Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

New page on Uyghur genocide denial.

The article in question has been deleted per WP:A3
I don't know much about this, but it seems significant enough to warrant an article. So I made a stub. Hopefully someone can make this article better. Uyghur Genocide denialColonizor48 (talk)

See Also section

Does anyone have any objection if I delete the Rohingya genocide link in the See Also and add a link to Xinjiang conflict instead? I don't think the former has much direct relevance to the article, but the latter has huge relevance. Reesorville (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Reesorville: Seems like a reasonable change. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International report

According to the BBC, the author of a new report from Amnesty International said their research "did not reveal that all the evidence of the crime of genocide had occurred." The article further says, "China has been accused by some Western nations and rights groups of pursuing a genocide against the Turkic ethnic groups in Xinjiang - though there is dispute over whether the state's actions constitute a genocide." Finally, it says that an independent series of hearings lead by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC will determine whether a genocide is occurring.[1]

Since there is not yet any consensus, I think that we should rephrase the article to state that there is no consensus on whether it should be called a genocide. This is consistent with both rs and weight. Articles should not make claims that are not supported in reliable sources and should not misrepresent the weight of opinion in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We already do that, both in the lead and in a whole section dedicated to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead begins, "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses...." That's similar to the article Armenian genocide: "The Armenian genocide...was the systematic mass murder...." We could rephrase it as "The Uyghur genocide is a term used by people who believe that the ongoing series of human rights abuses...constitutes a genocide." TFD (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is this page isn’t about the term its about the ongoing series of human rights abuses, we could break off a Uyghur genocide (term) page if thats the path you want to go down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that people would only use the term Uyghur genocide if they had concluded it was a genocide. It's not a common term like the Boston massacre, where someone would use the term even if they did not consider it to be a massacre. The wording however explicitly states that it was a genocide, which needs to be changed in order to conform with rs and weight policies. TFD (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it does appear to be a common term equivalent to Boston massacre, I don’t see anywhere that we explicitly state that this was a genocide. Can you point them out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We call it a genocide when we call the article "Uyghur Genocide" and open it with "Uyghur Genocide is...". How do you still not get that genocide isn't a common name we can just throw around and that using it to title an event is an implicit statement calling it a genocide. This is not the first time you have brought this view up on this talk page, and at this point it feels like willful ignorance. BSMRD (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” is what we currently say. If we said "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide...” then you would have a point but we don’t say that, basic english comprehension is not willful ignorance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't say "The Uyghur Genocide is the genocide..." because that would be redundant and poor grammar. Calling a series of human rights abuses genocide (which we did when we said "The Uyghur Genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses...") is saying that those abuses constitute genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is neither redundant or poor grammar, again we would seem to have an english comprehension issue here on your part rather than a actual issue. That does not say that those abuses constitute genocide and the rest of the lead makes it even more clear thats not what we’re saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Poor grammar may not technically be correct but redundant definitely is. [2][3][4][5][6][7](I could link more but six seems enough)None of these articles say "the x Genocide is the genocide of..." because that is unnecessary. By titling human rights abuses a genocide you are saying those abuses constitute genocide. None of those articles need to say "the x Genocide was the genocide of" because it being a genocide is self evident from the title. Either the title is wrong or the lead sentence is, unfortunately I can change neither as the former is under moratorium and the later is under RfC. The rest of the lead makes it even worse, directly comparing events to the Holocaust. Later, we attribute the designation of genocide to "critics" as well as talking about countries legislatures recognizing events as a genocide. If their recognition/designation is noteworthy, then that means that the baseline is to not consider events a genocide, putting a large dent in the WP:COMMONNAME argument and besides, we should not be making broad statements that a genocide is happening based on the premise of WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue in addition that the title fails precision and consistency as it's not really accurate to whats happening in Xinjiang and every other X Genocide article includes some mention of mass killing or deportation in the lead sentence, which I challenge you to find RS for here. I am of the opinion that "Sinicization of Xinjiang" would be a much better title, to match Sinicization of Tibet. Just because news organizations have called it a genocide doesn't mean we should, not until academic/international consensus says otherwise. Genocide is not a term to be used that lightly. BSMRD (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to suggest that name once the page move protection expires, until then lets hold off on doing anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This article does NOT say "the x Genocide was the genocide of" . My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, I said it doesn't have to to make a wikivoice statement of genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the claim that it's not a Wikivoice statement unless the word "genocide" is repeated twice in the same sentence just doesn't hold up. Repeating the same word twice in one sentence would be poor writing, and every reader understands that we're talking about genocide after the word is mentioned once. Compare to the opening of the article on the Armenian genocide: The Armenian genocide (also known by other names) was the systematic mass murder and ethnic cleansing of around one million ethnic Armenians from Anatolia and adjoining regions by the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), during World War I. It doesn't say, "The Armenian genocide was the genocide ...", and it doesn't have to. It's still clearly a Wikivoice statement that there was an Armenian genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, BSMRD is obviously correct on the language question here. I'm having a hard time believing that you don't see how "The Uyghur genocide is ..." is a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, and that every reasonable reader will interpret it that way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair there is no respectful way to call everyone who disagrees with you unreasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you're denying that a sentence that very clearly says there is a "Uyghur genocide" says that. This is a basic question of denying that a sentence says what it clearly says. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to even respond to your argument here, because you're flatly asserting that a sentence that obviously says X does not say X. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be going over the line [[WP:]] wise, lets try not to make it personal. I don’t appear to be the only one asserting that. Are we all being unreasonable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone has made anything close to a personal attack on this talk page besides you, as you have a tendency to accuse people of not having “English comprehension” for disagreeing with you over certain specifics. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it personal (unlike your comment above, which accused BSMRD of having an "english comprehension issue"). I'm trying to point out, in the most polite way possible, that the opening line unambiguously claims that there is a Uyghur genocide, that virtually every reader will interpret it that way. The language of the opening sentence is so unambiguous that it's very difficult to imagine anyone not interpreting it as a Wikivoice statement. At the very least, you can see how virtually every reader will interpret it as a Wikivoice statement, even if you personally believe that it's possible to interpret it in some other way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure its "virtually every reader,” how do you come to that conclusion? Do you have a reliable source? As I and a number of others have pointed out to you that it unambiguously does not make the wikivoice statement you claim is made. As far as I can see we’re just beating a dead horse both about whether or not a wikivoice statement is made in the lead and the larger question (on hold for now) of what is the appropriate name for this page. We should probably stop and wait for the RfC to close and the move protection to expire before continuing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also if thats your concern you are more than welcome to try to get the name changed when that window re-opens. Until then we have a strong consensus that Uyghur genocide is the common name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no such strong consensus and as a user pointed out earlier with a VERY extensive analysis of page sources, such claims that it is the common name are not accurate. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If its not the common name and theres is no consensus how do you explain the page currently being named what it is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Common name is not a self fulfilling prophecy, unless you think citogenesis is a good thing. I would argue that if a variety of journalistic sources start putting the term into their own words months down the line it will be in part because of the insistence of certain editors to keep it as such on this page for no good reason. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That argument would appear to be poisoning the well. We have consensus for the current name, if you want to challenge either that consensus or the move block this is not the way to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not what poisoning the well is and insistence that it is the common name despite cited sources not supporting this conclusion is absolutely a possible source of citogenesis. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The common name is not defined by AI. If not "Uyghur genocide", then what is common name here you think? My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the summary of AI report], and the actual report, it does tell about crimes against humanity. It does not say explicitly it was a genocide, but it does not dispute calling this a genocide either. Welcome to use this source on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• I did not introduce the source to use it but to show that the claim made in the first sentence has not been established. Note that the fact a claim cannot be proved is not a policy-based reason for inclusion. We cannot for example disprove that covid19 was created in a lab, but that does not mean articles should say it was created in a lab. TFD (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the claim (i.e. this "is the ongoing series of human rights abuses") was well established. The problem (if any) is with the title of the page. But what other title of the page would you suggest and why? That must be something widely used by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think precisely this issue is currently being addressed on the RfC above on this page. So whatever consensus will be defined there. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged genocide", at least. That's quite obvious. Dornicke (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a tool for US anti-Chinese/anticommunist agenda

