Wikipedia

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 5

< Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Tisthefirstletter in topic Adrian Zenz as a source - really?
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Inclusion of "mass murder" in the lead infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

I noticed that in a series of two edits (1 2), it appears that Oranjelo100 has added the term "mass murder" to the opening infobox. From my reading, (and correct me if I am wrong), it looks like this was added as a result of information contained in a report from Haaretz that stated that "[a] number of international researchers and human rights activists say the oppression of minorities in Xinjiang has only grown worse, and that some prisoners are being murdered and their organs harvested." I've noticed that the Newlines report includes the statement that, "[l]arge numbers of Uyghur detainees have died or been killed under police or camp custody" and references other reporting from RFA regarding at least one mass death incident and the construction of crematoria in Xinjiang. Haaretz is a perennial reliable source, so I am wondering if others find this to be sufficient coverage to warrant the inclusion of "mass murder" in the infobox. (I plan to leave the item in while this discussion is pending, though I want to hear if other editors believe that including "mass murder" in the infobox follows is proper. Update: removed by MarkH21 until consensus is achieved one way or the other per their reasoning below.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about mass murder yet except the recent addition to the infobox. Removal is an option. Gators bayou (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that at least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass murder, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the 25,000 includes Falun Gong and other citizens as according to unconfirmed reports. The Newsline report says 150 Uyghurs are confirmed killed, which compares with 226 black citizens killed by U.S. police in 2020. TFD (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The 150 number was for a single small camp, not the whole country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

25,000+ is for Xinjiang alone. Haaretz aritcle says China makes about 2.5 to 5 percent of healthy individuals in Uyghur camps disappear every year without trace. Presumably for lethal organ extractions or secret executions or both since they never show up again. Add to that crematoria built near camps, “health checks” that Uighurs undergo in Xinjiang, and on average, the disappeared being 28 – Beijing’s preferred age for organ harvesting. It's quite clear by now that Uyghur genocide includes both gradual cultural and physical extermination (at least in part, which is enough for definition of genocide). Oranjelo100 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The estimate is from Ethan Gutmann, a researcher from the notorious Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. He has for years written about the supposed murder of Falun Gong members for organ transplants. His claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages rather than respected sources such as Haaretz. The fact that a reporter in Haaretz cited his estimate does not make it true. Based on the source, I would rate it as probably not true, although anything is possible. TFD (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"His claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages rather than respected sources” that doesn't appear to be true, his claims seem to be reported on by most of our respected sources. I’d also lay off the editorializing, its hard to take you seriously when you refer to such a milquetoast organization as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as “notorious.” The only source I can find using that language is a Feb. 7 article from the People's Daily [1]. Are there any reliable sources which refer to this organization as notorious? Surely you aren’t repeating Chinese government propaganda points verbatim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
There was consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that the Foundation was a biased and unreliable source. However, I will look through where his opinions have been published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Biased and unreliable does not mean notorious... Given that you’ve inserted it into a BLP sentence you either need to provide a WP:RS which supports that position or retract it. We take BLP very seriously here, even the worst person on earth (who almost certainly has a wikipedia page btw) gets full BLP protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was created by the US government as an explicitly anti-Communist organization. On Chinese issues, it should be regarded as highly biased and of questionable reliability. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As a result, I don't think that the claim that "his claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages" holds much water in terms of determining Gutmann's reliability about organ harvesting in either the general case or the specific case as it applies to Uyghurs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
To add to the above, his 2014 book on the Chinese organ harvesting apparatus, The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to its Dissident Problem, has been cited in numerous works published in peer-reviewed journals, including the BMJ, BMC Medical Ethics (1 2 3), and the British Journal of Criminology. I don't think that we should write him off as being untrustworthy. If nothing else, he seems to be a subject-matter expert. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This article isn't about that but there is plenty of evidence about Falun Gong being killed for organs by China. Oranjelo100 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting.
[2]
Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I just clicked on the first four links you posted, and they all treat the claim of organ harvesting as an allegation made in a report, not as a fact. I see that some of your later links are from Radio Free Asia and taiwannews.com. Note that Radio Free Asia is US state media, and has a record of pushing extremely dubious claims about China (for example, it has reported credulously on claims that 150,000 people have died in Hubei province of CoVID-19 - these figures are not only orders of magnitude higher than those found by scientific studies, but are actually impossible with any reasonable assumptions). The website taiwannews.com has also pushed CoVID-19 conspiracy theories, and should be regarded as unreliable for any potentially contentious claims about mainland China. In general, allegations of organ harvesting are extremely controversial. Even the US Congressional Research Office has expressed serious doubts about the claims, pointing out the lack of evidence for them and the ties between the committee that created the report and Falun Gong: [3]. Given the sourcing, claims of organ harvesting should not be presented as fact. These claims should be clearly attributed (for example, in the case of Gutmann, to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, additionally noting that this is a US-government-create anti-Communist think tank), and countervailing claims (from the Chinese government, the US Congressional Research Office and others) should be presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that RS have reported on the allegations, with some of them (notably the Irish Times, the New Zealand Herald, the BMJ, BCM Medical Ethics, the British Journal of Criminology) presenting them as fact, rather than reporting on them as allegations (and none appear to explicitly report that the allegations are false or fabricated). This was more about whether including Gutmann's research is due, which I think that the massive amounts of coverage over many years establishes clearly.
