Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Can we say that the "international community" has "rejected" the allegations?

Creating this talk page due to a revert made by @MarkH21 to my addition of the last line of lead section, which summarized the reactions of nations at the UN. This was the sentence that was removed:

"However, the above allegations have been rejected by the international community at large. At the UN, over 50 nations have supported China's policies in Xinjiang, with only 23 opposed."

and replaced with this (after I also changed some grammar in it):

"The allegations have not received formal United Nations recognition, with over 50 member states supporting China's policies in Xinjiang, while 23 condemning them."

The first question seems to be whether the word "rejection" is appropriate (and note that this is just a summary of the detail provided in the UN section).

If you read the actual letters and statements, they are very strongly worded, even saying that human rights should not be "politicized": "We express our firm opposition to relevant countries’ practice of politicizing human rights issues, by naming and shaming, and publicly exerting pressures on other countries"

Here are both statements so you can read them in their entirety:
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/240/77/PDF/G1924077.pdf?OpenElement
http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/23328878/belarus-joint-statement-cerd-chair-oct-29.pdf

The second question is regarding the phrase "international community at large" in the summary. Does a ratio of 54 vs 23 (with the rest abstaining) justify that phrase?
The Wiki page of International community states that it is "a phrase used...to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world. It does not literally refer to all nations or states in the world. The term is typically used to imply the existence of a common point of view towards such matters as specific issues of human rights". Its literally like a majority vote.

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Such a statement would probably need to come from a description by a secondary source, rather than our editorial look at the number of countries signing each letter. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH. Plus:

1. The international community does not consist solely of the United Nations.
2. 53 member states is not a majority in the United Nations.
3. There was never vote in the United Nations about this.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 22:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with MarkH21's assessment on this. However, omitting any mention (as some others not in this thread may prefer to do) of a simple tally of "supportive vs. condemning" would be a disservice to WP:NPOV. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course we can debate on this for ages, but I'm more interested in reaching a consensus. The arguments you made apply to the phrase "international community". What about the word "rejected"? 09:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Honoredebalzac345 (talk)

Agree with MarkH21. If we are to state in the voice of Wiki that "the above allegations have been rejected by the international community at large" then we should have good sourcing stating as much, and not simply a source giving a head-count. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

24% Decline in Birth Rates in Lead

This figure has been widely reported in news: [1], [2], [3], etc. Linked to in NYT [4]. Debated in UK parliament [5]. I don't see any reason why it should not be included in the lead. It's well known that China fakes statistics so their response can't really "debunk" this number. In any case it's not the job of editors to decide but just add balanced content.Bogazicili (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's well known that China fakes statistics so their response can't really "debunk" this number WP:SOAPBOX-violating blockable nonsense that by itself merits ignoring of the entirety of the rest of the argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to decide widely reported numbers in media are fake or debunked. Add a counter argument if necessary.Bogazicili (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You were already asked to examine such counter-argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you not understand what I am saying? It's not my job or your to "examine" and decide something that has been reported by reliable sources should not be added into article. If there's any material that counters 24% decline in birth rates, add that sentence into the lead after the sentence that I want to add.Bogazicili (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Zenz's source report relies on an National Health Commission annual report on IUD placements and other PRC governmental statistics. Other editors have accepted that calculations in Zenz's late June report are flawed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The part you are arguing about is IUD's (Zenz's claim is 80% of all new IUD placements is in Xinjiang vs Chinese govt saying 8.7%). First of all, there are other ways to reduce birth rates than IUD's. Someone's random edit is not a counter to what I said about finding reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that says 24% decline in birth rates is not true, find it and add its content. For a balanced view we should add both (24% decline and why it might not be correct), unless most sources say 24% decline in birth rates is completely incorrect. As I said it's not your job to decide widely reported numbers have been debunked. Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the 8.7% IUD isn't merely the Chinese govt's claim, Zenz cited the document as the 38th footnote in the report I linked to above. It isn't our problem that Zenz has failed at arithmetic and media sources have uncritically lapped it up. I will look into the purported 24% decline, but it cannot be placed into the WP:LEDE as the article lede is meant to deliver a summary, not minute details. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Debate about personal examinations aside, the IUD mention wouldn't be due in the lead because that section is a very small part of the entire article. The lead summarizes the most important points of the article body per MOS:INTRO, with relative emphasis based on coverage in the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Response to MarkH21: Yeah that's fine, I also didn't add that into lead in my second edit. However, we should add 24% decline vs 4% national decline, since it shows the scale of the problem. Right now the lead is too vague and this is not a minute detail. Bogazicili (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request Typo

I requested the page to be moved as "Uyghur cultural genocide" as china is not mass murdering thousands of people...but in my reasoning, I put "...are killing tens of thousands of people" instead of "...aren't killing tens of thousands of people." will this affect the request?