Collapsing thread of indeffed user per WP:TALK#TOPIC

International reactions have been sharply divided, with dozens of United Nations (UN) member states issuing opposing letters to the United Nations Human Rights Council in support and condemnation of China's policies in Xinjiang in 2020. - Yet, Wikipedia favors the US point of view by calling it a "genocide" - although no country except the US recognizes it exists. This is ridiculous. There are limits to Western bias and this article surpasses them. Dornicke (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Please don’t, you got disruptive enough at Talk:Denial of the Holodomor [8]. I doubt the community will tolerate much more of this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I really don't care about what you think. Focus on the argument and keep your ad hominem to yourself, I couldn't care less about your opinion. The point is no country besides US recognizes this as "genocide", so unless Wikipedia is a US government tool it shouldn't be titled as such. Is wikipedia a US government tool? Dornicke (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Do you mean keep *your* ad hominem to myself? The only ad hominem in there is in the diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC) To provide context, "Holodomor" is a narrative that the Ukrainian famine was an attempt to kill all Ukrainians. The word was chosen because of its resemblance to Holocaust, and it is used to support a double genocide narrative that while Hitler killed 6 million Jews, Stalin (assisted by Jews) killed 10 million Ukrainians, hence both presenting Communists as worse than Nazis and explaining why Nazi Germany found the Holocaust necessary. "[T]he deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime." (Stephan Courtois, Black Book of Communism, p. 9) Many sources describe this as holocaust trivialization. There's a strong connection between the Holodomor, Uyghur genocide and Wuhan lab leak narratives. TFD (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Can we try to avoid bridging into WP:NOTFORUM territory? And there are plenty of academic sources say genocide is occurring... We should say what the reliable academic sources say, should we not? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I've started an ANI thread about Dornicke's conduct after seeing this thread and checking their contributions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead and International reactions

The final paragraph of the lead is overly bloated and biased. Currently the first sentence states that international reactions are divided, which is true, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to only list legislative condemnations of China's Xinjiang policies. It is also the longest paragraph in the lead by a decent margin, as it seems to list every legislative condemnation. This creates unnecessary bloat in the lead, creates bias towards these negative voices, and is not an accurate summary of the articles contents, with the "International Reactions" section (which this part of the lead should be summarizing) containing several countries that support China's policies. The paragraph should condense a summary of both positive and negative reactions rather than just listing every negative one.

