There simply is no straight-up estimate for the number of fatalities, because this isn't some Holocaust-style mass murder. Neither has there been a serious accusation that any Holocaust-style mass murder is happening in Xinjiang. Cycw (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no accusation that China is carrying out any mass killings, so the answer is zero. That's one of the reasons why the "genocide" label is so heavily disputed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the contention over the genocide label, why doesn't the article have a more impartial title such as "Internments of Uyghurs in Xinjiang" with the accusations and characterization of Chinese goals and methods as genocide being mentioned in the article? Archeoish (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kashgar Xi Jinping billboard.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

I should start by saying that I believe that there is a genocide. I am not a denier. But this article has been written (rewritten, I should say) from an incredibly one-sided point of view. The denial section doesn’t even leave open the possibility for legitimate claims against the “genocide” terminology or legitimacy of claims on the operation. Instead, it seems to imply that all people denying the genocide are directly involved with the Chinese government or are otherwise malicious actors. This is not a widely accepted thing. Many countries, including Islamic ones, have not joined the US and allies in calling it a genocide and some have outright rejected it. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to push an agenda, no matter how moral that agenda may be. Wikipedia’s job is to provide unbiased, objective information. And this article has failed at doing that. A. Rosenberg (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Although I sympathetic to a concern about too much weight being given to Western perspectives and sources, actionable feedback like "change X in section Y to read as: "Z" citing Source1" is more helpful. If you have the opportunity, feel free to suggest specific changes or sources to consider. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@JArthur1984:Why not start by editing the sentence in the first section "Some UN member states issued statements to the United Nations Human Rights Council condemning China's policies, while other countries have supported China's policies" into "39 UN member states issued statements to the United Nations Human Rights Council criticizing China's policies, while 45 countries have defended China's policies." That seems more objective and in line with what the Axios report concludes. Britishcook (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a correct and sensible change, thank you. I'll make it. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that we actually make use of sources from Muslim majority countries, for example we have something like two dozen citations to Al Jazeera. Do you have any reliable sources we aren't currently using in mind? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

So far the U.S. is the only country to describe the human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide. The other Western countries do not deny that abuses are occurring but do not think there is sufficient evidence that it meets the criteria for genocide.

While we should note that more countries publicly support China's policies than oppose them, in presenting the facts, we must be guided by what reliable sources say, being careful to distinguish between when rs say something is a fact and when they say it is an allegation.

As editors, we shouldn't be concerned with whether the descriptions are accurate, just that they are what rs say. Similarly, we shouldn't elevate allegations reported as such to facts, even if we know them to be true. TFD (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Legislatures in several countries have since passed non-binding motions describing China's actions as genocide, including the House of Commons of Canada,[39] the Dutch parliament,[40] the House of Commons of the United Kingdom,[41] the Seimas of Lithuania,[42] and the French National Assembly.[43]" The UK parliamentary motion, which is the only one I am familiar with, is actually very weak 'recognition', but it is false to say that the U.S. is the only country to describe the human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop irresponsibly giving precedence to a marginal extremist fringe claim that there was no genocide, while 5 countries out of 193 in the UN says there is, in order to create an undue weight with a heavily discredited opinion. Madame Necker (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Canadian case, only one cabinet minister attended the vote and he abstained, the upper house voted down a similar resolution. A non-binding vote by the lower house cannot be interpreted as Canada decribes it as genocide.

To say a country describes it as genocide is misleading unless it is described as such by its government or by legislation that binds it.

In fact the governments of these countries, who alone speak for their countries, do not want to describe it as genocide. To say otherwise is to mislead readers. TFD (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia cannot be allowed to push an agenda,... Wikipedia’s job is to provide unbiased, objective information"

That may have been the ideal, but it's not reality and never can be. Undisputed facts (properties of the chemical elements, dates of well-documented historical events etc) are nearly always correctly stated by Wikipedia. Anything to do with politics, or any article using emotionally-loaded terms like 'genocide', will be biased according to the prejudices of the most active Wikipedians. There's nothing you (or anyone) can do about this. Accept reality for what it is and don't waste effort trying to change it. To be clear, there's no 'conspiracy' among active Wikipedians to present their bias; they're not colluding with each other, or anything of that sort. It's just that the views most prevalent among them are naturally reflected in Wikipedia articles. Sayitclearly (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not have to be that way. Reliable sources distinguish between facts and opinions and explain the relative support for various opinions. While I would  not expect Wikipedia editors to agree on the facts or how they should be interpreted, most editors are capable of determining what reliable sources say.

I understand the temptation to use Wikipedia to push partisan talking points. The problem is that this type of writing only persuades the already converted and alienates everyone else. It is better to show confidence in readers. Summarize what reliable sources say and let them decide. If your side is right, why wouldn't you trust them to make the right decision? TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@TFD: Agreed. Perhaps it is time for a move request? Britishcook (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It is because the entire article has been written specifically by the anti-China forces trying to smear the global reputation of China. No genocide is taking place in Xinjiang because there is absolutely no actual documented proof for a genocide taking place in a modern, democratic, highly developed country such as China. Numerous testimonies by the so-called witnesses are false because there are two types of camps in Xinjiang: one is for actual indoctrinated terrorists with barbed wires and watchtowers (where the "witnesses" come from), the other is educational training centers for civil Uyghur population where the majority of "1 million" Uyghurs go to. Anyway, I don't need to mention that the entire evidence is based on Adrian Zenz research, who has said he is "led on a mission by God against China". Euglenos sandara (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Euglenos sandara: No, it is not the case that the entire article has been written specifically by the anti-China forces trying to smear the global reputation of China. Are you actually accusing the people who have contributed to this page of acting in bad faith when writing this? If not, please strike your comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I do think this page is extremely one-sided and that, in my opinion, might be the reason for it. What do you mean by 'striking' my comment? Euglenos sandara (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It means enclosing your comment within <s> ... </s> marks. Nutez (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

May I ask, what is the meaning of it? Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It essentially would be publicly retracting your comment. Given that you've accused others of having an agenda it's showing a lack of good faith in other editors. Red-tailed hawk is advising you to take back that implication by striking your comment. — Czello 15:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not stating specifically that all users who contributed to this article were in bad faith, but there is clear bias and one-sided view as documented by lack of critical sources and evidence presented by what Western media calls "genocide deniers". Euglenos sandara (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

They may not be acting in bad faith, but they are citing a few imperfect sources promoting a narrow view on the topic at the exclusion of others, combined with phrasing in the article that further solidifies a biased perspective on the issue. Archeoish (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia has failed to be objective regarding this matter, as per WP:NPOV. At the very least the results of the UN vote should be included in the first section, where a majority of UN countries opposed the labeling of it as a genocide. Top lawyers in the US are also against calling this a genocide. Foreign Policy Britishcook (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Time disconnect/Turkish reaction

Our intro says: "Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies that incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims in internment camps without any legal process.