Original request reasoning: "The name 'Uyghur Genocide' is misleading because they aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however, China is practicing cultural genocide as they are trying to exterminate the Uyghur culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Zhong (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Colin Zhong: You didn't request a move – you actually moved the page to Uyghur cultural genocide. The correct procedure to request a move is described here (using the {{requested move}} template).

The consensus at Talk:Uyghur genocide#Requested move 30 June 2020 was to move the article from Cultural genocide of Uyghurs to Uyghur genocide and that was fairly recent, so a substantial reason would need to be given for another move request. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :@MarkH:! ~C.Z

Cultural genocide?

Why don't the critics complain that Muslims committed cultural genocide of the current uyghur peoples, and many other peoples, because the muslims completely destroyed the cultures of the ancestors of the people and replaced them with islam, with nothing but islam allowed? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:5421:F1AC:398C:20A (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to be very related to improving this article. If you have suggestions for something to add to this article (or Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang which may be what you’re trying to refer to), you must base them in reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very related to improving the article. Culture and cultural traits are always shifting. The article accuses China of cultural genocide without reliable sources. I don't see mentioned anywhere else that the Vatican and the muslim religion and the USA have always engaged in cultural genocide? And the use of the phrases beginning "It is alleged that.." or "there are allegations that...", should these sentences be deleted for being unreliable? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A58B:7ECE:FDF9:353 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We already discuss the Uighur’s role in the Qing's Dzungar genocide on that page, we also discussion the other atrocities you mentioned on the appropriate wikipedia pages. I also see a whole ton of reliable sources here, what aren’t you seeing that you want to see? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently someone asked a question about the title of this article on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/Wikipedians-have-been-trying-to-formalize-the-article-name-Uyghur-genocide-What-is-your-opinion-on-this-matter Félix An (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting takes by the Quora community. As the RM closer from a few months back, this was without a doubt a difficult close, and while no consensus certainly could’ve been an option, I felt then, as I do now, that there was a marginal consensus in favor of moving the article to its current title of Uyghur genocide, given the arguments and sources provided during the RM. If editors still feel that it was in error, they are more than welcome to start an WP:RM on the matter. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

New information added under United States, from the section International Responses.

I am working with two other people to improve this Wikipedia article. I have included responses from US Senators regarding the Genocide. How they are requesting Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to issue a genocide determination.

This is the edit I made after the first paragraph:

US Senators Menendez and Cornyn lead a bipartisan group which is pushing to appoint the CCP's crimeful actions occurring in Xinjiang through a way of a Senate resolution. This would make the United States Senate as the first government to "officially recognize the situation as a genocide."[190] Senators Cornyn, Merkley, Cardin, and Rubio signed a letter to request Mike Pompeo-the Secretary of State- issuing a genocide determination. National Review reports that "U.S. government genocide determinations are an incredibly tricky thing. They require solid evidence to meet the criteria set out under the 1948 Genocide Convention." When determinations are issued there isn't much change or an effect that they will bring in the short run. Although, "there's a strong, well-documented case for a determination in this case."[190]

--LiaLearner (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with LiaLearner. This is important new information that needs to be reflected in the lead, preferably in some form in the first sentence. The House of Commons of Canada also issued a statement that endorsed the use of the designation. The European Parliament is currently having a similar discussion. Editors of this entry should keep an eye out for this type of new information. Normchou ^💬 21:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) 21:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

First sentence rewrite

@Vallee01: None of the three cited sources in the first part of this new first sentence (reverted by CaradhrasAiguo) are RSes directly supporting what the first half of the sentence says. One is a list of tagged articles, one doesn’t mention the word "genocide" at all, and one is a blog.

Placing such a definition needs reliable sources that directly support it. By the way, Bitter Winter from CESNUR is unreliable at WP:RSP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up that the Cato Institute link is in fact a blog. At this hour I may have missed it from the url alone otherwise, but, regardless, the Cato link's Neo-Malthusianism claim seems WP:FRINGE even for this inflammatory political topic / situation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: The cited references in your latest attempt here still do not directly support that The Uhygur genocide refers to the forced deportation, incarceration, forced sterilization and mass surveillance enacted by China against the Uyghur population. The first three do not even mention the word "genocide", while the latter two give the general definition of "genocide" and do not use the term "Uyghur genocide".