On a separate note and as I've stated elsewhere, "there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option", even if it receives funding from the United States, and "attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government" is appropriate, each per the relevant RfC that was closed less than a week ago. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
RFA has, over the past year, pushed misinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in China. This is one of the reasons why the RfC noted that attribution is sometimes necessary for RFA's claims, particularly in geopolitically-charged topics (which the allegations of genocide on Xinjiang certainly are). Claims of genocide are extraordinary claims, and they need very strong sourcing to be stated in Wikivoice. Reporting generally attributes these claims to Zenz and others who work for US government think tanks. Attribution is required for these claims. Moreover, the responses of the Chinese government to the allegations also have to be given, and views beyond the Anglosphere media more generally should be included. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussions about Gutmann and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation aside, is there any other RS that reports anything about the 25,000 mass murder figure? I only see the single article from Haaretz which says: Gutmann believes at least 25,000 people are murdered every year in Xinjiang and their organs harvested. If not, this may be a WP:WEIGHT issue. — MarkH21talk 02:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as the specific number, I found that the figure has been referenced in an opinion pieces published by the Toronto Star. Regarding the organ harvesting writ large, it has been reported as fact in a bunch of places—the sources I listed above in my response to TFD include a bunch. I can find more if you would like. I missed the National Catholic Register and the Religion News Service (re-published in America Magazine) in my initial assessment, and Haaretz seems to have doubled down on its initial reporting that organ harvesting is occurring. Radio Free Asia has reported similarly, and Reuters has reported on organ harvesting allegations before. I think the organ harvesting itself is sufficiently sourced and relevant enough to be due, though I am a bit more reserved regarding the specific 25,000 number. It’s definitely reported by an WP:RS, so it passes WP:V, though I wonder if a full quote is due when compared to a paraphrased portion of the author's claims. Gutmann is definitely an expert in the field and has been key in investigating organ harvesting in China in the past (receiving coverage from a large amount of RS), so it's most likely proper to include his work in the article in some form. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some coverage of the organ harvesting statements are due in the article. My previous comment was meant for the original topic of this section, whether mass murder is appropriate in the infobox. I don't think that one RS and one opinion article, both attributing the claim to a single person, are sufficient WP:WEIGHT for listing mass murders in the infobox (or lead). When there are more sources asserting that mass murders have occurred (with particular weight for sources that actually use the term), then it may be appropriate. — MarkH21talk 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Mass murder is a WP:REDFLAG claim, and it needs very strong sourcing in order to be put in Wikivoice. An opinion piece or a news article reporting on claims made by Falun Gong is not sufficient. Note that the above Reuters article does not claim that organ harvesting is going on. It merely reports that a lawyer for the "China Tribunal" (which is connected to Falun Gong) has demanded an investigation into alleged organ harvesting. That's not the same as Reuters claiming that organ harvesting is actually occurring. As for Radio Free Asia, it should only be used with extreme caution for possibly contentious claims about China, as it is US state media and has a history of pushing highly dubious claims about China (RFA's claims about the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China over the past year can only be described as misinformation, for example: [4][5]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Per the results of the recent RfC regarding the reliability of Radio Free Asia, there is "consensus that, in general, Radio Free Asia can be considered a reliable source, but particularly in geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate." Additionally, the closure states that "there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option" that would preclude its use in this context. In other words, RfA is generally reliable, though we should use in-text attribution on geopolitically charged issues, such as this one. I do not think that it would be a good use of our time to rehash that same discussion here, considering that there is now community consensus regarding the source's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "mass murder" is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. I guess the question that we are facing is if the forced organ harvesting described by RS constitutes "mass murder", and if this claim of "mass murder" has been subsequently reported as such by multiple reliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The RfC close noted concerns when Radio Free Asia writes on geopolitically-charged issues. Those concerns were based, in part, on misinformation that RFA has propagated over the past year about CoVID-19 mortality in China, but also on RFA's history as a US government propaganda outlet, and its explicit mission (stated in its charter) to advance US foreign policy interests. In this context, that means that claims made by RFA require attribution, and must be treated as claims - not facts.
I guess the question that we are facing is if the forced organ harvesting described by RS constitutes "mass murder". Which RS? The claims of organ harvesting are widely viewed as dubious and lacking evidence. As I said above, the first four sources you linked above described claims of organ harvesting as allegations, not as a fact. The groups making those allegations have close connections to Falun Gong, and as the US Congressional Research Office has noted, they have not provided any direct evidence for their claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: There are definitely plenty of RSes that describe what people have said about organ harvesting, that is for sure. It seems then that you are raising a separate question about when attributed descriptions / allegations / claims / whatever become sufficient for WP:WIKIVOICE statements, e.g. in the infobox. It is an interesting one that is probably more dependent on editor judgment and discussion (as most NPOV matters are), but might be better as a separate discussion since it is broader than just organ harvesting. — MarkH21talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are many news article describing the allegations, but that is very different from news articles corroborating the allegations. In 2002-2003, if we had considered news articles reporting on allegations sufficient to make Wikivoice statements, we could have written an extensive article about all of Iraq's WMD programs. Allegations do not become truth through repetition. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: It is not for editors to decide whether organ harvesting constitutes mass murder (WP:SYNTH). If there are more RSes that say that mass murder of Uyghurs has occurred, then it has due weight and appropriate to include it outright in the infobox.
By the way, since it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that was recently added and does not yet have consensus for inclusion, I'll remove it for the time being (WP:ONUS). We can add it back upon reaching a consensus for inclusion. — MarkH21talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately killing tens of thousands people for organs definitely does constitute "mass murder". There are many different soucs and organizations reporting organ harvesting in China. This is happening for many years, and Chinese doctors even admitted it so it isn't dubious. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021