Also, the international reactions section gives the Anglosphere perhaps too much detail compared to other countries, but I think that's an issue of WP:SYSTEMIC rather than any direct bias, simply due to what English sources cover. BSMRD (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You may right about sections of the lead being bloated, and I agree the list of government motions has grown in length to the extent that they should be summarised and moved to the relevant section, rather than listed. However, it's not biased to exclude announcements from governments supporting China from the lead. There's nothing notable about countries (particularly non-democratic ones) close to China issuing statements in support of it, particularly when experts have said that China is exerting diplomatic & economic pressure on them to do so. Aside from the notability aspect, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and the use of primary sources such as official government statements should be minimised, unless they're particularly notable in themselves (multiple democracies calling China's behaviour a genocide is particularly notable). There's also a WP:WEIGHT issue. It would be undue to mention a number of government statements echoing China's debunked denials in the lead when the experts and scholars are clear that rights abuses are going on. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think statements in support of China should get equal standing to statements against (I probably should have made that clearer). I mostly object to their complete absence besides half of the first sentence, when compared to the detail and weight given to statements against. BSMRD (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think theres a good point to make that the “pro-China” camp is actually multiple different camps, one which denies that the human rights abuses are happening at all and denies the existence of related policies, one which denies the abuses yet supports what the Chinese say are their policies in the region (this one is often couched in a different standard for what qualifies as abuse than that used by international NGOs), and another which does not deny anything and supports the policies that Amnesty etc say are occurring. The problem for us on wikipedia is that all three appear to be WP:FRINGE positions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If it were simply NGOs and individuals that were pro-China I would agree, but several countries have issued statements in support of China's policies which is covered adequately in the body but not the lead, which focuses unduly on the statements against. Clearly in the international community support for China is not a WP:FRINGE position just from reading this article, and the lead should reflect that. That's not a value judgement, but rather an accurate summary of the article's contents and available sources, which the lead is for. Even if you disagree with that, the final paragraph is still too bloated, it just lists various country that have designated policies as a genocide or even said that human rights abuses are occurring, and that list has gotten too long for the lead and needs to be summarized. BSMRD (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What countries are you thinking of? I think the only thing we have like that is an official Emirati endorsement of their anti-terror/anti-extremism policies, thats not direct support and its not support for the more controversial policy aspects of the situation. On the bloat I largely agree with you, I’m just not seeing the bias argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Grabbing the more relevant (and non-paywalled) sources from the international reactions sections as far as individual statements go it seems the Emirati's are the only ones who have issued a direct statement to parallel the ones that populate the lead, however more countries have issued joint statements in support of China than have against, and several have deported Uyghurs back to China, which is a clear declaration of support, even if there is not an "official" declaration. Again, not saying this should have equal weighting to statements calling it a genocide, just that it deserves a larger place in that section of the lead, which would be partially achieved by reducing the amount of focus given to anti-China statements. BSMRD (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In the publications (e.g. [17]) this is framed as a phenomenon of oppressive regimes supporting each other. So it can be framed like that somewhere in this body of the page, but this hardly belongs to the lead. As a side note, I feel that responses by individual countries should be summarized more briefly on the page unless they do something more serious like sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than watering down what we have I think it might be time for a standalone “Reactions to the Uyghur genocide” page. It does seem to be a bit cluttered as of now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Signing =/= issuing. Deporting Uyghurs back to China does not appear to be "a clear declaration of support” what reliable source are you basing that statement on? I’m confused by "not saying this should have equal weighting to statements calling it a genocide” because thats not what the UAE or joint statements are about, they don’t touch the genocide claim. The two groups of UN statements talk past each other... They aren’t diametrically opposed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it might be time for a standalone “Reactions to the Uyghur genocide” page. But we should keep a short summary of "reactions" and keep things that are not just reactions, such as protests and sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A plurality of countries have rejected the accusations of genocide in Xinjiang, and any discussion of reactions by different countries should reflect this. Specifically, 64 countries have issued a statement rejecting the US' allegations against China, while 39 countries have signed on to a statement criticizing China over human rights in Xinjiang. The idea that we should ignore 64 countries and write them off as lackeys of China - but report statements made primarily by US allies - just strikes me as contrary to Wikipedia's ethos as a global encyclopedia. It's significant that the majority of countries that have taken a position on this issue have rejected the accusations made the the US government, and the lede should reflect that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The coverage on the page should be defined (and it is currently defined) not by the number of countries, but by the coverage of reactions in sources. If RS give a lower weight to something, so should we. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV (especially WP:FALSEBALANCE), I don’t think you understand how we do things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the lead specifically, I made a few adjustments to the wording today and the current text starts discussion of international reactions by stating that countries have issued statements both condemning and in support of China's policies. I think that's all that's needed to convey the disagreement in official reactions and show that some governments have publicly backed China. The following paragraph goes on to discuss the countries whose legislatures have called it a genocide. While it might benefit from being summarised (rather than being presented one by one) as the number of cases has grown, these votes are politically notable in themselves and don't need to be balanced by including any individual statements from other countries that it isn't genocide, per the points I and other editors have made about false balance, notability, treatment of the matter by RS etc. Jr8825 • Talk 16:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Section "Background", title "Xinjiang conflict", second paragraph: Change "After the 1928 assassination of Yang Zengxin, the governor of the semi-autonomous Kumul Khanate in east Xinjiang under the Republic of China, Jin Shuren, succeeded Yang as the governor of the Khanate." to "After the 1928 assassination of Yang Zengxin, the governor of the semi-autonomous Kumul Khanate in east Xinjiang under the Republic of China, Jin Shuren succeeded Yang as the governor of the Khanate."

Basically remove the comma after "Jin Shuren". 84.246.168.11 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic

"Genocides" where the population increases? I notice countless articles trying to cite births per 1000 instead of total fertility rate, which is the sign they are hiding something. https://uwidata.com/16190-10-imperialist-lies-about-chinas-uyghur-population-and-the-truth/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/29/china-forces-birth-control-on-uighurs-to-suppress-population/ "After Gulnar Omirzakh, a Chinese-born Kazakh, had her third child, the government ordered her to get an IUD inserted. Two years later, in January 2018, four officials in military camouflage came knocking at her door anyway. They gave Omirzakh, the penniless wife of a detained vegetable trader, three days to pay a $2,685 fine for having more than two children." Not having a 3rd child is genocide? One can question the morality of government limits but we're talking a stretch here. The rest sounds like "white genocide" talk, but at least they have the dropping populations to back their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.1.198 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust comparison in lede

"This has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust." is a grossly absolutist statement given what the sources actually say. Only two actually make a comparison directly to the Holocaust itself, one of which says it "appears" to be on the same scale and another that essentially says that if Zenz's calculations are correct, then it would be on the same scale. This is not concrete enough to put in wikivoice. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, frankly any sort of comparison to an established genocide should stay out of the lead. It's bound to be inflammatory and considering the disputed nature of what's happening in Xinjiang, any such comparison is going to be a problem. Well sourced discussion in the body could be warranted, but it's not lead material. BSMRD (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with conclusion of both editors above, if included it should not be in WP:VOICE, should be qualified as per the source and as it adds no real info, simply raises the emotional temperature, it doesn't belong in the lead, certainly not in such a prominent position. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly removed it. Irrespective of the ongoing RfC, throughout that discussion (and this one) I've seen a considerable number of editors criticising that comparison in the lead and calling for its removal. My view is that it's obviously problematic. If someone decides to revert me, I suggest they consider re-adding to a less prominent location within the lead and rewriting it as an attributed statement. Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The Council on Foreign Relations has a backgrounder article, "China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang", which manages to describe the situation without mentioning the Holocaust. TFD (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