Per WP:CHALLENGE, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (later emphasis mine). This is the basic Wikipedia policy for verifiability. Furthermore, you need to engage in the talk page here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that says ___ was part of the Uyghur genocide, the Uyghur genocide is ___, or something similar, then that would be a reference directly supporting the contribution. Looking at similar articles, the first sentence of the Armenian Genocide article gives citations to an article that directly says the deaths of nearly 1.5 million Armenians who died in what would later be known by many [...] as the Armenian Genocide. Other articles like Assyrian genocide and 1971 Bangladesh genocide do the same. Larger articles like The Holocaust move the citations and discussion to its "Definition" section. Either way, it has to be directly supported by a citation in the lead or article body.

Such reliable sources would also be useful in the "Labeling as an ethnocide, cultural genocide, or genocide" section, which is currently quite sparse. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC); copyedited 22:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun adding some more material and references to the Uyghur genocide#Definition about sources calling this a genocide, with more details to come about its components. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue should have been resolved by now given the newly available reliable source below. Normchou ^💬 20:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate is only reliable for the views of that institution, not for statements of fact, especially from an institution that has abetted numerous wars of aggression and other war crimes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Will add a qualifier to reflect this. Normchou ^💬 20:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo, take it easy with the politics here; what you say applies to almost every government entity in the world. Normchou, no--or really, NO. Even with proper ascription this is still undue for the lead. An organization would have to be more neutral to warrant such placement in an article. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sensible advice, Drmies. Will leave the first sentence unchanged, but will reflect the new information (government officials are now using this designation) at the end of the lead. Normchou ^💬 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of institutions, the International Criminal Court declined to inquire further into the case raised by the "East Turkistan Government in Exile". And the ICC rulings from 2018 and 2019 on the Rohingya render the PRC not being signatory to the Rome Statute irrelevant, since, in the complaint, there have been allegations of deportation from Tajikistan and Cambodia back to Xinjiang. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Per WP:FORBESCON the article above should be considered "generally unreliable", but if there are other reliable sources to support this view, feel free to add it to the discussion or the article. Rather than arguing in a WP:WL style and mixing too many personal politics, it would be more helpful to use common sense and as Drmies have said, take it easy. Normchou ^💬 21:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A reference to the House of Commons of Canada re the designation. Normchou ^💬 21:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Source to be added? Forced labour and cotton in Xinjiang

There is another BBC article like the 2018 exposé, this time focusing on forced labour and cotton and textile production in Xinjiang. Whether anyone wants to add that as a source or not is up to them, I'll admit to not knowing quite how to phrase an addition about that. But here is the link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/nz0g306v8c/china-tainted-cotton Navvvrisk (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Even from what I have read from Adrian Zenz's report itself, as well as his own tweeting, the standard Zenz uses to determine what constitutes "forced labor" is not rigorous. There does not seem to be much grounds to not contravene WP:NOTNEWS. Pinging @MarkH21: on this matter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why should articles from BBC used for this topic? BBC is clearly anti-China and would say ANYTHING to defame China. Using such sources would only make this page even less objective. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Something else

I just removed a *source* which cited Marsha Blackburn's own website, not sure who added it but surely we can do that better than that? Also now that I think about it, if we strictly go by WP:RS, then there's a considerable amount of sources on this article that fall under WP:RSOPINION and WP:QUESTIONABLE.155.254.28.142 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the website of Senator Marsha Blackburn's office, which is part of the U.S. government, not her personal or campaign site. Also, the passage about China's birth rates has been replaced by more relevant materials and sources. By the way, the above IP is an open proxy subject to global blocks per WM:NOP.Normchou ^💬 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

UN statements

1. Could somebody please provide a full list of signatories to the two U.N. statements made in October 2019 (with citations)? These can be added in to complete the current Note 3 and Note 4 (please arrange alphabetically).
2. Is there not an official UN source of such statements? I was surprised that the CNN report said that they hadn't seen the full list of signatories. Wikipedia might encourage a variety of primary and secondary sources to be used, but it would seem apt to additionally include links to the original statements, if they're available.
—DIV (1.152.110.85 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC))

Seeking affirmation to revert recent change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have reverted this removal of content by PailSimon once [6]. I believe other editors have as well. There is not currently a 1RR restriction, but due to the nature of this page, I am seeking affirmation on the talk page that there is a consensus to revert it again and that this does not constitute edit warring.