@Mikehawk10: @MarkH21: "It is not for editors to decide whether organ harvesting constitutes mass murder".

The source literally says that they get killed to have their organs harvested and how many are killed. WP:COMMONSENSE Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I added killings to the infobox since there are multiple reliable sources that say China is actively killing Uyghurs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


Adrian Zenz as a source - really?

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

This article is pretty bad already, perpetuating a lot of repeatedly debunked propaganda to hype the new cold war against China. It's one thing to use "respectable" sources that then depend on Zenz's "research", which helps at least preserve the verneer of credibility. But the use of Adrian Zenz as a source for anything in an article about China ought to be taken with a heaping grain of salt considering his inability to do basic math and his comedic religious beleifs about g-d wanting him to fight big bad China. This is hardly a neutral academic, mind you, perhaps some of the claims coming from him should not be taken at face value? If China ACTUALLY wanted to genocide Uyghurs, it would take away their passports, revoke their status as the titular people of Xinjiang (which is officially Xinjiang UYGHUR Autonomous Region), demote Xinjiang to a regular province, expell every Uyghur from Xinjiang, not give them an exemption to the 1-child policy for decades, ban the their Perso-Arabic alphabet, force them to call themselves Hui or Tatar, (per the Soviet model for de-Crimeanizing indigenous Crimeans). But they are doing the exact opposite. This article smells like propaganda and hasn't lived up to scrutiny nor time.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have any edits you would like for the community to consider, please list them out for everyone to consider. If you have any reliable sources that refute Zenz's statements, please feel free to discuss them. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and the articles are written from the understanding and sources available to the volunteers who edit the pages. Chrisagrant (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have lived in China for more than 25 years and this article sounds like complete nonsense. Too many westerners have a Yellow Peril mentality when it comes to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.164.63 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz is part of The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established by the US government in 1983. It was described by journalist Joe Conason as "the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries," according to US media outlet The Grayzone. Zenz claimed to have provided some statistics for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). ASPI has been exposed as a "right-wing, militaristic" think tank funded by US and Western governments, mega-corporations and weapons manufacturers. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197187.shtml GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Grayzone nor Global Times are WP:RS. See WP:RSP for more details. If you can find criticisms from reliable sources, this can be considered. Chrisagrant (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The section "the portion of the net increase that occurred in Xinjiang made up 80%, while the portion of new placements without subtracting removals that occurred in Xinjiang was 8.7%" makes literally zero sense and is not backed up by the primary source at all. So to arrive at his number, he did: 3774318 Total IUDs implanted - 3474467 Total IUDs removed = 299851 and then he took the Xianjiang numbers: 328475 IUDs implanted - 89018 IUDs removed = 239457, Now the math says he's right! (238457 IUDs added / 299851) * 100 = 80%. But, wait a minute. What about the other regions? Let's pick some just two others Hebei: 295684 IUDs implanted - 111425 IUDs removed = (184259 Net IUDs / 299851) * 100 = 62%, Henan: 342451 IUDs implanted - 136170 IUDs removed = (206281 Net IUDs / 299851) * 100 = 69% Now, obviously 80% + 62% + 69% is way more than 100%, so what is going on here? Oh right Adrien Zenz is a terrible source and complete hack and nobody here even bothered to check the numbers of his updated "justification" for getting his basic math wrong. Remove this nonsense already, it's been debunked so many times it's actually cringe it's still in this article. - Psydonk (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be summarising the primary source ourselves (especially as it is in Chinese), and making our own calculations based on its data is a clear example of original research. The paragraph should end after the secondary sources are quoted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Adrian zenz got his evidence literally from exiled ughur media Internet tv report at face value. How is that even reliable? Because western governments are claiming him to be? I think instead of just claiming him as an expert and hiding the evidence or lack of real evidence. Also Adrian zenz writes books on why Communism, homosexuality, gender equality is Satanism corrupting the world and yet he's the expert on xinjiang.

Wikipedia should at the minimum, mention exactly how Adrian based his million count. As anyone looking deeply can see that he's literally using an Internet TV report from a biased source aka Istiqal media to back his claims. And that really should be mentioned in better detail.

https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/ 49.180.226.13 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Some more credible sources would be nice.. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The title is not objective or impartial and should be changed.

Latest comment: 3 years ago90 comments21 people in discussion

Using a title such as 'Uyghur genocide' not only neglects the strong evidence that there is not a genocide in Xinjiang, but also mislead the reader automatically into believing things that the Western media has already indoctrinated them. I request for the title of this page to be changed. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The title is less then ideal however the lead of the article makes it clear that these are accusations.PailSimon (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I support the renaming idea. Calling things like this genocide renders the word overused and meaningless.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320 Honestly, all I'm thinking about is how the world has almost forgotten about the situation with the Rohingyas in Myanmar. All genocides suck, but it's sad when the value of one's life depends on where you're in thanks to geopolitics. There's so much plight for the Uyghurs (e.g. World Ugyhur Congress, etc) but there are hardly any for the Rohingyas. ShelteredCook (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GrignardReagent007 Genocidal denial isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you deny that there isn't a systemic attempt to forcibly incarcerate, sterilize, and erase Uyghur ethnic identity I don't think you should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is banned in China due to censorship attempting to bring it here doesn't help. Des Vallee (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
To deny a genocide, there should be one to start with. Well maybe it is banned in China for good reasons, as many attempt to rewrite history in an extremely subjective manner. That, is in fact against WP:NPOV ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GrignardReagent007 Maybe you shouldn't be on Wikipedia if you think Wikipedia is banned in China for "Good reasons" nor should you be on Wikipedia if you think there is no genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It is my freedom and responsibility to make sure that content on Wikipedia is as objective as possible. If that is indeed what you are against, then maybe you reflect on your own approach. --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GrignardReagent007, you do not have the freedom to start chattering about indoctrination by Western media or whatever: it is a violation of WP:AGF and disregards WP:RS. I urge you to drop those kinds of accusations from any future comments on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree with Drmies. Also, WP:NOTFREESPEECH; "freedom" is not an excuse for unacceptable behavior. Normchou 💬 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
PailSimon What do you think would be a better and objective title to reflect the current situation in Xinjiang? --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to scream "genocide denial", there first needs to be strong evidence of an ACTUAL genocide or ethnic cleansing - ex, banning Uyghur script, stripping status as titular people of Xinjiang, etc. Arresting Islamist terrorists in a time of rising extremism, a few "eyewitnesses" that drastically change their statements over time, and "research" by end-times tinfoil hatter and his anti-China defense-contractor sponsored think tanks are hardly a slam-dunk. I pointed out that the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as titular people of the autonomous region, is nothing like that of people who have faced actual genocide, and instead of trying to support your argument, (ex, finding INDEPENDENT research and sourcing not tied to Falun Gong, Zenz, sponsored by governments in feuds with China and/or defense contractors that indicates a steep population drop), you went ad hominem and screamed genocide denial. We at Wikipedia must be consistent in what we call genocide. If we call what is happening in Xinjiang genocide (disproportionate incarceration and discrimination, but with a steadily increasing population permitted to live in their historic homeland and keep identity), we would render the word genocide near meaningless and then have to apply it to thousands of other articles (where there is a wide-held consensus that "genocide" is not a proper descriptor).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Disagreed. Aside from the obvious camel's nose fallacy in the above argument, what people call "atrocities" today might well be "business as usual" in the past, but that would not change the nature of such conduct. The goal of Wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia, NOT to act like some frozen-in-time "language police". By the way, to those who are pedantically obsessed with the title, the article genocide definitions might be useful. Normchou 💬 05:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Normchou, I'm not sure why you would call concerns about the title "pedantic." The goal in having Wikipedia reflect the prevailing historiography here is of significant import, I would challenge. As for the presumed usefulness of the genocide definitions page, I actually do not find that article that easy to parse, though admittedly, perhaps I'm missing something. El_C 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
El_C, I'm not sure why you would extrapolate my allusion to a specific type of behavior to all concerns of the title; assuming good faith, I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Reasonable concerns of the title are helpful for building a better encyclopedia; in addition to that, I suggest that an editor should not narrowly focus on only the title when assessing the article. The content is equally, if not more, important. Normchou 💬 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Normchou, obviously, there are various facets to the subject that are of import. The title is just one of these. But approaching it, in particular, through the tone and tenor of a "language police," is probably a mistake. As far as rhetorical devices go, it just doesn't seem that useful. Whatever editors decide is representative of the prevailing scholarly and mainstream consensus, will be..., well, that. And that's it. No need to embellish further. El_C 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. When in doubt, it is always helpful to review the overarching goal of the project. Normchou 💬 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
PlanespotterA320 We call it a genocide because the incarceration of 25% of the Uighur population, numerous eye witness, complete consensus, reports of forced sterilization are all consistent with genocides. Denying the Uighur genocide is genocidal denial, my good friend. What sources? What citations do you have to back up this bold and bogus claim offical records of Chinese government. Nearly every NGO like Amnesty International state it is a genocide, again nearly every independent board has found it as a genocide. All of which have also been active in exposing the western war crimes as well, so it can't just be "western propaganda". Des Vallee (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Two things, the article itself states that Amnesty International has no position on the "Uyghur genocide" so you're wrong to say every NGO calls it a genocide, even so the UN has yet to call it a genocide and most nations support China on this issue, secondly genocide denial is not neccessarily bad or prohibited, for instance Wikipedia denies "White genocide". PailSimon (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any WP:RS which say that the Uyghur genocide is a conspiracy theory (I don’t even think official Chinese media goes that far, they tend to portray it as a misunderstanding caused by incomplete information available to the international media)? If not then thats an inappropriate comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory for the comparison to hold. The point is that Wikipedia quite often engages in genocide denial, which is not a bad thing per se of course. PailSimon (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Genocide denial is actually a bit more than the sum of the two words makes out which is how you are using it. Care to rephrase now that you’ve learned what the term means? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well I mean if you want to morphemically twist the term 'genocide denial' to define it as that then to say that denying the "Uyghur Genocide" is genocide denial and therefore should not be done is begging the question.PailSimon (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The term “genocide denial” only means one thing... Wikipedia has never engaged in genocide denial. You were mistaken about what the term meant, thats OK but now that you know better getting defensive isn't helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well sources are divided on whether or not it is genocide so the article should reflect that and not partisanly call it a genocide. PailSimon (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Glad we’re back on track. I think the outcome of the move discussion was clear and its too early to re-litigate it, the OP has also been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also just to be clear the WP:COMMONNAME could still be Uyghur genocide even if there was no genocide, your argument needs work so its a good thing you have a year or more to work on it before we reconsider this question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia calls contested things "X Allegations" or "Allegations of X" so if you are to be logically consistent it only makes sense that this article follows the trend. PailSimon (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not in titles we don’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the definition of genocide (again):