World War II/Second World War

I'm seeing objections above for "Holocaust" to be removed. I still think that framing it in terms of the largest detention since that time period is relevant in the lead, and, considering the strong sourcing for it, I've added "since World War II" into the lead where "the Holocaust" previously was. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's just a euphemism for the same thing and not mentioned in any of the cited sources. I was incorrect, it IS mentioned in the cited sources. I was not looking as closely as I believed and my word search failed me. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: Well, I don't know what to say except that what you've said is just not true. Pulitzer-winning BuzzFeed News reporting notes that China has established a sprawling system to detain and incarcerate hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities, in what is already the largest-scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since World War II. The SupChina source calls it the largest mass detention of an ethnic minority since World War II. The Vox piece states that It is the largest mass internment of an ethnic-religious minority group since World War II, and links to this piece from The Guardian that states that the China Cables provide insights into the construction and operation of a comprehensive government campaign that has led to the largest mass internment of an ethnic-religious minority since the second world war, targeting the Uighur minority, along with other mostly Muslim ethnic groups. The first sentence in the body of the source from The Journal of Genocide Research states that For the past four years, the region of Xinjiang in Northwest China has witnessed the largest forced incarceration of an ethno-religious minority anywhere in the world since the Second World War: upwards of one million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims have been forced into internment camps for “re-education” and “thought transformation,” or into high-security prisons, or situations of forced labour. I really can't understand how one could reasonably conclude that the reference to the Second World War is "not mentioned in any of the cited sources". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I will concede that I was confused when trying to search the sources. That was my bad. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Who cares?

Are you seriously advocating using an obvious sensationalist comparison in a lead of an already controversial article which talks about a "genocide" (a notion disputed by many people on talk page)? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

While you are correct that such a statement can be sourced for the lead, I'm really not sure if it should be. For one, such a comparison is not mentioned in the body at all, and secondly, it serves to raise the emotional temperature of the article by making a comparison to the Holocaust(which is what you are doing, even if you say "World War II") in a completely unnecessary way, especially when events in Xinjiang are highly contested. If academics in a decade or two use the Holocaust as a referential event we can include it in the lead, but here and now it is needlessly inflammatory when we could simply... not make the comparison, and lose nothing from the article. BSMRD (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming the statement is true and well sourced (it seems to be), it arguably belongs to the lead because it shows the significance of the event. But this is currently a matter of an active RfC on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have any objection to the current statement (following Mikehawk10's restoration/revision, calling it the largest detention since WW2). This is factual, well-sourced and gives the reader an idea of the scale of repression, so I think it's suitable for the lead. I think the holocaust comparison was problematic because it directly (and unnecessarily) relates to the controversy over whether or not it should be classed as genocide (it could be interpreted as an attempt to draw moral equivalence with the holocaust in wikivoice, the kind of editorialisation we should be seeking to avoid). However, as I mentioned in the above RFC, my view is that the statement doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead (per MOS:OPENPARA), as it's not essential to an understanding what the topic is. I think the statement is better suited to the paragraph which summarises the debate over whether it should be classed a genocide (as it continues to speak indirectly to that issue), or alternatively, somewhere in the final lead paragraph to demonstrate historical significance/notability. Jr8825 • Talk 04:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless the detentions are routinely compared with Nazi Germany, the comparison lacks weight for inclusion in the article, including the lead. Even if we did include it, we would have to note who made the comparison. Nazi analogies is are often used as a propaganda tool and should be avoided in most cases. The United States actually has more people incarcerated than China. We could add for example "although the overall incarceration rate in China ranks lower than the United States." TFD (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there are more recent refs, but basically the WWII calculation seems predicated on the immediately preceding claim, which in WP:VOICE states that a million people are incarcerated. In fact the first (Al Jazeera) source used for this attributes it to a UN vice-chair and her panel, who credit it to unspecified "credible reports". The vice-chair herself also says 2 million, though it is unclear whether she means are or have been incarcerated. The SAME ARTICLE gives at least three other estimates, two of which are from credible organisations whose estimates are substantially lower ("the Human Rights Watch advocacy group said there were “at least tens of thousands” in political education centres. Amnesty International wrote that “at a minimum, tens of thousands, with some sources estimating hundreds of thousands” of Uighurs have been detained.). The other sources used to support the WP:VOICE 1 million figure all seem to attribute the claim to the same UN panel claim. In other words, the secondary sources used support the claim that the UN panel thinks/estimates/wishes us to believe that nearly/around/over 1 million people have been incarcerated, while the main source used explicitly states that this is simply one of several credible estimates. If all we know with any kind of certainty is that the UN panel thinks this figure is accurate - why is the statement in WP:VOICE? As I said at the beginning, maybe there are more recent/better sources, but the ones we currently use don't support a WP:VOICE claim of a million, which is the probable root of the WWII analogy. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case the whole section likely needs a rewrite, it is something of a trend I have noticed in the article, that the most severe possible interpretation of a source is used. Not technically wrong but definitely read with a view already in mind. BSMRD (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Pincrete. I hope to have a look at those sources myself and search for others but I'm not sure I'll have time. I think Mikehawk10 is pretty well read on this topic, perhaps they're aware of more recent sources re: the 1 million figure? Jr8825 • Talk 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've seen it claimed to be as high as 3 million. Official sourcing on it is probably hard due to how infamous the Chinese government is at being clandestine about such things, but I agree there's a tendency to pretty much pick the highest number possible. I'd argue the one million figure at this point in time is sort of a self-fulfilling statistical prophecy that does a grim waltz across multiple sources that are each nested in each other. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If we are making some kind of 'best guess' based on who-knows-what in a fog caused by the paucity of reliable info, we should say that IMO - not pretend there is anything fixed or authorative (and therefore WP:VOICEd) about our claims. Pincrete (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem comes in because we’re comparing different numbers... The big number bandied about by the UN etc is a composite of prisons, political reeducation centers, involuntary boarding schools, forced labor camps, etc and the smaller numbers are usually only one piece of the pie. Even for the big number there are two different version how many people have been through the system and how many people are currently believed to be within the system. We need to be very careful about two things, one is not putting these numbers in wikivoice and two is not to suggest that different figures which measure different things or are from different times are somehow contradictory without a third party pointing to that contradiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless the detentions are routinely compared with Nazi Germany is pretty well addressed by the quotes noted by MikeHawk above. Retswerb (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to edit article