No objection if another user wishes to revert it.  // Timothy :: talk  19:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I support reversion of PailSimon's edit. The edit removes well-sourced content and does not improve the article lead. The specific edit is different than other edits that had been previously removed, which had been removed on sourcing grounds. I do not believe that making an edit that adds reliable sources to justify its inclusion of the lead can be accurately described as having been discussed "ad nauseum". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. See innumerable previous talk discussions.PailSimon (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I also support reversion of PailSimon's edit. Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The new proposed first sentence is a bit different than the most recent one (discussed at Talk:Uyghur genocide#Revising Lede involving Mikehawk10, PailSimon, Drmies, Nbauman, and Bacon Man), with different references. Some of the cited references do not define the term "Uyghur genocide" (e.g. The Independent article just says All of this amounts to genocide as laid out by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, said Rushan Abbas, founder and executive director of the Washington-based Campaign for Uyghurs.). I havne't reviewed all of the cited references yet though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large portions of this article should be changed or entirely removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article contains allegations of fact as if it were a verifiably true statement to say there is genocide being committed against Uyghurs. Not a single of the existing allegations against China are supported by verifiable proof or even any kind of credible evidence. The best supporting evidence are unsubstantiated verbal claims by alleged victims or their family members, anti-communist conspiracy theorists like Adrian Zenz, and US state-funded organizations such as the World Uyghur Congress which are just repeating each other's allegations without ever presenting any kind of conclusive of verifiable proof. The complete removal of all offending content violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:FORUM should be a conscious and community effort. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide specifics as to which content you believe to be in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and/or WP:FORUM? In other words, what specific content is improperly included, and which sources are you challenging? From what I can tell, we've done a generally good job at providing reliable sources when adding content to the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources claiming something to be fact doesn't make something a fact. Finding a lot of sources saying the same thing, doesn't make their claims any more credible. Some of the claims made are plainly false and not even claimed as such by the sources provided (e.g. "Birth rates have continued to decrease in Xinjiang, falling nearly 24% in 2019 compared to 4.2% nationwide.") Every single allegation of fact related to wrongdoing on behalf of the Chinese government in that article, such as the principal claim that a "genocide" is being committed in China, is not supported by proof. Non of the citations provided in the article that I have seen provide evidence. Have you seen any sources in that article that presented actual proof of genocide? The ICC already said there is insufficient evidence to even open an investigation, so if you have found any actual proof, you should contact the ICC. These claims of genocide are made primarily by US-funded organizations such as the World Uyghur Congress or disgraced anti-communist conspiracy theorists such as Adrian Zenz. There is no balance in that article, either, as it makes very little to no mention of the views. It's not only important to remove all allegations of fact, but also include the opposing side. I will start making some edits now. You are invited to open a discussion about them here after I made my first edit and we can take the conversation from there.AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies regarding what we should include in articles, some of which which can be found at the reliable sources guideline page and the verifiability policy page. There also exists a list of perennial sources about which Wikipedians have achieved a consensus regarding their reliability. I'd recommend that you check it out as you proceed to make edits to the content of the article. The list isn't exhaustive (there are reliable sources that exist and are not on the list), but it is a good place to start. Also, please keep in mind the discussion that I have referenced in my response to you on my talk page, so that we don't experience a duplication of a content dispute that has been very recently resolved.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, please be aware that we've had discussions before as to whether the title of "Uyghur genocide" is appropriate, which can be found at this archive. The consensus among RS may have changed since then, as new reporting has come out, so please keep that in mind. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's simple: I'm here to promote the facts by adding context and information and sources, as well as fight disinformation by removing content that isn't based in verifiable fact. The allegations against China might very well be true but nobody - I repeat, NOBODY - has presented any verifiable proof supporting the allegations against China. Non of the sources in the article - regardless how many you can find - provided any proof, they just repeat the same allegations by the same primary sources. Other sources disagree. Therefore, any accusation of "genocide" against China is an ALLEGATION. Claiming these things to be factual and writing about them as if they were actually true violates WP:V and a neutral point of view must be maintained.

As for reliable sources: Although I fundamentally disagree with the list of what is and isn't reliable (according to the predominantly white, liberal/pro-capitalist, anti-socialist English language Wikipedia community from Five Eyes countries), it's straight-up impossible for me to include any "unreliable" sources as there is a filter in place. I agree that looking at the discussion that you linked to on your talk page is valuable and recommend taking another look and then reviewing the article. I agree that there should be strong concerns over POV editing and misleading language, but we might disagree what POV editing is the problem. I hope this entire article can be improved over time and a constructive conversation between disagreeing parties can be had to ensure this article stays as neutral, factual and objective as possible. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Note: AmericanPropagandaHunter was blocked indefinitely by El C per WP:NOTHERE at 02:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference formatting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's purely a cosmetic issue, but do you think this (current) style with an arguably superfluous external pair of quotation marks is appropriate?

""'Cultural genocide' for repressed minority of Uighurs" - The Times 17 December 2019". Archived from the original on 25 April 2020. Retrieved 27 April 2020.