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole :::::::or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You'll see there are five examples. One or more of those five examples by itself does not constitute genocide. There has to be "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." There is evidence of some of the five examples taking place in China, but there is no evidence that this is being carried out with intent to destroy the group. Indeed there is plenty of evidence of the opposite. AT the very least, no-one (even Zenz) suggests that the Uighur population is falling, only that the growth RATE is falling. Without hard evidence of genocide, the title of this article should be changed to "Crimes against the Uighur people." --Bacon Man (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Current title and documentation

Why are there no archives available for this talk page? What happened with the matter of the cultural genocide versus the current "genocide" (per se.) titles? I think this ought to be better documented.

My impression has always been that, above all else, genocide is associated with the liquidation of a population or population segment. Which is to say, ultimately, their murder. But this doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the human rights violations that Chinese authorities are subjecting the Uyghurs to (though, regardless, these are obviously highly egregious violations). What we have, ostensibly being termed re-education, consists of the abduction of adults, followed by their confinement and torture for the purpose of breaking their collective spirits. At the same time, this is accompanied by the abduction of children so as to subject them to an intensive system of brainwashing ultimately aimed at assimilation through cultural erasure. I can't stress enough that this system of family separation constitutes child abuse on a mass scale. Child abuse of the most severe variety, sparing cases of outright physical torture and sexual exploitation. Obviously, contemptible beyond measure. Myself, I would like to see that notion of child abuse better explored by this article.

Note that the article on Reeducation is a redirect to the Brainwashing article. That makes sense when it comes to the children being abducted, but as for the abducted adults, the article (and notion) of Re-education through labor is probably more apt. Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are. Are they quantitatively greater in scale? That I am unsure about. Finally, with regards to the current title, does it make sense for Wikipedia to take the side of defining it as a "genocide" (per se.) versus that of the more diffused cultural genocide descriptor? If so, why?