I just tried to add "(photo taken in 2005)" to the caption of the photo "Mosque in Tuyoq, Xinjiang," but was unable to do so because the article seems to be locked from editing. Please correct this ridiculous situation. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the controversial nature of the article, it has been protected so that only extended confirmed users can edit the article. You can tell if an article is protected or not by the padlock in the top right. If you would like to request an edit you can make an edit request. Otherwise, please make an account to edit protected articles. I have added your attempted edit as it provides clarity to the timeline of the image. BSMRD (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Forced Abortion claim in lede

It looks like both the sources cited for the forced abortion claims attribute the claim to Adrian Zenz and the AP rather than say so in their own voice. We might need better sourcing (might just need to go right to the source and cite the AP report) for this, and we might not want to put it in wikivoice unless there's more evidence it's well established. Doesn't seem likely that forced abortions aren't occurring (they're a well documented policy in China), but to what degree they are applied to Uighurs over the Han population and to what degree this is concretely proven seems a bit vague given the sourcing. Both attributed the claim that the policy is not also applied to Han populations to the AP report. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer at the AP source itself, there's also a pretty notable section devoted to forced internment being a punishment for unpaid fees accrued as punishment for violating family planning laws, a punishment that allegedly Han populations are dodging. I think this would be good information for the article since it'd be more evidence that the family planning laws are used unfairly against Uighurs to the benefit of ethnic Han groups. [18] Paragon Deku (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no obvious reason not to make either of these changes. WP:BRD says go ahead. BSMRD (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine, it's a simple statement that forced abortion is one of the policies that has been carried out (it doesn't make any indication of the extent, and the precise scale is uncertain) it's simply a list of all the things RS report China has been carrying out. The sourcing looks very strong. Press agencies such as AP are about as respected as news media gets, I'm happy to state it as fact if the AP does so. The sources we cite (BBC and Deutsche Welle) are both trustworthy and their treatment of the investigations as reputable further supports saying it in wikivoice. Also bear in mind there were originally more sources for that statement in the lead but I cut them down per WP:OVERCITE as they were unnecessary. What matters is that forced abortion is well sourced and detailed in the article itself, something which actually needs to improved. There are already sources in the article for it (as of now, refs 236, 243, 314, 331) but more can easily be added (not the least the actual AP article itself), and they should be grouped into the appropriate subsection, which needs to be expanded to detail in full what the sources say about forced abortion. Jr8825 • Talk 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The report by Amnesty International includes forced abortions [19]. Hence it should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Amnesty report has perhaps around 3 or 4 interviews - one at least of which is reporting a 'friend' - "I was terried when I found out that I would be sent to a facility, because my neighbour, who was in her 20s, was at a camp, and she and I had a drink and she shared her secrets. She said she was raped and forced to have an abortion...". The Amnesty report also quotes journalistic sources "Journalists have reported that ethnic minority women in Xinjiang are regularly forced to undergo insertions of intrauterine contraceptive devices, pregnancy checks, sterilizations, and abortions in an attempt to restrict their birth rates. Kuanish, a former detainee, told Amnesty how, a year or so before he was sent to a camp, his wife was forced to have an abortion". So the sourcing isn't exactly great IMO. However rather than argue claim-by-claim, I think it would be better to attribute ALL of the more contentious claims, rather than WP:VOICE them. Amnesty in some respects has a higher reputation than we do for fact checking!Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not our business to challenge secondary RS by conduction our own research. The RS here is the official report by the Amnesty, not just words by several witnesses. But it is important, there are also other publications saying the same.My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true if you accurately report what Amnesty ACTUALLY SAYS (it attributes some claims to specific witnesses and others to journalists, both of whom are highly credible, but relatively small in number) - it ceases to be true when you remove Amnesty's own attribution and substitute WP:VOICE. I'm arguing for a small degree of attribution on a cautionary principle - you are asserting than if Amnesty says "person X reported this" we should remove ALL attribution - either to the person or to Amnesty - and render the claim as fact in WP:VOICE and extrapolate a small number of reports into a widely occurring phenomenon. There is nothing more WP:OR than that IMO. Amnesty is a highly respected organisation - which does its best to report cautiously and accurately and attribute, but it acknowledges its own fallibility and the difficulties caused by poverty of access and information - we do them no favour by removing the cautionary element of their reporting. That's campaigning, not reporting. There are actually relatively few sources - which is why Amnesty uses much the same ones as we do - they are very credible, but they do not amount to anything resembling certainty AFAI can see. They themselves phrase things cautiously rather than with certainty. This is a rhetorical question, but what on earth makes editors here imagine that WP:VOICE has more authority than AMNESTY:VOICE, ie attribution of claims? Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, but giving the N-child policy in the country (with all its well known excesses), such claim is not anything special or even so significant. Besides, that was claimed in a number of sources, not just the Amnesty report. Hence the explicit attribution in the lead seems to be a little excessive to me. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As Aquillion has shown further up - many of the sources are cautious about their accusations and many attribute. What exactly do WP editors know that those sources don't? That China is not famous for human rights, and free media? That's why the accusations can be made at all, it isn't a reason for 'beefing up' accusations because WP editors are personally persuaded they are true or because they have a low opinion of China. As it happens, so am I and so do I, but I don't feel the need to pretend that levels of proof exist which simply don't or that sources show greater certainty than they actually do. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, if anything the fact that this policy is so common should lead us to question to what degree there is proof enough its application to Uyghur populations is done specifically to target a minority rather than an even handed policy on all Chinese populations. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: All the sources are clear that there's nothing even-handed about China's treatment of the Uyghurs. For example: The Economist: "Ferocious birth-control policies in Xinjiang are racially targeted". Jr8825 • Talk 08:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

In my defense, this is a relatively recent article that’s also paywalls, so I’ve missed it when trying to comb the literature. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku:, I'm not going to disagree with anything said by Jr8825, sources are very clear that only Muslim minorities (specifically and particularly Uyghurs) are being targetted by recent repressions. BUT it also seems to be part of a longer term 'switch' in which minorities - who were initially exempted from 'birth-rate-control' measures, then granted greater flexibility than Hans - are now very much the targets of the worst of such measures - whilst efforts to boost Han birth rates are being made at the same time. The background is covered here and a specific analysis here. This doesn't have much immediate bearing on our article, but is the obvious background to China's present actions. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think 1st one is an excellent scholarly ref. It provides brief history of the conflict and tells, among many other things:

Once inside the camps, women reportedly face forced IUD insertions, pregnancy prevention injections (thought to be the hormonal medication Depo-Provera), forced birth control pills, forced confessions regarding their birth control “crimes,” repeated kicks in the stomach, attendance at family planning “lectures,” and forced abortions (with some frightened women taking measures to induce their abortions by themselves). After being released and leaving China, some former internees conducted medical checks and claim that they are now sterile... In 2018, eighty percent of all IUD insertions in China were performed in Xinjiang despite the region accounting for just 1.8 percent of China’s population... According to its own budget documents, the Xinjiang government invested tens of millions of dollars into a birth control surgery programme from 2016 onwards, including the provision of community cash incentives for women to get sterilized. This has led to sterilization rates rising seven-fold in Xinjiang between 2016 and 2018, to more than 60,000 procedures...These changes have caused birth rates in the predominantly Uyghur regions of Khotän and Kashgar in southern Xinjiang to plummet by more than 60% from 2015 to 2018.

And so on, and so on. Is not it clearly directed to deliberately depopulate an "undesirable" ethnic group? Is not it something similar to the Nazi eugenics? My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is not it something similar to the Nazi eugenics? Not particularly, but that is neither here nor there IMO, since comparisons with the Third Reich are two a penny and rarely enlightening. What I take from the text, which I agree is an excellent summary, is the word "reportedly" which precedes and colours everything. Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to overturn moratorium on page moves

In the above discussions, particularly the RfC on the lead, numerous editors have voiced concerns about the article title. They have given multiple different rationales for why they object to it, many of which are valid and based on policy. I broadly share their concerns and think the moratorium on page move discussions is inappropriate given the strength of some of these arguments (particularly concerns that the current title may violate policies such as NPOV).

The continuous dissension and discussion over the current title is an indication there may be something wrong with it, even if a plurality of regular editors to the article support it. The fact that previous discussions have found consensuses for keeping the title "Uyghur Genocide" is also not an indication that this title is in line with policy or the common name. In particular, I disagree with the moratorium's ruling that another move cannot take place without "substantial new information [...] in reliable sources". While I'm sensitive to the danger of downplaying the scale of the atrocity, particularly as China is widely documented to be applying pressure to this end, I contend that the existing consensus in reliable sources currently goes against the title "Uyghur genocide" – it does not seem to be the preferred name for the repression of Uyghurs in the clear majority of sources.

I'm not going to draw out further arguments in detail here – there's no point until the moratorium is lifted. I'd be looking to open a new discussion on the title to solicit views on alternative options, rather than a RM straight away, although I'd ideally like to take a backseat role in this process as I'm very busy off-wiki right now. Jr8825 • Talk 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree, the moratorium is simply shutting down any opposition (which you have noted is readily visible and varied) to the page title for the rest of the year, for in my opinion shaky reasoning, especially as you once again noted, there is a very real possibility that the title violates wikipedia policy (I would say it violates WP:NPOV, but until a consensus is reached that simply remains my opinion). I am opposed to broad locks like this generally, but especially here it's clear that opposition to this isn't vandalous in nature or otherwise tendentious, any more than support for it is, so there is no reason it should be forbidden. BSMRD (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both editors above and, having just re-read the prior rename discussions, I have to say there is an awful lot of non-policy argumentation and WP:OR in the naming discussion about whether what is happening in China meets some definitions of genocide (it almost certainly does), and whether some scholars have called it genocide (indisputable - significant numbers have used the term, albeit qualified or tentatively asserted sometimes), BUT almost NO discussion about whether the WP:COMMONAME for this event is "Uyghur genocide", nor about how the reader will understand that name. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for overturning the moratorium; as the closer of that RFC noted, such moratoriums are generally unenforcable anyway. I don't think it was appropriate to begin with - a loose moratorium makes sense when there is an overwhelming and stable consensus such that there is no real possibility that an RFC could succeed. The history here plainly shows that that's not the case - the previous RFC was fairly close, and not so far in the past another RFC moved it in the other direction; the page was moved three times in 2020, after all. I don't think a close RFC can reasonably impose a moratorium with any weight behind it. That said there is still the problem of actually coming up with a title that can achieve consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree we should overturn the moratorium. Many have already pointed out that the moratorium could potentially be seen as WP:STONEWALL and many of the RfC’s on page moves include “votes” made from feelings or personal opinions rather than policy (especially considering we have had extensive breakdowns of sources used that show that “Uyghur genocide” is not the common name). Furthermore, I have already raised concerns of the potential for WP:CITOGENESIS wherein it could become the common name through nothing more than a self-fulfilled prophecy, especially if the page remains unchanged for an entire year (for those who doubt this keep in mind that when Google, Twitter, and YouTube sound the alarm about channels, users, and events being related to Chinese state media, they all link to Wikipedia articles, some with less editors than I can count on one hand). Paragon Deku (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The RFC also ran for a mere five days, had a non-neutral opening statement, and was closed while discussions were active, with a tiny percentage of participation from the main RFC. I don't believe it represents consensus. But as a practical matter it is probably simpler to just move forward with an RM and, if necessary, roll an "overturn the moratorium and, if it is overturned, hold an RM to select a different title to move this article to" into a single RFC. This would still require an RFC followed by an RM, but it would keep things moving along and would make the RM, if approved, more streamlined and unlikely to fail because the outcome of the first RFC would require that the RM omit the current title as an option. We should try to avoid getting caught up in red tape and focus on moving the process forward to 1. establish there's a consensus for a new name, and 2. get that consensus united behind a specific new name. An RFC to establish point 1 followed by an RM to decide point 2 both follows the text of the moratorium (the RM would occur only once an RFC has cleared it) and lets us defer the problem of finding a new name slightly by first establishing that the current name is inadequate. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that the moratorium should be overturned. I also concur with OhKayeSierra and Firefangledfeathers below on the idea that a specific title proposal should be workshopped, to ensure a maximum chance of a consensus for the proposed title. I consider RM's on a developing topic like this to be healthy rather than disruptive, all things considered. As Pincrete points out, such topics are unfortunately especially plagued with "non-policy argumentation and WP:OR", so I would like to see the closer of the next RM more carefully consider the weighting of policy-based arguments. — Goszei (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The moratorium on page moves was put into place in order to, in the absence of substantive changes in coverage, avoid repetitive discussions on the same topic. I don't think that we're seeing anything along the lines of a substantive shift in the coverage away from the current title, whether it be in scholarly literature or by reputable news organizations. As OhKayeSierra said in her proposal for the move moratorium, I don't think there's much to be gained from multiple RM's being churned out for the same topic in less than a year's time, and I'd oppose lifting the moratorium along these lines. If we keep going around in circles, then this is just going to be an enormous time sink on a question that has been affirmed and re-affirmed in well-attended RfCs that were closed within the past year. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Mikehawk10 on this. I'd be a lot more inclined to support lifting the moratorium if a name was workshopped here before making the proposal to move it. There's certainly nothing in the moratorium that would prevent such a discussion from taking place, and going into a moratorium discussion and (eventually) an RM with a local consensus already established for a potential article title would make the chances of actually getting the article moved much higher. I simply don't see why removing the moratorium to allow an RM to begin without a proposed title would actually help find a suitable title for the article. I also still have serious concerns about the amount of off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry that occurs within this subject area from POV-pushers, but that's probably a discussion that would be better off being had elsewhere. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: I think the moratorium actively undermines such discussions – what's the point of discussing alternatives for a name change when editors who support the current name can simply point to the fact that there's a moratorium preventing it from being changed? In my view, the right order of things is to lift the moratorium first. @Mikehawk10: I agree that the literature doesn't seem to be moving away from the genocide label, but I think this focus on new developments is a misnomer – my concern is that a cross-examination of sources as of today will not find that "Uyghur Genocide" is the preferred/common name, it would be something along the lines of "Repression of Uyghurs". I suspect the minority of sources that call it a genocide as a factual statement will continue to grow over time, possibly to the point that in the future it will be the common name – however, that is demonstrably not the case right now. As an encyclopedia, it's not our job to apply a definition to an event ourselves. While I personally share the conviction that what China is doing should be considered genocide, I don't think it's the appropriate title for this article for the various reasons that reliable sources choose not to use the label themselves. Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mikehawk10 and OhKayeSierra that an end to the moratorium should be preceded by some local consensus, or even near consensus, that a specific alternate title would be better. Editors who interfere with the naming discussion by citing the moratorium could be pointed here, and I would oppose any such efforts to interfere. If anything, the existence of the moratorium is an incentive for opponents of the current name to coalesce around a single alternate option. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone can come up with another name which has significant support we could consider it, the problem is that while there is a significant group that all agree that the current name is bad there is no agreement within that group as to what a better name would be. There are even seem to be some within that group who don’t think this page should exist at all and see whittling it down through name changes as a means to that end. Until that changes we’re just going to have more of the same, which is why a moratorium was put in place in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