But the Turkey part of the 'Country reactions' section starts with a para about Erdogan accusing China of genocide in 2009. There is probably a logical explanation, but the appearance is of Erdogan/Turkey reacting to abuses 5 years before WP says they began!

Someone with more knowledge of the background than I might want to do some rephrasing. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that we make a statement about a start date, that sentence in the intro certainly doesn't it just tells us what happened post 2014. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I agree that it is confusing and will be even more confusing to a casual reader.

The background here is that Erdogan reacted to the July 2009 Ürümqi riots. This was a riot between Uyghur and Han Chinese people, and the subsequent suppression of it. Erdogan was asking for the Chinese government to become more actively involved to prevent further deaths from the rioting. While this is part of the broader background, you are right that this is a different "flashpoint" than the article's focus on VETCs and the like. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The literature generally treats the 2009 Urumqi riots as being in the background of the ongoing series of human rights abuses rather than being a part of that series. I find it odd that this is in the international reactions section, but it would make sense to place it in the background in some way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it odd that this is in the international reactions section, but it would make sense to place it in the background in some way makes sense. Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I like how your movement of the Turkish reaction reads, @Pincrete. This makes it more clear. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Circular journalism.

(Redacted) FF toho (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

That isn't... remotely true. If you've read through all the citations, you'll note that there are a number of separate independent investigations into the issue conducted by reliable sources, such a literal Pulitzer-winning series and intense reporting by the New York Times. And, frankly, Zenz is one of the foremost experts in the world on this topic and has found a knack for doing good and well-respected investigative research. If you have particular sources you'd like to challenge, feel free to do so, but I don't really see anything in this comment that motivates a change to the article content. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) FF toho (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how few original sources there are, but the degree of coverage they have received. I would suggest however that when secondary sources say "according to Zenz, x happened," we don't report it as x happened. Wikipedia articles should no greater certainty for facts that the sources that report them.

I don't think that Zenz has expert status, as defined in Wikipedia. Certainly some of his claims, such as about the anti-Christ and end times, are not consistent with modern scholarship. While eschatological views are not a barrier to being an expert, it creates problems when they use them to interpret current events. TFD (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Zenz is a dreadful source. His eschatological focus creates some general doubts in my own personal analysis, he has been accused of significant mistranslations, and his IUD study's definition of "new" IUDs actually meaning "net" IUD placements is simply bizarre. If someone has the wherewithal to do so, it would be good to make sure that if a source in the article relies on Zenz, that it is described as so in-line to avoid the circular journalism problem and so readers can form their own judgments and assign appropriate weight. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

In what academic work of his on this topic are you noting eschatological focus? With respect to the net added placements of IUDs, I would point you to my comments in this discussion, where Zenz himself describes the statistic that way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

See Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation by Adrian Zenz PhD and Marlon L. Silas (WestBow Press 2012.) See p. 55: "The current world is dominated by global superpowers and alliances that either arose as a direct consequence of the fall of the fourth beast-empire or rose to a position of power and influence in the wake of the New World Order that ensued: the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and emerging developing nations such as India or Brazil." He also says that "the Jews" (with the exception of the 144,000 who are raptured) "will be refined in God's fiery furnace." One third will convert to Christianity and be saved, while the others will burn for eternity. Zenz says, "For the Jews, therefore, the wrath of God will prove to be both a blessing and a curse." In Chapter 10, he explains the role that the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon play in international events today.

This is not a mainstream view of current events.

TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is media outlets aren't doing their own investigations into the camps and simply repeating information and dubious extrapolation they get from slanted NGOs such as Zenz's. Simply reporting on Zenz's work as authoritative when he is neither an expert on China nor Uyghurs and Xinjiang inherently means the article is not presenting an unbiased perspective on the controversy over what exactly the goals and methods China is applying in Xinjiang and whether it fits the definition of genocide. Accusations that haven't been proven in any capacity such sterilizations are reported as fact when the truth is the only thing that can be proven is that Uyghurs are being detained in reeducation camps. Even the figures for how many have been detained total or at a given moment derive from horrible methodology employed by Zenz. It's one thing to cite Zenz as an accuser who has made unproven accusations about the camps, it's another to simply report them as fact in the article. Even minor changes to phrasing would a go a great distance toward making this article less biased, as would minimizing news media sources in favor of more direct investigative sources such as various government's reports, international organizations reports, and NGOs. There should more of a voice for sources that dispute the genocide label or claims of specific abuses, and using the term loaded term 'denial' in the 'denial' of abuses section implies there is proof of the abuses alleged when only a few can be credibly supported by available evidence. Archeoish (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The notion that media outlets aren't doing their own investigations into the camps is plainly false. There was a literal Pulitzer Prize awarded for an original investigation that mapped the camps and Nathan VanderKlippe's detailed reporting for The Globe and Mail won him a Canadian equivalent. Not to mention the investigations into the Xinjiang papers by The New York Times, reports on other leaks from AFP, the on-the-ground reporting from the LA Times, and countless interviews with former detainees. Does the reliable and well-respected academic reports from people like Adrian Zenz get mentioned in news reporting as well? Yes, because his work on Xinjiang is well-respected in the academic world. The existence of widespread abuses is extremely well-documented. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Adrien Zenz is not academic on any level and between frequent dubious extrapolations and potential mistranslation he cannot be considered reliable himself. That's not to say he doesn't incorporate reliable information as part of his activism, namely official Chinese government documents, but his own interpretations should not be reported as factual. His attempts to pin down the completely unknown number of people currently detained and detained in total are particularly dubious. While interviews are legitimate sources they should be taken as claims not confirmation of anything. For example, some witnesses, namely those with connections to Uyghur independence groups, have been caught changing or contradicting their accounts in different interviews.

There are some investigations media outlets have done on the camps, but it is important to consider the access they have little access to any information about the camps due to the intense secrecy and security surrounding them. Further, this issue is so tied to geopolitical conflict between China and the west every source on it should be considered biased and the article should reflect that. Instead it is over-reliant on the dubious work of Zenz, is written in a clearly biased way that favors the genocide interpretation without sufficient reason right down to the enormously biased title, and phrasing throughout the article frames nondefinitive information as confirmed when that is not the case. If this article weren't written with an agenda it would be titled "Uyghur Interment in Xinjiang" or "Uyghur Genocide Controversy" and include more sources critiquing the work of Zenz and others to provide some balance. This article utterly fails to allow readers to form their own conclusions in unbiased ways on a controversial subject matter with no clear answers.

Your biases are readily apparent from your replies here and it raises serious questions about your impartiality. The article does not need sweeping changes to bring it up to higher standard. Archeoish (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)— Archeoish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The articles sourced to Nathan VanderKlippe in this article are mostly about reports he has read or comments made by Zenz. Ironically, the article mentions a claim by Vanderklippe that he interviewed a woman who said she saw no violence.