Myself, I'm pretty much agnostic about all of these questions at this point, but this is what crosses my mind as I glance at the current state of this article and its recent title change. The problem, again, is that upon attempting to investigate any of this, surprisingly, not only is there no documentation specifically about this title question at the top of the talk page, but there isn't even ordinary talk page archives being displayed anywhere for one to consult. What is happening here? This is a sloppy way to engage such an important topic, and the argument can be made that this sloppiness is harmful to the project's reputation. El_C 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are there no archives available for this talk page? Not sure why it's not showed above, but there are some here 1, 2, 3. — Czello 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. Adding {{Talk header}}, so at least there's that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean all of that is just your unsubstantiated opinionPailSimon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Jeez, is this what passes for discourse here? Yikes. El_C 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
PailSimon, the irony is that I am asking pretty much the same question you asked above, about whether or not it is genocide. Except, unlike you, I'm noting that I'm actually agnostic on the matter — so how is that an "opinion" (unsubstantiated or otherwise)? There's a point when extremely terse responses to detailed comments simply come across as being so vague, they basically amount to diversionary noise. So, please do better. El_C 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean what are you supposed to say to this for example - "Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are" What exactly are you basing this on? You just assert it without explanation. There's not really much to respond to here.PailSimon (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not much to respond to with respect to what? That component (question) alone? My view is that there is nothing wrong with me having noted my current leaning toward answering that particular question in the affirmative — yes, that's right, based on my own overall impression. Which may or may not reflect reality or its prevailing perception therein. Ultimately, I think you calling it an "assertion" (outright) is too strong a word. It was not meant as a rhetorical question. El_C 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It clearly is a genocides, it is the common name and almost all NGOs describe it as a genocide. Those who think this is all some sort of propaganda. The Four Deuces So wait is China not forcibly incarcerating 25 of the Uyghur population? So have mosques and other places of worship not been closed by Chinese government? What about the extremely widespread reports of sterilization, or rape? I get a bit sick speaking on these subjects, the term isn't "anti-Chinese" nearly every NGO refers to it as a genocide, this isn't some conspiracy at all TFD. If so there is no position you can state this. Per Common name there is absoultely no justification for renaming it. If we look at other reliable citations of independent NGOs like Amnesty International if anything they are more harsh towards China, this isn't a POV title it's a clear definition used by most independent organizations. Anyway we have an archive on this we can bring this up if this happens again. Des Vallee (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a move request to change the title back to the cultural genocide title — rather, it is more of a query as to how and why the title was changed from that to the current "genocide" (per se.) title, in the first place. As to whether we should define the incarceration, assault (sexual and otherwise), forced sterilization, as well as any other abuses, as a "genocide" (again, per se.) is a perfectly legitimate question to pose. One which may be worthy of discussion — dispassionately, Des Vallee, if you will. Simply arguing that it's the COMMONNAME does not necessarily makes it so. Again, from my perspective, compiling decent documentation about how and why we are where we are would be a good thing. El_C 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Why exactly are you placing so much weoght on the opinions of certain NGOs? Where does the absolute authority of these NGOs come from exactly? NGOs aren't the only reliable sources, if they are to be called reliable at all. PailSimon (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Per the BBC, genocide is "the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence." ("How do you define genocide?", BBC 17 March 2016) Your description does not meet that bar. The article then quotes experts who say that by overusing the term, it loses its meaning. They mention a speech by the renowned human rights expert, Michael Ignatieff. In the speech, he said, "Genocide has no meaning unless the crime can be connected to a clear intention to exterminate a human group in whole or in part. Something more than rhetorical exaggeration for effect is at stake here. Calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking place."[6] TFD (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that whether or not this rises to the level of genocide is a topic of ongoing discussion, at the very least it is two or three worst human rights situations currently occurring on our world. I though that this Quartz (I will admit they have a generally pro-China byline) piece [7] on the naming issue presented a good balance of views. Apparently there has been a change in academic/media consensus on the issue in 2019 and 2020. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Four Deuces and El_C, there seems to have been rough consensus for the move to Uyghur genocide at Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_2. 5 oppose votes were stated as "per Buidhe", and Buidhe later changed their vote to move, further weakening the opposition to the move. Regarding El_C's point about lack of murder - we do have solid evidence of forced sterilization of Uyghur women. This biological component is what takes it from "cultural genocide" to "genocide, period". That said, I think we should better explain all this in the lead.VR talk 19:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Vice regent. Again, I'm not sure whether forced sterilization should be seen as a novel interpretation of the "genocide" (per se.) definition, or whether instead it can be seen to accurately reflect the definition's modern iteration (and/or to what extend it is a combinations of both). But that is an interesting point to consider. El_C 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • By definition genocide is largely timescale agnostic and that lack of clarity is on purpose as the important elements are intent and effect with the rest being highly secondary, forced sterilization would 100% count as would much more subtle strategies of eradicating populations over long periods of time (such as failure to provide medical care, forced economic destitution, marriage restrictions etc). Historically we find cases such as the California genocide or Circassian genocide where there was little of the industrialized killing that we associate with certain famous modern genocides. On the larger issues you raise I think there are both practical questions of how to address this specific issue at hand and how philosophically wikipedia should handle occurring or alleged to be occurring genocide, one of the problems with the term is that it can only be applied with absolute accuracy after the conclusion of events (by which time of course such a discussion is on a level of academic much beyond WP:COMMONNAME). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Well said, Horse Eye's Back. I'm still not certain you're right about it being 100 percent a genocide, but that is certainly a cogent argument that leaves me with much to think about. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C: That would be a bold claim and not one I would be willing to make, as far as I know the allegations of systematic forced sterilization are still allegations and are likely to remain so for a while even if true. There may be a better overarching term for the pattern of abuse we are currently seeing in western China, I’m not convinced that the current title is perfect but it represents a decent consensus as well as satisfying our naming requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, Horse Eye's Back, sorry for partially misrepresenting what you said. I still don't know if I agree with your conclusion, but I do take your more nuanced points on-board. El_C 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals.[8] In the linked article, the California governor apologized for the genocide, referring to the murders. Genocide, deportation and forced assimilation were three distinct but related actions taken against aboriginals. Similarly 400,000 Circassians were murdered. But the Uyghur genocide articles doesn't mention any mass killings. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If you would like to completely re-write what we have now to change it to your "strictly speaking” definition per the publishers of Ancient Aliens, Pawn Stars, Swamp People, American Pickers, and Truck Night in America be my guest. Just FYI of their current lineup Ancient Aliens actually does the best job at actual history and the linked article doesn't even say what you’re claiming it does, but I digress. Back on topic: Mass murder is not now and has never been a necessary component for something to qualify as genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually I was relying on experts such as Michael Ignatieff, whom I mentioned above. Now it could be that your interpretation of the definition of genocide is right, and most of the experts are wrong, but policy says we follow the experts. Don't know what the ancient aliens, etc., reference is meant to convey. But I think we should follow expert opinion there, rather than your personal interpretation of the evidence. TFD (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You cited History (American TV network). Thats not my personal interpretation, I actually have issues with the traditional definition of genocide but thats as you said irrelevant. Ignatieff raises the exact same issue about intent being at the core of the traditional definition of genocide in the quotes you provide that I did in my comments. Lets get back on track: the source you provided does not say that "the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals” it say "Up to 16,000 Native Californians died in the genocide” which does not limit the genocide to the murders at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I cited an article by Erin Blackmore, a journalist whose articles have appeared in "The Washington Post, NPR, National Geographic, TIME, Smithsonian, and The Atlantic."