While I wanted to focus this discussion solely on the moratorium (as I mention above, I think it could inhibit discussion), I understand if others disagree. My suggestion would be something similar to "Repression of Uyghurs". While "Uyghur Genocide" (no quotes) has a big numerical advantage in terms of Google hit results (4,220,000), the vast majority of those hits within reliable sources use phrasing such as "some have labelled" or "people are calling" or are news articles reporting the genocide "claim" – as other editors have pointed out time and time again, very few RS are willing to call it a genocide with any authority. Now, search for the exact term "Uyghur Genocide" (quotes), and there are only 190,000 hits – which is roughly comparable to "Repression of Uyghurs" (which has slightly more, at 197,000 results). There's a notable difference in the quality of hits between the two, hits for repression use that label directly in their own voice. Another obvious reason for the number of hits for genocide is that genocide is a sensational (and notable) claim that sticks, and it's obviously notable news if legislatures are passing motions calling it a genocide (it's important to remember the human rights experts/lawyers & investigative journalists are the subject matter experts here, not the politicians). Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea, especially if we use the more specific Political repression as just repression is ambiguous. I don’t think that solves all our longstanding issues though, it doesn’t solve the contention that the name makes a wikivoice statement when it should instead be “Alleged... “ which seems to be the primary issue people take with the current name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Beyond what you call the "alleged …" issue, which I personally would be flexible about, I believe we are using the word genocide in a fundamentally dishonest fashion. Despite most of the sources making clear that they are using the word in one of a number of fairly precise and specific ways (cultural genocide, or according to some clauses of the UN-convention definition), despite this, we are using the term as though the generally understood meaning (ethnic mass-murder) of the word applied - without doing anything to even correct the inevitable misapprehension. The nearest analogy I can make is referring to 'Rape', when you don't actually mean non-consensual sex, but you fail to say what you do mean. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's more than adequate consensus among expert sources that China is carrying out repression on a mass scale in Xinjiang – the uncertainty is over the precise numbers and methods because of the secretiveness. I don't think there'd be any need to say "alleged" repression (the view that there isn't repression is clearly fringe among neutral commentators, despite proclamations by China and its UN allies (diplomatic statements are primary sources and non-expert). Genocide, however, is more contentious because it's also about intent. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that sufficient experts agree that "China is carrying out repression on a mass scale in Xinjiang" - or at least that they believe very strongly that this is happening. "Alleged" (or some other qualifier) comes into play when you try to pin down exactly what is happening, to how many people and whether, to what extent and in which ways this constitutes genocide. I believe there are ways of phrasing which neither over-simplify nor avoid the position RS take. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825 and Horse Eye's Back: Are you each sure that your searching is correct? I'm getting "repression of uyghurs" as having ~53,800 results and "uyghur repression" at ~8,670 results, while "genocide of uyghurs" has 176,000 hits and "uyghur genocide" having ~552,000 hits. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not checked Jr8825’s numbers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, on a second check it does look like I might've mixed up the number with my search for "Repression of Uyghurs"... although peculiarly, even now I'm not getting the same numbers consistently with the same search terms. I've struck through my original number above, please take the others in that comment with a pinch of salt. My point about quality of usage for each term (vs. quantity) still stands, though. Jr8825 • Talk 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Google Trends search comparison, for anyone interested. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some JSTOR results: 'Uyghur genocide' (non-exact phrase) 229 results, "Uyghur genocide" (exact phrase) 5 results, 'Uyghur repression' (non-exact phrase) 627 results, "repression of Uyghurs" (exact phrase) 10 results, 'Xinjiang repression' (non-exact phrase) 2,172 results, "Xinjiang repression" (exact phrase) 2 results. What to take from the results? Among academic writing, there isn't really a common name at all, and "repression" is used at least twice as frequently as "genocide". Repression is discussed more frequently within the context of the region, Xinjiang, than it's related solely to the ethnic group, Uyghurs, although there are almost no exact results for the precise phrase "Xinjiang repression", so a suitable label for events (our article title) should almost certainly include Uyghur/Uyghurs. Jr8825 • Talk 09:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to understand that it's a conditional moratorium, not an absolute. If substantial new elements come to light, the moratorium can be swiftly lifted. The spirit of the moratorium is to avoid us rehashing the same, often heated, move conversations on the basis of similar information as the previous two move conversations. Any new move conversation (whatever the outcome) could be immediately contested with another move request. The moratorium is in place to prevent such a cycle. In any case, at this moment, no substantial new information has come to light versus the previous two conversations, so the moratorium should stay in place. Morgengave (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