Incidentally, Zenz is a scholar in the sense that he has written peer reviewed articles. It's just that he is not an expert on the subject matter. In any case, weight applies. We should include what news media say about his claims. We should only mention criticism of those claims to the extent they are reported in mainstream sources. But we should never show greater certainty of the claims than the sources do.

Compare this to the run up to the Iraq War. CNN never said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was behind the 9/11 attacks. They never claimed that his soldiers killed babies in incubators. They merely repeated the claims with few opposing views. As long as that standard is met, the article meets neutrality. TFD (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're saying that a PhD in social anthropology from Cambridge with a thesis on ethnic relations in China is not an expert on the subject matter? Pray tell what besides being published and having relevant degrees from leading institutions counts towards whether someone is considered a subject matter expert for our purposes here on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it would be strange to me to treat the claims of a hard-right Christian fundamentalist who understands his research into China to be part of a battle against the "anti-Christ" with the same weight as any other academic. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a religious litmus test for experts. Can you point me to that consensus? Just a note that most Christians consider themselves to be in a daily battle against dark forces... Its one of the core parts of that religion (and many others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and certainly doesn't mean they can't be objective about other matters. We would still consider an American evangelical forensic accountant to be an expert on the finances of a Chinese conglomerate, especially if they had published several books on the matter and had a PhD in forensic accounting. And even if they had a PhD in actuarial sciences, if they had published peer reviewed journal articles in topic-relevant journals about forensic accounting. And MOST importantly, if OTHER SOURCES treated them like an expert in this content. Which other sources do for Zenz. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is the man makes his biases clear and his reports should be treated as his own interpretations and allegations, not fact. Archeoish (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We allow the use of biased sources. We will treat his reports however WP:RS do because that is what is required of us by WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Zenz's thesis was "Tibetanness Under Threat? Sinicisation, Career and Market Reforms in Qinghai, P.R. China." In it, he "pioneers an analysis of significant recent developments in Qinghai's Tibetan education system." That doesn't make him an expert on genocide studies. Furthermore, according to an article in The Telegraph, he "has visited Xinjiang only once - more than a decade ago."[5]

Anyway, how can you can distinguish between his analysis of evidence about the "Uyghur genocide" and his analysis of control of the world by Satan? Or do you agree with him on the latter point? I note also that his religious interpretation of history was written after his thesis, so he may have moved away from rational interpretations of history after he completed his PhD.

But even if he were an expert, he is writing an opinion, which is reported as such in mainstream media. As a tertiary source, it is not our role to decide his opinion is correct and report it as fact, but merely to summarize what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This sort of speculation about a BLP is explicitly forbidden, unless you have a source which says that Zenz is an issue this conversation is over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I would point you to Shibbolethink's comment above, with particular emphasis with respect to the fact that other academics have vetted the work and regularly cite it for facts about the Xinjiang internment camps and other related abuses. His (co-authored) work with open source government procurement data in Tibet (such as Fischer and (Zenz 2017)) is connected to his work proving the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps inasmuch as Zenz took the same sorts of government big data research methods from the context of Tibet to the context of Xinjiang (frankly, these sort of social science research methods involving analysis of government big data are even in his expanded thesis/book). The praise for the rigor Zenz's work on proving the existence of the internment camps from respected scholars, where he used that similar sort of government big data analysis, dates to as early as 2019 (Smith-Finley (2019)), and has continued since. If you don't like him as a source, please take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think that there is any reason to treat his scholarship as deficient on this topic merely because Zenz is an evangelical Protestant who believes in millenialism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issues taken with the article in its current state and Zenz as both a direct and indirect source (through the press). Nobody is arguing against using him as a source or that he doesn't use more credible sources which should be cited more directly, such as those Chinese documents, as part of his work, but Zenz engages in provably shaky interpretations of his data and makes extrapolations that cannot be verified from the data, especially when it comes to the number detained. Archeoish (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Archeoish: Agreed. The numbers seem to be sourced from thin air. Britishcook (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize was not awarded for "an original investigation that mapped the camps," but for "comic, featuring art by Fahmida Azim, tells Zumrat's story as told to Insider through a series of interviews as well as testimony given to the United Nations Human Rights Council." TFD (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting was issued for a series of clear and compelling stories that used satellite imagery and architectural expertise, as well as interviews with two dozen former prisoners, to identify a vast new infrastructure built by the Chinese government for the mass detention of Muslims. That is clearly an original investigation that mapped the camps.

You appear to be referring to the 2022 Pulitzer Prize in Illustrated Reporting and Commentary, which was issued for [f]or using graphic reportage and the comics medium to tell a powerful yet intimate story of the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs, making the issue accessible to a wider public, but that isn't the same Pulitzer Prize I was referring to in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Red's biases are readily apparent because he created the page with like 3 other people back when he was named MikeHawk. Read the early draft versions of the page for a good laugh. Convocke (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure to get some good rules lawyering or sanctions on my talk page when he reads this. It's almost like it's his job to protect the narrative on this page. I would never make that accusation though. :) Don't need to tag them directly either, they'll read it soon enough. Just need Horse Eye's to come add a "very few edits outside this topic" tag to my comment too. Convocke (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed a few comments for copy-vio. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement in lede not supported by references provided

"Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies that incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims in internment camps without any legal process."

This statement in the lead is not supported by the three references provided, because the references are from 2018, 2019, and 2019 respectively. It is now 2023, which is 4 years after 2019 and it doesn't make sense to claim "since 2014" because it implies that something has been going on up until the present day, but the sources provided obviously are not accounting for 2020-2023 since they were written before those years. The sentence should be clarified to be 2014-2019, or something that is more in line with the sources. This is especially true when there's another part of the article saying that:

The use of vocational and education training centers appears to have ended in 2019 following international pressure. Although no comprehensive independent surveys of vocational training centers have been performed as of October 2022, spot checks by journalists have found such sites converted or abandoned. In 2022, a Washington Post reporter checked a dozen sites previously identified as reeducation centers and found "[m]ost of them appeared to be empty or converted, with several sites labeled as coronavirus quarantine facilities, teachers’ schools and vocational schools."

So the usage of "since 2014" is unjustified because it gives the false impression that the sources are current and up to date, when in fact they are not, and another part of the article seems to contradict it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is good and correct. I will make an edit to this sentence reflecting the closure of VETCs. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources (including this Pullitzer-prize winning report) that indicated active construction of new detention facilities through 2020. The so-called "Vocational Education and Training Centers" were replaced into a series of straight-up detention camps, the construction of which continued after the VETCs were declared closed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My original edit cabined this in terms of VETC closures, although it was later revised by someone else. What do you think is the best way to revise the sentence to better address @JasonMacker's comments on the closure of VETCs and the WaPo findings with your observations about new detention centers? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem, in my view, is that many sources are news articles that don't restrict their claims in terms of time and place, but instead focus on what was happening at that specific point in time and say "this is what is happening". The problem is that there's very little follow-up to see if what they claim is happening has continued into the present day in 2023. Even the 2020 Buzzfeed article offered here cannot be used to make claims regarding has happened in 2021-2023.