I prefer formatting like

"'Cultural genocide' for repressed minority of Uighurs" - The Times, 17 December 2019. Archived from the original on 25 April 2020. Retrieved 27 April 2020.

—DIV (220.244.42.206 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

220.244.42.206 Go ahead, be bold. Des Vallee (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, with many other reference fixes. I'm sure you can find more that can be tweaked for consistency. GoingBatty (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions by India

The content under Reactions by country/region - India discusses a statement given by one leader of Kashmir which in no way gives any idea about India's policy toward the issue. I suggest that this section be removed. Indianite (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Removed. Indianite (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be better for you to add to that section instead.VR _talk 21:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Official designation by the U.S. government

I think it should be reflected in the lead section. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-declares-chinas-treatment-of-uighur-muslims-to-be-genocide-11611081555 Normchou ^💬 19:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Name of the article and bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name of the article should be changed as there's no consensus that it's a genocide. The article also relies heavily on western sources and needs to include Chinese viewpoints as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaan4210 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 February 2021

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was "Discussion above tends to do not move". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2021

Uyghur genocide → Persecution of Uyghurs – WP:CRYSTALBALL; see Talk:Persecution of Christians by ISIL#Requested move 25 December 2017. 71.178.45.238 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Current title has consensus in RM discussions (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Mikehawk10, Chipmunkdavis, Mx. Granger, Rasnaboy, TucanHolmes, My very best wishes, LokiTheLiar, Unknown Temptation, and Sarrotrkux: It is time we sorted out from the long discussions hereinabove, a list of possible new names for this article, and came to a consensus about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: We already did this less than a year ago and came to a clear consensus for the current name. See Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 2#Requested move 30 June 2020. Its already sorted out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Current title has consensus and meets WP:AT and WP:PRECISE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

• Uyghur boycott 20Sept2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon, POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The allegations contained in this section were reported at WP:ANI. In the resulting discussion, PailSimon was given a siteban after a community consensus was reached on the matter.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

@Ymblanter, Materialscientist, Horse Eye's Back, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, Mikehawk10, Czello, Oranjelo100, My very best wishes, TucanHolmes, and PailSimon:

Hello, I have concerns about the POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content by user PailSimon. They seem very determined to insert their POV into the article. I think this might rise to the level of ANI, because the POV editing extends to other articles as well. Before going there I wanted to get some opinions here.

Examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

I pinged those that seemed most involved in this plus the two admins who protected the article. Ping others as desired.  // Timothy :: talk  11:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to cast aspersions then you have to back them up and explain how they're pov issues as opposed to just content disputes. Simply link bombing people is not productive or helpful. PailSimon (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

He provided examples for the edits which suggest a POV. That's backing things up. Besides, TimothyBlue is not only talking about "POV issues", but also about "misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content", which are even more concerning and, as these edits imply, happened. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I did say "as opposed to just content disputes". The links show a content dispute based on policy, not pov issues. I would certainly be interested in hearing what "misleading edit summaries" I have made.PailSimon (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As requested, examples of Misleading or False edit summaries: [27], [28], [29], [30].  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain what's misleading here.PailSimon (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm... The edits presented here do suggest a POV, although I wouldn't classify all of them as such. The removal of the "Communist genocides" category is legit, since it's a rehash of a deleted one and has been, once again, deleted. Some of these edits are harmless/minor (removing The Sun as a source for this article is fine by me, since it's not exactly a bastion of truth and credibility), but they do reveal a slant. The removal of broad, sourced paragraphs/information from sections for formal reasons (e.g. this edit) instead of just moving them to a more appropriate place is questionable, as is the removal of sources for dubious reason (see this edit; for context, this edit removed two sources, none of which are actually deprecated, nor were the claims truly over-referenced). TucanHolmes (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "The removal of broad, sourced paragraphs/information from sections for formal reasons (e.g. this edit) instead of just moving them to a more appropriate place is questionable" - That's exactly what I did in a follow up edit. TimothyBlue is being quite misleading here.
2. "this edit removed two sources, none of which are actually deprecated, nor were the claims truly over-referenced". I made a mistake there and mistakenly assumed it was The Sun being used as a source. Its a matter of interpretation whether the sources were over-referenced and hardly tantamount to pov issues.PailSimon (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Point-by-point response:

1. Fair enough.
2. I agree, it's not tantamount to POV issues, and that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm a bit iffy about misleading edit summaries in general, because they are often used to hide bad-faith edits (not implying that your edits were in bad faith). As long as they are just mistakes and there's no pattern, I won't attribute them to malice. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• TucanHolmes, This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [31]. When followed up with [32], it really alerted me to a problem. Since then I've been keeping an eye on this. I agree its not one edit, its the whole story.  // Timothy :: talk  12:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem with the second edit exactly in a way that violates npov? It seems like you just don't like my edits and are trying to weaponize pov accusations by misconstruing legitimate content disputes to achieve your ends.PailSimon (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this behaviour constitutes POV-pushing. One of this user's first edits in September 2020 was to shorten the heading, "Persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang" to just "‎Ugyhers" on the basis that the original heading was "very wordy" (at China–Ireland relations, can't link due to revdel). These kinds of misleading (disingenuous) edit summaries are common among low-key political agenda editors. It allows them to mischaracterise discussions around their POV editing as "content disputes", as PailSimon is doing above.

Actually I have noticed this user making similar low-level POV edits in numerous other China-related topic areas as well, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). Not to mention arguing constantly that Taiwan should not be called a country ([42], [43], [44]). Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove the claim that these content disputes are pov-motivated, simply blindly asserting without evidence that they are is not very convincing. As for the string of edit links you have provided, I am not quite sure how you think linking to me reverting copyright violations (No.57), clear factual inaccuracies like the idea that China has a communist economy as opposed to a capitalist one (No.52), ridiculous levels of editorialising that fly in the face of encyclopedic tone (No.53) and BLP violations (No.59) is helping your case. The fact that you see these as problematic speaks to your own issues.PailSimon (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the evidence lies in the fact that the hundreds of "content disputes" you have instigated over the past half year invariably seem to revolve around you nudging the narrative in a direction that is more charitable toward the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds? That is quite a laughable number. "Invariably seem to revolve around you nudging the narrative in a direction that is more charitable toward the Chinese government" is just an uninformed accusation not represented by my edit history. If deleting copyvios, BLP violations and editorialising is "nudging the narrative in a direction that is more charitable toward the Chinese government" then I plead guilty.

In fact one could say the same about you, you're obviously a Hong Kong localist which is reflected in your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, just a bit of perspective is needed here.PailSimon (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks, both of you. Please remain civil. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have provided evidence to support my concerns. @PailSimon: please review WP:ASPERSIONS and try to stay on topic. Consider that a warning against making personal attacks. My most significant contributions this month have included Michael Leung, Tsuen Wan Public Library, and Railways Department (Hong Kong). So much for the "single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible". Citobun (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're allowed to accuse me of bias then I am allowed to point out your double standards.PailSimon (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again: you are not allowed to make baseless personal attacks. Please stay on topic and respond to the concerns outlined above, rather than simply attacking everyone else. You have now cast aspersions baselessly against two others ([45], [46]). Keep it up and I will seek administrator intervention. You have been warned multiple times now. Stop trying to derail the discussion. Citobun (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already responded to it and there's no difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing. PailSimon (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference: They are providing examples for their accusations, you aren't. Accusing somebody of being "a Hong Kong localist which is reflected in your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible" is in no way equal to an accusation of "nudging the narrative in a direction that is more charitable toward the Chinese government". TucanHolmes (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be handled at WP:ANI, rather than on this talk page, due to the nature of the allegations involved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Concurred. PailSimon's edits raise legitimate concerns over POV and edit summaries. These concerns are best addressed at ANI. Jancarcu (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, by “nature of the allegations”, I mean that because this is an allegation aimed towards a particular user’s alleged repeated violations of disruptive editing and POV policies, rather than over a specific piece of content, it should be addressed at the notice board (or at least the user talk page). I won’t comment on this page regarding the veracity of the allegations because of that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, at this point administrative action seems to be needed to stop the disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs and descriptions might be helpful for examining a broader pattern.
  @TimothyBlue: It may not have been intentional, but besides the two admins and PailSimon, you have only pinged editors here who have disagreed with PailSimon on this talk page or have been reverted by PailSimon (as opposed to the broader group of active editors here). Not that this thread is not in good-faith, but just noting that it can give the appearance of piling-on by editors who specifically disagree with PailSimon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC); revised 04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see now that this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PailSimon, so attention should be directed there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi MarkH21, I pinged to see if there was support for me if I took this to ANI, I assumed those that agreed with PS would not support going to ANI and would understand it was going to ANI if there was support. I did ping PailSimon and stated others should be pinged if their input might be useful, so they certainly could have pinged any involved editor to support them. My hope was that going to ANI would ultimately not be needed.  // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Understood, and thanks for the explanation! I think that makes sense, but (at least for the future) it can be helpful to gather the thoughts of a broader group of editors. It's clear that many editors have personal biases on contentious topics, e.g. this one, and sometimes the explanation of one perspective or one set of edits from another editor can go a long way. If a thread only contains several editors are making accusations against one editor, it can raise tensions and prevent all of the involved editors from finding a meaningful resolution. Plus, not every editor is on "one side" or the other (nor should we present any opportunity for disputes to be misunderstood in a WP:BATTLEGROUND way). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• No judgements about the above except only one: the page should start from defining the subject, i.e. "Uyghur genocide is ...". My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The entire article is pushing a certain POV and must be reworded in neutral language. There is no evidence of genocide in China, as such there should be no language used to imply that these allegations are fact. There seems to be a lot of vandalism going on by users try to soapbox anti-Chinese views. Exhausted-Sinologist (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming of Uyghurs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. After reading through the article, I'm noticing that we have been using "Uyghurs" and "Uighurs" in different places within its text. Absent objection, I can go through and change the spelling of the ethnic group to that which contains a "y", except when cited in direct quotes. Is there consensus to go forward with this way of unifying the style of the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sort of. Which spelling is preferred/recommended? I believe we should stick to that. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The dominant spelling across the cited sources appears to be "Uyghur", though its adoption in American English is not universal. The Wall Street Journal uses "Uighur", for example. The Wikipedia page about the ethnic group itself uses the spelling of Uyghur, but lists alternative spellings in the lede. Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, given that most sources and the World Uyghur Congress prefer/use the "Uyghur" spelling, we should prefer it, too. So yeah, go for it. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The UN's definition of genocide and medical experiments