No, ultimately WP:CCC. The moratorium depended on having an overwhelming consensus to avoid future discussions (such that there is no hope that they could succeed.) I'm not currently seeing that consensus here, so I don't think it applies anymore - it would be against policy to have an enforcable consensus allows people who who want to avoid a rename to say "we agreed not to change, and that can never change unless you satisfy conditions X, Y, or Z!" (Something that the closer implicitly acknowledged when noting that such a moratorium is not really enforceable.) If there's a clear consensus to change the article's name, it will (and must) be changed, regardless of any previous discussions, and regardless of any preconditions the people who would prefer not to change it believe ought to be required. Ultimately it discussing the moratorium is circular and a bit of a waste of time (if there's a consensus to change things, then it no longer holds), so unless the direction of these discussions change - which are clearly lopsided towards overturning it - I would advise anyone who wants to change it to consider it already overturned by this discussion and move on to the more serious problem of trying to decide what change to push for. --Aquillion (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. However, being the result of an RfC, the conditional moratorium is the result of a community consensus, not a local consensus (which would be the sort of consensus that could arise from a discussion like this one). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that the moratorium was "community consensus". Reading through the April RfC, very few editors mention a moratorium at all. It seems to mostly have been the closer agreeing with @OhKayeSierra:'s suggestion, and they couch said moratorium in extremely weak language. BSMRD (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6#Proposal: 1 year move moratorium on Uyghur genocide? Because I made a proposal that was more or less a parallel RfC to the RM request, formatting it to similar requests that I've seen on controversial topics, such as Kyiv or 2021 United States Capitol attack. My rationale for doing so was per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change). The RM proposer didn't provide a rationale that adequately expressed that there was a change of circumstances to warrant the RM, so I thought the moratorium would help the article achieve a semblance of stability. It was hardly me making a suggestion and the closer agreeing with it. There was sufficient community support for the moratorium to enact it, which I think is apparent. But I don't see how relitigating the proposal is actually helping. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The closer said, "Consensus for one-year moratorium unless substantial new information arises in reliable sources also exists." [Go Phightins! 12:19, 8 April 2021] Since then, Amnesty International has come out with a report that says their research "did not reveal that all the evidence of the crime of genocide had occurred."[20] (BBC 10 June 2021) That overrules the moratorium. You should have asked that it be worded that no new information could change the name. TFD (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That was already Amnesty International’s position, its neither new or substantial. Also you appear to be misrepresenting the source by pulling the quote short the whole bit from the BBC is "The author of the Amnesty report, Jonathan Loeb, said at press conference on Thursday that the organisation's research "did not reveal that all the evidence of the crime of genocide had occurred" but that it had so far "only scratched the surface””. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we would need an RFC on whether we can hold a second RFC? (Keep in mind that we can start that first RFC now, since there is no moratorium on whether to hold a review of the moratorium.) I think this is absurd - the closer made it unambiguous that the moratorium is not enforcable. But if you think that that formal RFC is necessary, I will start it immediately rather than waste time. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not reading the current discussion as being as lopsided as you seem to view it, and I think considering it overturned already is premature. This has been open for less than 48 hours and there are roughly equal numbers supporting ending or continuing the moratorium. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cant edit, just a small cohesion suggestion.

Change current paragraph 3 to be the new paragraph 2, and the current paragraph 2 to be the new paragraph 3. The current paragraph 3 provides reasons that its a genocide, Paragraph 2 states that for these reasons it is a genocide. Shouldn't the summary (of effects) come after stating the facts (causes)? I believe it flows much better that way. Paragraph 2 also leads into paragraph 4 well since it states that " [some]have said it is a genocide as it meets the legal definition laid out in the Genocide Convention.", which leads into paragraph 4 (discussing international reactions to the genocide) better than merely stating some of the Chinese policies. (paragraph 3 currently) These Chinese policies discussed in paragraph 3 are reasons why it is a genocide, hence, paragraph 2, which makes the statement that its a genocide, should come after the foundation paragraph 3 lays proving that it qualifies as one. TLDR: swap paragraph 2 and 3, it seems to flow quite a bit better. DrDrago1337 (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

For "Reactions by country" > "Asia" > "Turkey", this is rather substantive piece of news, via Reuters, which I have paraphrased:

On July 13, 2021, Prime Minister Erdogan told Chinese President Xi Jinping in a bilateral telephone call that it was important to Turkey that Uyghur Muslims live in peace as "equal citizens of China" but that Turkey respected the territorial integrity and sovereignty of China.

Also, the note mentioning "2009" should be "2019" earlier in this section. 60minfreshbreath (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contribution, @60minfreshbreath. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References