There's also the issue where one source makes a claim, and then a bunch of other sources continue to cite that source for many years after the original source's publication, with little regard as to whether what is claimed to have been happening is still happening.

For me, the solution is to carefully look at what each source is specifically stating, and provide a time frame in terms of when the report was published, and avoid making generalizations. The article is heavily implying that millions of Uyghurs are currently held in camps, yet the sources are from many years ago. We should search for scholarship from 2022 to 2023 that provides estimates for how many are being detained in camps. JasonMacker (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Wiki group subjected to pressure from US to publish this kind of unreliable & biased article. I am sad to see it and read it as well. Urwbeg (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Title should be changed to 'Uyghur Cultural Genocide'

China's actions have mainly amounted to destroying the culture of the Uyghur people, not the people themselves. A more appropriate title would be 'Uyghur Cultural Genocide', 'Uyghur Ethnocide' or 'Uyghur Cultural Erasure'. Wikipedia seems to hold China to different standards than other countries on this issue; for example, Plantations of Ireland are not described as genocide despite meeting similar standards. The word 'genocide' is also generally associated with mass killings, making the clarification important. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been had here numerous times, and the matter is considered settled. The title isn't changing any time soon. Deagonx (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The massive drop in fertility rates driven by forces abortions, sterilizations etc. in Xinjiang and particular among strongly Uyghur populated areas within this province such as Hotan shows a different picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.57.229 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is always a drop in fertility when previously oppressed women are given access to contraceptives. Fundamentalist Islam gives a woman no right over her own reproduction, while the Chinese State says she does, and the Chinese State moved in and supplanted the fundamentalist locals who were allowing Muslim men call the shots. Repeating propagandist claims of NGOs does not a genocide make, and you are conflating unsupported claims of acts with results that do not necessarily follow. There needs to be scientific proof that Uyghur women are being restricted to a reproduction rate that is less than the other ethnicities in China to support unequal population control. Note that if an extremist woman has 16 children and the Chinese State swoops in and forces her to be sterilized, this is not "genocide," it is merely limiting her to 8x replacement rate. Given the Han are declining in population, this would be by no means a restriction against the Uyghurs designed to keep them at below the Han's rate of population advancement to keep them a pliant minority, it's just reasonable population control policy. And note that if women had high birth rates in the years preceding access to contraception (which they did) decide to exercise their newfound reproductive rights and stop reproducing, the short-term negative overshoot is not indicative of a genocide. Without scientific proof of Uyghur women being forcibly sterilized before having had a single child, or population data that shows a long-term population decline so far in excess of the Han that it strains belief that any difference in socio-economic factors could be the cause, there is no valid claim of "genocide" in the data. The pugilistic need to see "genocide" stemming from a hatred of the Chinese is not NPOV. The Chinese are 100% entitled to follow a policy arc that is outside anti-Chinese prejudices. 2601:19E:427F:9D2B:F474:5FB9:FB5B:9158 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Errrr. Where is the evidence that Uyghur women have previously been denied access to contraception or - more astonishly - that Uyghurs practice Fundamentalist Islam? Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that fundamentalist islam was a serious problem is demonstrable in that the US even took part in bombing fundamantelist and extremist Uyghurs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighur-militants-well-taliban-fighters-afghanistan-n845876 2A02:C7C:4681:6000:39CD:D804:1173:35F7 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, a voice acknowledging forced sterilization and justifying it. WP:DFTT people. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This is quite biased

1: this is not confirmed, therefore it should be called alleged uyghur genocide 2. since it is not confirmed, it should not say the chinese government has committed human rights abuses, they should add allegedly. 3. this is written like it is a report from the usa. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the #FAQ at the top of this page. We go by what reliable sources call it, which is overwhelmingly a genocide. — Czello 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Czello: Actually, previous discussion here has determined that sources overwhelmingly avoid calling these events a "genocide." When the term is used, it is almost always couched as an allegation or claim. There is also heavy criticism of the use of the term, because these events do not resemble any widely accepted example of a historical genocide (e.g., no allegations of mass killing). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. i understand Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To address your comment regarding the article being like a report written from USA, the nature of English-language Wikipedia is that most editors are in the United States and in Europe. The language skills of editors, and media environments in which editors exist, impact the kinds of sources that make it to Wikipedia. This is not ideal, of course. The discussion in WP:Global is good and important. One area that this and other articles on international topics can benefit from is the addition of non-U.S. and non-European reliable sources. Perhaps that is an area where you can help contribute. It is always helpful when editors raise specific sources and propositions from those sources which could be included in an effort to address a bias, perceived bias, or gap in an article. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands most of the sources are not American. This article already reflect a global perspective better than the vast majority of English wikipedia articles do. Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement but I note that some of the strongest sources we have on the "its a genocide" side are sources like Al Jazeera which are the ones we generally use to balance out western bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In which article does al Jazeera refer to it as a genocide? TFD (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like my characterization of Al Jazeera's reporting you are welcome to provide your own. I don't think anyone would argue that their position is pro-China or pro-denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no genocide taking place to even deny. Euglenos sandara (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you both agreeing on? That there are no human rights abuses against the Uyghurs? (If so you are in a fairly small minority). That some sources don't agree with the description 'genocide' - (in which case, the article agrees with you, though that might not be sufficiently clear). Or that you personally don't think the description 'genocide' applies? (if so, that's WP:OR, and frankly not very relevant to anything).Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article should make it abundantly clear that "some sources don't agree with the description of genocide." As it stands, the article does not satisfy WP:NPOV as it does not mention in the first section how a majority of UN countries do not categorize the event as a genocide, including the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries. Britishcook (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you said "(If so you are in a fairly small minority)" is completely false. According to The Diplomat, there are 39 countries who accuse China in the list sent to the United Nations Human Rights Council and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights by German Ambassador Christoph Heusgen, which is less compared to the 45 countries who defend China in the list sent by Cuba’s U.N. Representative Ana Silvia Rodríguez Abascal. In addition to this, most of the 45 countries who defend China are muslim countries. So, "That there are no human rights abuses against the Uyghurs? (If so you are in a fairly small minority)" doesn't make any sense. Tryute (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"If so you are in a fairly small minority" doesn't refer to countries, nor to genocide, rather to abuses. Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere. Nor does any country NOT claiming abuses equate to that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring. If I didn't vote for Trump it doesn't mean that I supported Biden. I agree that the fact that the genocide 'label' is not universal - indeed is contentious- could be made clearer, but only to the extent of how to describe the 'abuses', not genocide or whitewash. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To make things clear, I was just saying that the number of people believing that there aren't any human rights abuses against the Uyghurs is NOT in a fairly small minority, which doesn't relate with how you responded: "...doesn't refer to countries, nor to genocide, rather to abuses. Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere." For your Trump-Biden example, I do agree with you, but in my previous message I clearly mentioned that 45 countries DEFEND China, not IGNORING what's happening in China. As you say: "Nor does any country NOT claiming abuses equate to that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring.", but I said DEFEND, so it is clearly the second one: "...that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring." Tryute (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add, by "Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere":

1. When did I even say they voted??? What they did is tell if they defend China or not about them abusing Uyghurs. There is absolutely no vote to decide if there is a genocide or not, here. Countries just presented their opinion.