[9] I used the article to refer to the fact that the governor of California referred to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals as a genocide. Do you have any doubt he said that? If not, you're just being argumentative. TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It was a strange discussion. The reasoning for the move was that it met the UN definition of genocide. But that's OR - we would need to show that experts share that opinion, which for the most part they don't. It seems more like forced assimilation to me. TFD (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If you knowingly push forced assimilation just a *little bit* too far it becomes genocide, the primary difference between the two of them is with the intent not the effect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Logically speaking, how can deportation lead to genocide when according to your definition it is genocide? TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Deportation alone could not make a genocide, it would need to be combined with other elements. Deportation could lead to genocide as it did in Nazi Germany but I can’t think of any case in which it qualified alone. Can you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No of course not. But you just said, "Mass murder is not now and has never been a necessary component for something to qualify as genocide." TFD (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, Horse Eye's Back, but it is a rather vague distinction. Regardless of whether one places more weight on motivation or outcome, I'm not sure an analysis of the teleology and epistemology of that question should happen sort of in the abstract. As for deportations, it largely describes the Armenian Genocide, for example. Of course, deportations are not automatically genocidal. Finally, I doubt I'm the only one who is drawing a parallel between the Uyghur atrocities and those encountered in the American Indian Residential Schools. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Labeling the current situation as genocide is completely premature and improper given the lack of key genocidal elements (ex, official second-class citizen status or stripping of citizenship, banning of language, sharp population drop, etc). Furthermore, this article isn't even just about the situation of Uyghurs - it also brings up allegations by other minorities that do not consider themselves Uyghurs (like Kazakhs). It seems that the title "Uyghur genocide" was chosen simply because Uyghurs are the largest (and titular) people of Xinjiang and there was strong desire to use the g-word among a small group of POV pushers, even though the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, (the proper and original article title), is not focused exclusively on Uyghurs but rather at various Muslim groups of Xinjiang experiencing separatist sentiments. At the very least, we should be consistent about the article corresponding to the title. Is this article about what one thinks is a genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or a listing of grievances and allegations from various Turkic peoples in Xinjiang with "Uyghur genocide" slapped on as title to be clickbait?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: thats not exactly right... This page was created in 2019 by Mikehawk10 and then rapidly built up by a large variety of editors. Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism still exists, it does not appear to be "the proper and original article title” as you asserted. Perhaps you are mistaken? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Synthesis of published material says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you explain why your assessment that the human rights abuses constitute genocide is not synthesis? Or if it is, why we should make an exception in this article. TFD (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The current title is very much justifiable, as reflected in scholarly sources [10], books [11] and reliable news sources [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The abstract of your scholarly source says it explains why the label genocide is now being used by growing numbers of scholars. Policy however says that we should not present minority opinions as facts. TFD (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Being able to correctly represent scholarly and mainstream consensus often proves challenging. It isn't that clear to me that "genocide" reflects the "majority view right now" — even though, at this point, I am leaning toward the "genocide" definition (which I wasn't at the beginning). Still, I will strive to keep an open mind. El_C 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no challenge for the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and a number of other incidents. What concerns me is that by taking a side in the debate, we are no longer neutral. Of course each editor can have their own opinions, but they're not supposed to influence editing. TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Right (official Turkish narrative and Holocaust deniers, respectively, aside), but those do involve mass fatalities, which does not seem to be the case here. Thus, the classical genocide definition isn't actually hazy with those as it is with the subject, so I'm not sure it makes sense to draw such parallels about the challenges it faces when defined as a "genocide." El_C 18:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but speaking about the casualties, we do not really know them, given the information "freedom" in China. One should realize that people in such camps are staring dying for a number of reasons including diseases, malnutrition and abuses. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Same. Still, I'm not sure how practical it is to hide mass fatalities, in general, even in a country like China. Even in a country like North Korea, in fact. That much mass death usually ends up being leaked, or otherwise discovered, like with satellite imagery, and so on. Anyway, until actual data, even of the most tentative nature, has been made available, it largely remains in the realm of speculation. El_C 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, this is not Holocaust or Armenian genocide, I agree. But an imprisonment of a million people based on their ethnicity and religion, allegedly with forced sterilizations [13] is significant. Some Uighurs were taken from Tajikistan and Cambodia into Xinjiang [14]. They did complain about genocide [15], to the International Criminal Court, but it said China is not party to the court’s founding treaty. Hence my personal inclination would be to keep current title. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Even those who aren’t saying genocide are saying some very dark things. See the op-ed by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the Guardian [16] where he describes it as "an unfathomable mass atrocity.” Seeing as no-one else has been willing to suggest alternate titles “Persecution of the Uyghurs” would probably satisfy WP:COMMONNAME but a small standalone Uyghur genocide page to explain that argument would be needed as the topic passes WP:GNG on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I see what you mean, My very best wishes, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... Horse Eye's Back, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. El_C 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I linked six RS above, and they all tell about "genocide" (whatever that means). So does this page in section Uyghur_genocide#Definition. That has nothing to do with me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Except you haven't provide six reliable sources and Uyghur genocide is not the common name. Common name means that's what it is normally called in reliable sources, not what you and your friends call it. TFD (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, uh, a bit better decorum than "what you and your friends call it," if you will. My very best wishes, I, for one, am not as sure as you are. And, to put it even more bluntly, just not that convinced by you at this time. El_C 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Take for example the AP article that was provided:
Some go a step further.
"It’s genocide, full stop. It’s not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it’s slow, painful, creeping genocide,” said Joanne Smith Finley, who works at Newcastle University in the U.K. “These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population.”
Clearly this is being treated as an opinion, rather than the consensus of genocide scholars. I don't think we should be stating things as facts unless they are treated as such in reliable sources.
TFD (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Its being treated as the opinion of an expert which is a little bit different than being treated as a general opinion. Based on their CV Dr. Smith Finley appears to be a subject matter expert[17]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is about the title of the article and whether we can use her opinion and others to assume that there is in fact a genocide, rather than that some experts have concluded that. In comparison, there is no doubt in any reliable sources that the Armenian genocide was a genocide and hence we use genocide in the article title. TFD (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Historical and ongoing is apples and oranges. The closest analogue is the Rohingya genocide whose genocide status is similarly contested. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, the Rohingya genocide whose genocide status is similarly contested: primarily, as with the present case, by the government deemed responsible by those who do not "contest" the genocide. Chinese and Burmese governments are both similarly invested in throwing everything possible at avoiding the label of "genocide" being attached to their regimes, while self-consciously impartial sources will always quote experts when they want to use potentially controversial terms like "genocide" so as to avoid appearing to take a position themselves. There are always going to be someone contesting the word, in every case of genocide, but it would be false equivalence to imply that the "not-a-genocide" argument is very widely spread or commonly held out-of-universe. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Those are very good points, you’re more than likely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just like the Holocaust and Armenian genocide, there is academic consensus that the Rohinga genocide was a genocide. The only people who denied they were genocides were the governments responsible and their supporters. So I will rephrase what I wrote: "The discussion is about the title of the article and whether we can use her opinion and others to assume that there is in fact a genocide, rather than that some experts have concluded that. In comparison, there is no doubt in any reliable sources that the Rohinga genocide was a genocide and hence we use genocide in the article title." TFD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
For comparison, Iraq prison abuse scandals is not titled "genocide". Keith McClary (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of the US State Department's determination that what has happened in Xinjiang does not raise to the level of Genocide, I think it is sensible to reconsider changing the title of the article. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ Dhawk790 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been stated here that Western media has misled the public and formulated opinions that do not reflect reality. What hypocrisy from those defending the Chinese Communist Party (or more likely, commenting here in their employ).