@PailSimon: why do you want these sections removed? Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that it meets the UN definition of genocide falls short of WP:VERIFY and also I don't object to medical experimentation sections per se just that you're reporting them as fact when they are as of yet proven (the sources threat them as allegations).PailSimon (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit says, "China's treatment of Uyghurs meets the UN's definition of genocide." In fact that is someone's opinion and should not be presented as fact. The source incidentally appears to be incorrect. It cites a "report" in Foreign Affairs (FA}. In fact the report by Adrian Zenz was published by the Jamestown Foundation, and he wrote an article about it for FA. the Jamestown report is already cited in this article. Zenz actually said China was guilty of one of the five criteria for the definition of genocide, suppression of birth. Women in camps are forcibly provided with IUDs and in some cases sterilized, according to what some of them have reported. TFD (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD and Pail Simon, the claim would need to be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I restored the section on medical experiments as there doesn't actually seem to be an objection to that section here but I took it out of wiki voice and made it clear where the claims are coming from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Horse Eye's Back and Horse Eye's Back: could you attribute it? Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we already cover it under the Classification and Canada subsections. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uyghur genocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I intend to review this GAN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10: I'm sorry, but I think this is going to have to be a quick fail per WP:GAFAIL because the article is "a long way from meeting" GA criterion 5, stability. This article was nominated less than two weeks ago. Since then, there have been more than 100 edits, an AfD, an RM, a (still-pending) RfC, and several long and contentious talk-page discussions. Therefore, there clearly are substantial content disputes, and that's enough to fail criterion 5. In addition, the article covers a rapidly changing current event in which new news and information is coming to light on a near-daily basis. If I were to pass this article, I could have no confidence that it would still be GA-worthy a week later, much less after months or years. None of this is meant to minimize the yeoman's work that is clearly going into this article. To the contrary, it's good to see content disputes here: Contentious articles like this one are made better by difficult conversations. But the GA criteria simply do not allow me to sign off on such a volatile article as this one. When things cool down, you can renominate it, but I would strongly advise waiting a few months or even years. Until then, I wish you the best of luck in your work on this topic. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a quick fail is necessary. It fails on stability (article still constantly changing), neutrality (even the title of article is in dispute), and image use (again currently in dispute). Hzh (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant definitions of genocide are linguistic and legal. The linguistic deifntion can easily be determined by looking it up in a dicitonary. The legal definition is more complex. It seems fair to refer to the elgal deifntion referred to by the UN, which in turn is based on the Genocide Convention, in full the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The primary dictionary definition requires deliberate killing, effectively massacres of a nation. What is happening to the Uighurs does not meet that standard. The legal deifntion is as follows:

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: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Chinese state is arguably doing some of the five crimes set out above. But it is not doing so with the intent to destroy the whole group. Or at least, if it is, no-one has demontsrated it.