2. Even if they voted, if, it's the UN! You can't say that countries don't get to vote unless you don't trust the UN. (if.) Tryute (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think using "(If so you are in a fairly small minority)" would be a good argument to use to convince people that China is abusing Uyghurs, to conclude my replies above. Tryute (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

All articles about Uyghurs from Al Jazeera don't have proof, plus they were actually written by americans or british. Also, one non-American source doesn't determine if there is a genocide or not. Tryute (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. All it would take is just sprinkling a few instances of the word "allegedly" to make this already very un-neutral article a lot more neutral. Allegations have been made, we don't know whether it's an actual thing or not. Some groups say it is, plenty say it's not. Why people are so insistent on defending a problem that could be mostly solved by putting one word before a few other groups of words is beyond me. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point, hasn’t there been enough debate and disagreement amongst you editors to warrant putting “allegedly” in all the places it was originally proposed? 2001:569:5667:5500:B51C:15D7:CA94:A32F (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly there have been no concrete proposals, secondly we don't treat the word 'alleged' as if it was pepper sprinkled liberally to season. Any use needs to be concrete and specific. Thirdly people aren't bringing sources, merely questioning the existing ones. Pincrete (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The 45 "Cuba letter" signatory countries say they support China's "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" and oppose "the politicization of human rights issues and double standards.". This isn't quite the same thing as simply denying abuses or arguing against characterising those abuses as 'genocide. We can all abhor double standards (Guantanamo bay?), but what are the "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" that these countries support China doing? That position doesn't quite align with the 'no involuntary incarceration is happening' position presented by China itself. Either people are being locked up or they aren't and they are either being publicly tried for clearly stated charges or they aren't. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

For "The 45 "Cuba letter" signatory countries say they support China's "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" and oppose "the politicization of human rights issues and double standards.".", can I please have a look at the reference where you got the information? Tryute (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, for your question, the "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang", if it's what I think you are talking about, have been preventing terrorist attacks, and there hadn't been any terrorist attacks since it was put in place. It made the lives of Xinjiang habitants better, not worse by "genociding" them. Tryute (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

can I please have a look at the reference where you got the information? I believe these are direct quotes from the Cuban letter - which I got to from following our reference, possibly via a link, or directly from our refs I think that it takes a very vivid imagination to think that locking up thousands of people for cultural reasons, for 'thought-crimes' rather than criminal acts somehow improves the lives of a population - even if I agree with you that the 'genocide' interpretation is at least novel and probably inapt. Some sources use it though. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They aren't locked up for cultural reasons. Actually, in Xinjiang there are prisons, but there aren't any of the so-called "concentration camps". The "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" may have locked thousands of people in prisons, they aren't there for cultural reasons. It's because they have committed crimes or because they are terrorists. What do you mean by "thought-crimes"? There have been a lot of terrorism in Xinjiang, and there was a lot of victims. I think that it takes a "very vivid imagination" to think that locking up terrorists for their crimes to the Xinjiang population means locking up "thousands of people for cultural reasons". Tryute (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It takes a very vivid imagination to ignore all the material published in reliable secondary sources. See this interactive explainer by the New York Times based on 400 leaked Chinese documents, which examines in detail the arbitrary nature of the detention - causes for which include people simply having long beards and studying Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw the 400 "leaked documents" presented by New York Times. It's pretty simple.

1. My neighbor's cousin could have wrote the pages "leaking information". There is absolutely no authentication here in the presented "leaked documents". Where do you see that the docs have been written by the Chinese government?
2. Where is the proof in the whole "interactive explainer"?

Also, have you analysed the "secondary sources"? Have you ever found valid proof in them? Why should I trust the sources? I ignore them because I see no proof from what they tell. Please reply to me if you find any.

Lastly, please, do not accuse anyone as guilty until proven. Tryute (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced the sourcing clearly indicates that "genocide" is the best label at this time, the number of new editors appearing on this talk page and denying widely reported human rights abuses is disruptive. Perhaps it's time for a discretionary sanctions remedy that limits participation on this page to extended confirmed users? I think it would be helpful and save editors' time. @Tryute: please see WP:RS for guidance about why sources such as the NYT are considered reliable, regardless of your own personal opinion on them. Jr8825 • Talk 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Please do not say that we are disruptive. What you are saying now is like if you were telling your point of view, and ignoring "disruptive" people that had a diffferent point of view, and telling them to shut up. I don't agree with this. Maybe that's what you think WP:NPOV is. The present article is directly, without any actual valid proof, assuming that there is mass imprisonment of Uyghurs for racial and religious reasons. That's what I'm trying to say. Also, if you are thinking that an administrator should restrict access for participation on this page for people who have a different point of view and it would save editor's time, well, no. By this you are only worsifying the already wrong WP:NPOV situation. Isn't Wikipedia used for informing, instead of influencing?
2. You say that we are denying "widely reported human rights abuses"? Seems like they're only reported in anglosaxon media.
3. In WP:RS, it clearly mentions that "no source is "always reliable"", that "sources may provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement", and that "editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." And so it is for the statement we are talking about now.