The title of this article is entirely justified, since anyone with common sense, an education, and the will to carry out their own research is able to determine that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang, just as conclusively as one can state that the Chinese Communist Party invaded Hong Kong, released COVID intentionally (while instructing the WHO to mislead the world), and has continued attacking the free nations in a multitude of ways since.

Throughout 2020, the world watched racism being handed out by those claiming to oppose it. We're now watching the Chinese Communist Party preparing a report on Human Rights abuses taking place in the US as it genocides an entire people in Xinjiang.

The stench of Chinese Communist Party hypocrisy is clear to all, and we'll not simply ignore it because a few of their minions are proficient in the English language and are able to attempt to use our own values and laws against us. Liubaobei (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to "Uyghur Genocide Allegations" and the entire article should be reworded in neutral language. There is a clear POV being pushed.Exhausted-Sinologist (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC) This user has been blocked for being an account created for the purpose of block evasion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pogrom, not a "genocide" - the Red Chinese are not trying to exterminate them - these actions are similar (if harsher) to those used by the Russian Empire against their Jews. If the Chinese gov't thought that the Uyghur had come "into line," the suppressions would end tomorrow.50.111.51.247 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey guys, is Americanization a Non-american genocide too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.232.13 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reactions by country/region

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

@MarkH21: I think you misunderstand, "Reactions by country/region” is all reactions not by NGOs sorted by country/region not a section just for the reactions of governments of countries/regions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is that the "International reactions" sections for events are generally reserved for supranational and governmental reactions, although often with other reactions (with due weight) listed separately (e.g. how NGOs are currently split off here). For example: Rohingya genocide#International reactions, International reactions to the Rohingya genocide, Reactions to the George Floyd protests#International.
One possibility is to make the current NGO section more general (e.g. NGOs, diaspora groups, protests, etc.), and I think that this should be done to some degree anyways (the Olympics boycott is broader than just an NGO reaction). We should still take care to only include reaction of due WP:WEIGHT though. For example, I don't think that the two specific reactions that I had removed have due weight: the letter from 16 rabbis and 1 cantor and the existence of a community awareness group. There are thousands of rabbis in the US, and 16 of them (+ 1 cantor) writing a letter to one of the 435 representatives is relatively very minor compared to the rest of this article. The existence of a community group in Norway is even less due. — MarkH21talk 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the section in this article, the only other reactions that are not from supranational organizations, government officials, or NGOs appears to be: the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, the 12 Japanese companies, and the protests at the Chinese Consulate in Almaty. All of the other reactions are from supranational organizations, governments, or NGOs. It would make sense to group these non-governmental reactions together (with the NGO reactions since they are non-governmental by definition) into a separate section or subsection. — MarkH21talk 23:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
We can do that, but we will need to rename the section. If we’re talking about governments then “regions” is no longer relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think there is any formal reservation btw, we cover what WP:RS cover... If they choose to cover reactions other than those by supranational and governmental reactions then so will we. There also becomes the problem that many of these statements were made by individual politicians in democracies and as such are not government responses per say. I think we should just go back to the way it was meant to be plus a few of your smaller changes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, "Reactions by country" instead of "Reactions by country/region" is fine. The EU can probably also be grouped with the UN as a supranational organization. There is no formal rule to say that "Reactions" have to be organized by supranational reactions, governmental reactions, non-governmental reactions, etc. but it's a common and logical organization.
What we cover must be covered by RSes, but not everything that is reported by RSes should be included (WP:VNOT and WP:BALASP). There definitely are some that should go in the article. Regarding individual politicians and government officials, their reactions may or may not be due based on their level of coverage and significance; that's something for a case-by-case basis (e.g. a widely covered statement by a foreign minister vs a locally covered statement by a town mayor are quite different).
Regarding we should just go back to the way it was meant to be, the three aforementioned non-governmental reactions were only added in the last three months (not that what came first really matters). — MarkH21talk 00:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I've just edited the reactions sections to show what I mean by the supranational/governmental/non-governmental organization. Of course, we can keep discussing and tweaking/adding/removing the section. — MarkH21talk 01:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I have worries about salami slicing it but its probably gonna need to be broken off into its own section anyway if this page gets significantly bigger so lets just go for it. I am going to restore the letter from 16 rabbis and 1 cantor under "Reactions by religious groups” because it fits well there and was reported in a feature piece from a global WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Speculation, not proven, remove: rape (including gang rape), forced labor, torture, internment, brainwashing, organ harvesting, killings

Add, motive: counter-terrorism efforts 84.202.30.99 (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done, goes against the sources we have in the article. — Czello 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

It is unreasonable to switfly remove any and all problem tags added to the article when in consideration of the contents of this talkpage, the content of the article is quite questionable to put it mildly. Until all concerns are addressed, at the very least, it is reasonable to have a problem tag warning at the top of the page. After all, the article is heavily dependent on an German "researcher" with a very colorful reputation, cites RFA (which has a vested interest to give China negative media attention, truthful or not, considering it is dependent on funding of the US gov, which is quite at odds with China). Undue weight is given to narratives that suit the title, and anything that contradicts that anti-China frenzy is disregarded, unmentioned. (Like how an "eyewitness" invoked significantly changed her testimony from "I wasn't beaten or abused" in February 2020 to claiming to now claiming to have been gang-raped). I propose that the article have a multiple-issues tag until the following issues are resolved:

  1. Uyghurs titular people of Xinjiang - if China wants to get rid of Uyghur identity like Western reports claim, why do they still have it? (When the USSR considered a people an "unwanted nation", their autonomous region was always dissolved into a regular oblast). If Uyghurs were hypothetically stripped of titular status in Xinjiang, then there MIGHT be enough reason to call it genocide - but articles about situations where such things happened (like the Surgun, Aardakh, and Operation Ulusy) don't have genocide in the title - even though those peoples endured far more than Uyghurs.
  2. China sterilizing post-reproductive-age Uyghur women? Really? Even if the allegations from those women were true (which is doubtful) - that's gotta be the least effective way to genocide people in world history.
  3. Thesis of the article dependent on sources with conflict of interest (ie, tied to official state enemies of China). If the allegations were coming from a BFF of China, they would certainly need to be taken seriously. But a lot of the sourcing is dependent on or tied to Western government cutout/offshoots with government funding.
  4. Lack of chameleons. Traditionally, when a people gets genocided, discriminated against, or treated like shit, people try to hide from the repercussions - and pretend to not originate from the targeted group if feasible. Like getting into temporary "paper marriages" for the sole purpose of taking on a surname not associated with their ethnic group. Or telling little white lies-of-ommission to make people assume you're from a different ethnic group. Or lying about paternity (esp if the state considers ethnicity to be something solely inherited paternally). Or using a pseudonym that you pulled out of your ass (not a nickname/stage name) for most of your life. While interethnic marriage has been increasing, there have been no claims that such marriages are "on paper only" then intended for divorce ASAP for the sole purpose to gain a Han surname. The lack of Xinjiang "chameleons" indicates that there isn't reason for Uyghurs to pretend not be Uyghur - like a genocide!
  5. Overall weak "evidence"/not unprecedented things that just ain't genocide. Banning a few certain Islamic baby names like "Jihad" while allowing most is hardly evidence of genocide. Lots of countries have laws specifying that you cannot give your child a name that would cause or could potentially cause undue emotional harm. Heck, Denmark even has a list a pre-approved baby names and you need official permission to use one not on the list. The baby name law does not apply solely to Uyghurs or people in Xinjiang, it applies to everyone in China, such as Hui people (who also give their children Islamic names).

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To briefly respond:
  1. We base our articles of what is being reported by reliable sources. If you think that the title of a region (broadly construed) precludes the possibility of genocide, I don't see a convincing reason that this is true or reflected in history. This sort of logic would preclude The Holocaust from affecting Jews in Warsaw because there was a specifically named Jewish Residential District in Warsaw that was provided titular autonomy from the city as a whole and had a Jewish Council that was nominally responsible for overseeing the ghetto. Of course, we know now that the Warsaw Judenrat was obviously not granted any real power in stopping the oncoming genocide and no mainstream scholars today would even so much as attempt to assert otherwise.
  2. What reliable sources are you referencing to determine that China was sterilizing exclusively post-menopausal women? Reliable sources, such as the Associated Press, have reported that China has been slashing Uyghur birth rates through the installation of IUDs and that birth rates have dropped. And, Chinese officials have confirmed the drop in birth rates, though they attribute it to voluntary family planning (and this is noted in the article).
  3. We use reliable sources to build articles. I would hardly call the BMJ or Reuters an agent of an official state enemy of China. The same goes for the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the vast majority of other sources used in the article that are listed as generally reliable over at WP:RSP.
  4. There are well-documented reports of people fleeing Xinjiang in response to the treatment there (1 2 3). And, not for nothing, but China has a brutally effective way to track Uyghurs and has been collecting DNA en masse in Xinjiang, so becoming a "chameleon" might very well be obstructed by difficulties not before seen in the realm of genocide.
  5. We've had a lengthy move discussion on the name of the page and the result of the relevant move request was to move the page to its current title. Not every single item on the page is about a description of genocidal actions, but much like the Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL pages it also contains content related to persecution more broadly construed.
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lotta mental gymnastics. To respond briefly:
  1. Way to trivialize the Holocaust dude. Warsaw ghetto was called Jewish because it was a ghetto for Jews made by Nazis, not people because Jewish people felt a strong emotional connection to the area as their national homeland.
  2. The "witnesses" listed in the article that claim they were forcibly sterilized permanently are hardly of reproductive age, yet their word is treated like gospel. As for IUDs - those are TEMPORARY and REVERSIBLE. China's promotion of birth control isn't limited to Xinjiang, and promoting it (like the free condoms project), offering reliable methods like IUDs for free in areas where it was previously inaccessable (like rural Xinjiang) so that the region isn't "left behind" in services widely available in other regions ain't genocide. The 80% claim that was the result of shoddy math on Zenz's part has been debunked repeatedly.
  3. It isn't remotely unusual for "independent" sources to cite, recycle, or be dependent on a plethora of questionable/COI sources. Heck, citing Zenz, RFA, VOA, World Uyghur Congress, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, etc is a standard operating procedure for these guys. And don't even get me started on the RFA article dependent on claims from "anonymous" sources. Lots of independent sources not deprecated also reported the Nayirah testimony as gospel.
  4. A few anecdotes of nationalists is hardly a mass exodus. If the current rate of emmigration qualifies as evidence of genocide, we would have to have articles like "Second Crimean Tatar Genocide (2014)" "Second Chechen Genocide" in the spirit of consistency. And while DNA tracking might make it mildly harder to be a chameloen, given genetic diversity, it still wouldn't be impossible by any stretch of the imagination for a Uyghur to pass as Kazakh, Uzbek, etc if in a dire situation. But we haven't seen that happen.
  5. And many other users still feel that the wrong decision was made and that renaming is appropriate. I think something along the lines of "Allegations of genocide in Xinjiang" is more appropriate. Calling Xinjiang "genocide" is insulting to everyone that experienced real genocide.

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be making a lot of extraordinary claims (including those covered by WP:BLP) yet providing zero WP:RS, thats a situation you need to remedy. You’re also far outside the bounds of civility, reign it back in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: A lot of what you're saying really comes down to WP:OR. It's not on us to debate whether or not it's genocide, it's just up to us to reflect what the WP:RSs say. — Czello 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
What is the reliable sourcing for calling it a genocide? From my reading of the news, the term "genocide" is extremely contentious in this case. The title and lede of the article should make it clear that these are allegations, rather than stating a rather extreme POV in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, this is simply a lot of WP:OR by PlanespotterA320, like "if China wants to get rid of Uyghur identity like Western reports claim, why do they still have it?". Remember Chekhov "why are there spots on the sun if one can do without them"? My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China/Archive_5&oldid=1210656590"