Tryute (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means balance with respect to reliable sources, i.e., with a sensitive subject such as this, WP:RSP. Reliable sources stating things is all we need to repeat those statements. It is not the role of editors to analyze secondary sources; that is not how Wikipedia works. If the analysis of the NYT leads it to believe that the 400 leaked Chinese documents are genuine, we repeat that - unless WP:CONFLICTING WP:RSP sources say something to the contrary. If you have examples of conflicting reliable secondary sources, you must produce them to be heard. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says not to be biased. This article is extremely biased, unproved, and it states opinions as facts. WP:NPOV also says to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Also, for your statement " It is not the role of editors to analyze secondary sources; that is not how Wikipedia works." I want to say that I may have misunderstood WP:RS, but I need to say that what I said is the exact thing that is written in the Reliable Sources article. For an example of conflicting reliable secondary sources, see my reply on the Xinjiang Internment Camps talk page where you asked to me a similar thing. Tryute (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my emphasis) WP:NPOV does not say balance all/any views, but the significant views in reliable sources. To make a case, all you need do is bring some. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to add: I don't know if Wikipedia considers it like that, but saying that I am disruptive when I am just trying to say that this article is extremely biased and unproved, is insulting. Tryute (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not being disruptive. However, it is more productive to suggest specific sources for inclusion, or suggest specific changes. The policies that have been identified in the discussion here will be helpful. For example, I see your user page indicates you have significant language skills which might allow you to raise sources that anglophone editors might miss. That would be a productive contribution, particularly due to the issues discussed in WP:GLOBAL. You might also find it more productive to begin your time on Wikipedia by editing less controversial topics. Of course, these are choices for you to make -- whether and how you see fit to contribute to the encyclopedic process. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jr8825: For what it's worth, there is WP:GS/UYGHUR, so any admin could place page restrictions if they were to feel it warranted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspect Economist Article

I'm not an expert on this topic, but the following paragraph struck me as a bit odd:

"In 13 February 2021, The Economist wrote that while China's treatment and persecution of Uyghurs is "horrific" and a crimes against humanity, "genocide" is the wrong word for China's actions due to China not engaging in mass murder."

(Link)

My reasoning for questioning this paragraph is that:

• The Economist appears to be redefining the definition of the word genocide to necessitate actual slaughter based on the the etymology of the word, thereby excluding the other four acts included in the UN definition. However, I can't find any support for this definition in other RSes such as dictionaries or amongst academics. For example, see (Link). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
• The article reads like an OpEd.
• I can see that the article has been criticised by scholars in this field, e.g. link.(Link)

Perhaps this paragraph should be deleted? Or we could simply note that The Economist's position on the definition of the word is a minority one? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@PieLover3141592654

I think my previous reply was deleted because I didn't sign, but if you go to the article and click the red link that says "Leaders" you can see that a lot of the headlines in that section are very opinionated, so I think that's an op-ed section. I don't think we should get rid of the paragraph entirely, but if it is indeed an op-ed, that should be clarified to the reader.

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing already implies that it is opinion. If it wasn't then there would be no need to mention the Economist in the text, since facts do not need in text attribution.

The Oxford Reference defines genocide as "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation."[6] So yes that is the definition of the term as understood by most people, even if it is not the technical definition under international law.

The statement in the Economist that we shouldn't use terminology that misleads the public seems to be fair comment. Indeed that may be one reason that only one country in the world recognizes China's actions in Xinjiang as genocide.

TFD (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of people who read Wikipedia might not know that if it's mentioned in the text, it's a fact. I don't know if this is enough of a reason to make a change, though, now that you mention that. Unfortunately this conversation could leave back to the other conversation debating whether the title of the article should be changed or left alone, which is hotly contested, so it's hard to come to a general consensus.

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an awful lot more than one country that has called it genocide - and I say that as someone sympathetic to the Economist's logic - that there is 'terminological inflation' in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that TFD is referencing the fact that while various legislative bodies have passed non-binding resolutions or made pronouncements or condemnations, in terms of the official stances of governments, the label of "genocide" is an extreme minority view. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes its an opinion piece, would you be satisfied with attributing it to the author rather than The Economist writ large? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back

That might be a good idea, but apparently all writers on The Economist are anonymous, so I don't think it would be possible to name the author.

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking we would just say "The author of an opinion piece in The Economist..." We could say it was published in their Leaders section but that won't communicate that its opinion unless the reader is intimately familiar with the publication. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it self-evident that it is an opinion? That form of attribution seems clumsy and adds no actual info. Pincrete (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is which is what gets us into the pickle because we are instructed to attribute opinions to authors not publications, if we can't do that we generally don't include the opinion. Of course the easy way around this whole discussion is just to use a source which talks about the piece instead of the piece itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Economist doesn't distinguish between news reporting and analysis like a typical newspaper would. All of its articles have a consistent editorial voice and lack bylines (with the exception of some columns which have a pseudonym for their correspondent). Given its reputation, its stance is notable, even if it's a minority view or not as authoritative as an academic source. I think it's fine as it is because it's already attributed. Jr8825 • Talk 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats not true, they have some sections with opinion and some without... Leaders which is the section this comes from is one of the ones which mixes opinion and current events. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The really don't separate opinion from reporting. All of their articles are analysis and fact reporting is mixed in, never separate (apart from the graphics section, sometimes, where they discuss a single graph or chart). I read it every week. Jr8825 • Talk 12:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh, well I guess we can't use it here for an opinion then. Shame, it will have to be removed and either replaced with a third party source which talks about it or nothing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of that being a ground for removal. Almost all editorial comment is attributed to the paper rather than the author and is necessarily opiniom. Pincrete (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We need accurate and NPOV tags on the top of the article

Because of all the discussions I see here challenging the claims. I agree with them. I can't place the tags because it's protected it seems. Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is almost continuous, and cyclic. I don't think either tags would be beneficial, though I agree that the extent to which the event is generally referred to as 'genocide' is overstated by the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Pincrete: the article also does not include any opposing viewpoints when plenty exist.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources of opposing claims

• International Action Center [7]
• Canada-Haiti information project [8]
• Global Times [9]
• Pakistan Observer [10]
• VOA [11]
• The Alternate World [12]
• Daily Times [13]

Sylvester Millner (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of those and don't know the sources, but they hardly appear to be WP:RS. The first source is mainly arguing that the US govt 'demonises' China in order to deflect criticism of its own internal human rights record and its own history of attacking other countries: Claiming that it is acting in defense of human rights, the U.S. tries to cover its own criminal record on internal human rights violations and its record of endless wars, assassinations, coups and devastating sanctions by making charges and targeting other countries. That may or may not be partly true, and is a valid opinion, but it hardly represents an 'opposing claim'. Simply pointing out a degree of hypocrisy in the messenger - "the US/the West is just as bad/worse" - doesn't really say anything about what is happening in Xinjiang. That kind os "whataboutery" is almost the norm. Fairly obviously, during the Cold War for example, US and Western countries were able to deflect attention from failings in their own societies and interference in the 3rd world by presenting USSR as a 'bogey-man', at the same time the criticisms of USSR were (substantially) true. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Pincrete (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They are reliable sources and these publishers have been linked on WIki before. We can't just keep a stack of sources supporting one side while ignoring the otherside. Isn't it also WP:OR to produce our own interpretation of the sources?--Sylvester Millner (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

VOA largely endorses the UN position that "China's actions against Uyghurs and other minority groups may amount to crimes against humanity." The piece simply records a friendly visit by Arab diplomats, and reaction to that visit. It is difficult to see what "opposing claims" are being endorsed there. An other piece (canadafiles) is mainly saying that the 'clamp-down' is justified because of terrorism, but gives no indication of how it knows that, despite its central attack on Western sources being that they haven't gone to the area. Canada files makes itself fairly ridiculous by claiming "Brzezinski successfully weaponized ‘Jihadism’, … to trigger a Soviet intervention in Afghanistan", so the US caused the Soviet invasion did it? All these 'Great Game' theories have little bearing on whether China is incarcerating large numbers in Xinjiang, and I say that as someone who doubts whether the 'genocide' label is apt or clear in its meaning. Pincrete (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The same can be argued how does the UN know that? There is a difference between clamp down and genocide. Arab delegates came and saw the situation in Xinjiang while the rest are all unsupported claims. This article seems like a non-neutral propaganda piece. Sources from both sides of the argument need to be included in order to ensure NPOV. Right now this article looks more like WP:SOAP and WP:CHERRYPICKING from the selectivity of sources that argue only one side of the story. More like a persuasion piece.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:PERSUASIVE Sylvester Millner (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarify sentence structure

Can someone rephrase the sentence:

"The July 2009 Ürümqi riots broke out in response to the Shaoguan incident, a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory, which resulted in over one hundred deaths."

To make it more clear that the deaths occurred in the July 2009 Ürümqi riots, not the Shaoguan incident

Possibly:

In June 2009, a violent dispute occurred between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory. The July 2009 Ürümqi riots broke out in response to this incident, resulting in over one hundred deaths." DanielTheManual (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this achieve the same clarity more succinctly: "The July 2009 Ürümqi riots, which resulted in over one hundred deaths, broke out in response to the Shaoguan incident, a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese factory workers" ? Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've amended. Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Hello! I am writing this here to suggest a change to this article. I hope this change will provide more context to the situation and have a more balanced perspective so that readers have a better understanding of the complex situation in and the human rights violations in Xinjiang.

I would like to change this sentence:

“The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang that is often characterized as genocide.”

to this:

"The Chinese government has implemented policies and programs in Xinjiang that have generated debates and discussions concerning human rights issues. According to the Chinese government, these actions are part of counterterrorism efforts aimed at safeguarding citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, which is supported by various reports and investigations. However, some critics argue that these policies have resulted in human rights violations and potentially amount to acts of genocide against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities. These claims are also supported by various reports and investigations. The situation in Xinjiang remains a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny among experts and organizations, with differing perspectives on the nature and extent of human rights abuses."

The suggested change to the Wikipedia article aims to achieve a more balanced and cautious approach by incorporating different perspectives. It recognizes the significance of including the Chinese government's viewpoint which reveals their intentions and rationale behind their policies. It also allows readers to better comprehend the Chinese government's stated objectives (which they claim are part of counterterrorism efforts aimed at safeguarding citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities).

In addition, the revised paragraph acknowledges the inclusion of claims made by critics and emphasizes their concerns regarding human rights violations and the possibility of genocide. By acknowledging the gravity of these allegations and the necessity to consider these serious concerns, readers are exposed to a range of viewpoints and can form their own informed opinions. This approach acknowledges the vast differences in the claims being made and the significant implications they carry.

By presenting a more balanced account and incorporating multiple perspectives, the suggested change ensures that the Wikipedia article remains neutral and informative. It encourages readers to examine the available evidence and make their own judgments, fostering critical thinking and a well-rounded evaluation of the information at hand. This approach allows for a comprehensive and unbiased exploration of the topic, enabling readers to gain a broader understanding of the issue and form their own conclusions.

Also, the 10 sources I listed here are not necessarily important to be included in the article. Other sources can be used instead, but I thought it would be important to at least provide some sources. Atinoua (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Several of the sources included in the above (such as The Grayzone and CGTN) are deprecated on Wikipedia, and should generally not be used in articles to support assertions of facts. The problem with the proposed rewrite comes in giving these sorts of sources equal weight with more reliable sources, which makes the balance of the article worse in light of the underlying sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the warm welcome and for the helpful feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to write your concerns about the inclusion of certain sources in the suggested revision and I now understand that CGTN and The Grayzone are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia's standards.

The goal of the change I propose is to promote a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the complex situation that exists in Xinjiang, and I agree that it's very important to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing. Using reputable and unbiased sources are very important when asserting facts in the article. There may be a way to acknowledge the different viewpoints in our article without giving equal weight to both sources. By revealing the rationale the Chinese government shares of their policies, it allows the reader to have a more thorough understanding of the complex situation in Xinjiang. We can also include the criticism and skepticism that more reliable sources have of China's rationale to ensure that they are not given equal weight. Please let me know what you think! Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the way 211.63.206.61 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The text proposed reads like a press release from the PRC, it is full of euphemism and obfuscation - there isn't a hope in hell of it being implemented IMO. Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I wanted to clarify that my intention is to share different perspectives in a neutral manner. As Red-tailed hawk pointed out, sources such as CGTN and The Grayzone are not considered reliable on Wikipedia which must be taken into account when making changes. I agree with you that it is important to be transparent and your concerns about obfuscating are valid in light of the deprecated sources which is why we should acknowledge the different viewpoints in our article without giving equal weight to both sources. The reader will have a more thorough understanding of the situation in Xinjiang, and we would have a more balanced perspective, if our article presents the rationale behind these policy changes. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to give both sides equal weight. Including criticism and skepticism of China’s rationale can also be done to ensure we have a balanced perspective. What are your thoughts on this? (I would prefer this change to be a collective effort rather than simply me presenting an idea and people agreeing or disagreeing with it.)Atinoua (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Even though I am among those who think the present article is flawed in some respects, I think the objectives you set out are mutually incompatible. It is no part of our remit to attempt to give China's rationale, other than briefly set out its justification. Doing otherwise would almost inevitably be giving equal weight to the perpetrators and the victims. Regimes, whether of the West or the East always have their reasons and justifications and the PRC has very different values and expectations of its citizenry and rights of the state to most Western countries. By denying Western access to the affected groups and areas, PRC inevitably fuels speculation and suspicion about the nature and extent of human rights abuses there.

Specific edit changes are always up for discussion, but what you appear to be proposing is very unlikely to receive much support here and is not something I personally would have any interest in aiding. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your reply. I agree that we should not give equal credibility if the evidence is not also equal. And I think you make a good point by needing to briefly explain its justification. By providing a brief justification, the situation in Xinjiang will be better understood by the reader. What are your thoughts on this?

“Beginning in 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims without any legal process in internment camps.[2][3][4][5] While the CCP argues that these actions are part of their counterterrorism efforts aimed at ensuring citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, their claims are widely condemned and met with skepticism.”

This change is an improvement because it does not give equal credibility to both sources, maintaining the balance of the article. It also provides more information as to what China is claiming, while also acknowledging the condemnation and widespread skepticism these claims make. This allows the reader to have a more thorough understanding that certain claims are not supported with evidence, while other claims are. Please let me know what you think.

It may also be necessary to include something about how western access to China is restricted. This suggestion also provides more detail about restrictions to available information in the area and the skepticism that comes from that. This further illustrates the level of honesty of their justification:

“Beginning in 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims without any legal process in internment camps.[2][3][4][5] While the CCP argues that these actions are part of their counterterrorism efforts aimed at ensuring citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, there has been restricted access by Western organizations and journalists to the region. This has fueled speculation about the extent of human rights abuses and has led to their claims being widely condemned and met with skepticism.” Atinoua (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you are new, I'll post some suggestions on your talk page. TFD (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone has a perspective doesn't mean we have to treat it as valid. The Russian government and anti-vaxxers also have perspectives regarding the war in Ukraine and vaccines, but we don't care about them, because they're varying levels of baloney. If you have a choice between manure and a somewhat charred grilled cheese sandwich, you don't compromise and eat a shit sandwich because one of them is imperfect. AryKun (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point here. What do you think about my proposed edit? Atinoua (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

No opinion on the specific word-change proposed but one thing is certain : the way this is written now is wrong. It should be "there are *claims* that ...." because if you bother to look, there is no proof. All of the studies and papers by special interest groups are weak weak weak, big on conjecture small on evidence. Even within the article many of the claims made are refuted by other statements. If you can't prove something is factual, then you should not make statements as if it were. Amber Heard should have been a lesson to the world.

The "references" above are junk. Look into them impartially. Pure garbage mixed with conjecture and untenable conclusions. They aren't references, they are trash mixed with propaganda. 203.160.86.227 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's possible that there is no proof, but Wikipedia has a policy of WP:PST which means that our article must primarily be based on secondary sources. We cannot use primary sources only. My recommendation is that if there are secondary sources that are reliable (according to Wikipedia's standards of reliability), you share those sources here. Atinoua (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is more of a fantasy article than an actual factual article

Blindly trusting/using any sources(primarily western) as long as they support the genocide narrative, including radio free asia, and Adrian zenz. While continually to ignore any non-western sources and claims that's not in line with this narrative. Hell you aren't even allowed to debunk these claims and narratives, because you aren't allowed to use any sources that's not from the mainstream(western) media. RFA, a literal CIA mouthpiece, is listed as credible but not Grayzone(which is independent).

It doesn't take a genius to see this how flawed this process is. People here only care about their narrative, not objectivity.

The whole uyghur genocide narrative is dying, western media barely talks about it nowaday. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

Even Zenz does not claim that China is committing genocide,but people here continue to insist that China is committing a Holocaust-style genocide against Uyghurs.

There's a good reason why even american trust in their own media is at a all time low. And i hope this trend continue.

DemisJohnson (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If The Grayzone is independent, why have they never disclosed their sources of funding? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

George Soros? TFD (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What could you possibly mean by this, ip editor? Paragon Deku (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, in the leading paragraph it says "Experts estimate that, since 2017, some sixteen thousand mosques have been razed or damaged," but this claim cannot be verified in the cited source. Besides that, Radio Free Asia is a US government-funded source, and has a clear CoI in this matter. Plus, many of their stories cannot be independently verified by third party journalists. The same goes for Adrian Zenz, a member of Victims of Communism Memorial, which has its own list of verifiability problems. ARADPLAUG (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The source ratings have come from extensive community discussion, which has examine things like use of sources by other reliable sources as well as general reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have objection to specific content, please state it, but I don't understand the point of dropping a comment on the talk page that is as vague as this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First, note that Radio Free Asia was determined to be a problematic source when it comes to geopolitically contentious issues, because of its role as an arm of the US government and its history of publishing misinformation on certain politically charged topics (e.g., publishing CoVID misinformation, specifically about the death toll in the original Wuhan outbreak). The conclusion was that RFA's claims must be attributed (making clear RFA's relation to the US government), and that caution should be exercised with the source. The accusations of a Uyghur genocide are extremely politically contentious, and the US government is probably the most prominent accuser. That means that RFA is a very poor source for this topic, and should be avoided for anything other than conveying the views of the US government.

Second, the "perennial sources" list is just a guideline, and does not trump WP:RS. Context still matters, and given the political context of this issue, in which the US has pushed accusations of genocide, why would we even risk using a media outlet run by the US government for the express purpose of furthering US foreign policy? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be misremembering the consensus (you would appear to have substituted the argument you made which was not accepted by the community for consensus), consensus as recorded is "Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use." see the differences? You claim its problematic, consensus says otherwise... You claim that it must be attributed, consensus says that it may be attributed. You say that it can be used to convey the view of the US government, but consensus found that they don't have that level of government co-option. The perennial sources list is not a guideline, its a collection of consensuses which are individually binding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly if anything I think it might be beneficial to have another discussion over RFA. It’s been a few years and consensus seems to have oscillated. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I just checked, and I did not realize there was another discussion last year. Definitely too soon then I would say, mea culpa. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who would accept Radio Free Asia as a source of truth is a blithering idiot. Along those lines, this entire article is garbage, even conflicting with itself, making claims about "uyg(h)ur repression" over things that are universal across all chinese citizens, and last but not least, misspelling uygur. It's garbage with a pretty coat of whitewash, almost all the sources are unverified and unverifiable trash. Unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claims and stories, trash. It's stupid propaganda, credited by stupid people. 203.160.86.227 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not misremembering the RfC result in Radio Free Asia. The RfC result clearly states that RFA must be treated with caution on subjects where the US government has political interests. This result was partially motivated by several clear cases (presented in the RfC) in which RFA engaged in CoVID disinformation. In particular, RFA promoted absolutely wild death tolls for China that were 10 to 50 times the scientifically accepted estimates. RFA's "reporting" was based on things like random interviews with taxi drivers. In other words, it made completely ridiculous claims, which had no credible sourcing and which contradicted what was scientifically known at the time. This is the sort of thing that led to the recommendation that RFA be treated with caution on politically sensitive topics.

As for how RSN should be used, you're mistaken. Reliability depends on context. RSN gives some overall advice, but each individual case may differ in context. Policy is clear on that, and RSN was never intended to be a replacement for Wikipedia's context-dependent sourcing rules. On this particular subject, the US government has extremely strong political interests, and is a major player. Using RFA, which is an official arm of the US government, which receives nearly its entire funding from Congress, and which in its charter is explicitly required to advance US foreign policy interests, to make any controversial claims about this subject is editorial malpractice. I have to question the judgment of editors who insist on using RFA, and I have to ask why they are so set on using a source which is so obviously problematic in this context. I don't see how any editor who believes in neutrality can advocate for using RFA here, and I think this article is a showcase for what happens when editors abandon neutrality and let their political views drive their editing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)