Same story multiple times

Because with a lot of the reports, multiple news outlets will pick up on the same story, some accounts will have multiple different sources, but they are referring to the same story. This is fine when the reference are all made with the same claim, but sometimes the same story will be referred to a second time in the same section. It can give the impression that they are two different accounts. Here is an example (under organized mass rape):

"Tursunay Ziawudun, a woman who was detained in the internment camps for a period of nine months, told the BBC that women were removed from their cells "every night" to be raped by Chinese men, and that she was subjected to three separate instances of gang rape while detained.[144] In an earlier interview, Ziawudun reported that while she "wasn’t beaten or abused" while in the camps, she was instead subjected to long interrogations, forced to watch propaganda, had her hair cut, was under constant surveillance, and kept in cold conditions with poor food, leading to her developing anemia."

Then later in another paragraph: "In February 2021 the BBC released an extensive report which alleged that systematic sexual abuse was taking place within the camps.[148] The gang rapes and sexual torture were alleged to be part of a systemic rape culture which included both policemen and those from outside the camps who pay for time with the prettiest girls.[143] CNN reported in February 2021 about a worker and several former female inmates which survived the camps; they provided details about murder, torture and rape in the camps, which they described as routinely occurring.[149]"

The BBC and CNN references here are referring to the same story as the first part. Is there guidance about how to deal with this? I don't want to delete anything, but I just want to know how to better integrate the same stories together. Thank you! Dhawk790 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Training Center / Camp Graduate Interviews

CGTN has been releasing testimony from people who were supposed to have been in the centers. I understand that CGTN is deppreciated, but I think it may be resonable to include links to these interviews with caveats about the source. I believe this would be in line with, for example citing Aung San Suu Kyi's comments about the situation with Rohingya. See link to an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS4slWZQJxs&t=1s

Dhawk790 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CGTN is an unreliable source for general facts but it can serve as a primary source for details on what Chinese state media is saying, by extension of WP:ABOUTSELF, if reliable sources cover CGTN's coverage sufficiently to provide it with notability. Jancarcu (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Is there a precedent for referencing directly with caveats? Dhawk790 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If they were merely unreliable you could, the problem is they they are WP:deprecated. The about self potential is also limited as this page is not about CGTN. Also I believe that Jancarcu said notability when they meant due weight (WP:DUEWEIGHT), notability isn't a concept we apply to sources on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I see. One potential solution may be to have a section about the Chinese governments position. For example, the the article about attrocities during the East Pakistan War has a--94.14.111.85 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC) section for the Pakistani viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#Views_in_Pakistan . Dhawk790 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We could do that, but it still wouldn't allow us to use CGTN directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if it is considered self-referential? Dhawk790 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It *could* pass WP:ABOUTSELF the problem is that without a WP:RS we don’t have WP:DUEWEIGHT to justify inclusion here. Also this is one of the topics where we have confirmation of CGTN’s active participation in disinformation efforts, they simply lie too much about this topic to be usable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. I will look into creating a Chinese view sections without depreciated sources. If there is anything I feel might meet the dueweight criteria, I will bring it up for discussion. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is generally the outlet we use for the official Chinese view point. Its unreliable and should always be used with caution+attributed but its not depreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No consensus on genocide

In my reading of the Comments page, it seems to me that there is no consensus on whether Uyghur "genocide" actually exists. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going to disagree with this. It is clear there is an on-going issue in Xinjiang. The combination of the developing cult of personality surrounding the current chairman and the reluctance for state-owned companies to comply to the rule of law within other countries tends to push me to believe it is probably a genocide. There are definitely Euro-American sources that have an on-going conflict of interest with regards to reporting the information. Al-Jazeera has reported extensively on the issue, and it does clarify that most of the statements about this event stem from the US government, but it also often reports on information stemming from sources outside of the US government. See the following interview with previous detainees for example. The detainees should be taken at their word until it is possible to obtain more details on the situation. Chrisagrant (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to me to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.PailSimon (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A summary of the situation based on the sources I've seen presented is not something I currently would currently feel comfortable presenting in the article. I disagree that there is no consensus though. There are several examples of reliable sources claiming cultural genocide, including the AP and BBC. The Al-Jazeera example is an interview with the victims that points directly to cruel treatment based on their ethnicity or culture. I haven't seen any disagreement from edited sources outside of Chinese state-owned publishing houses. If you have any sources that suggest otherwise, please feel free to share. I definitely have an open mind on this. Chrisagrant (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well Amnesty International has not designated it as such and as the article itself says "The ICC also ruled in a separate assessment that transfers of Uyghurs to China from Cambodia and Tajikistan, both ICC members, did not constitute the crime against humanity of deportation". There are also a lot of other sources/governments who have declined to call it genocide such as the British Government.PailSimon (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that.PailSimon (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. There is no consensus among Wikipedia editors here on whether Uyghur "genocide" actually exists. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that there has been a fairly strong consensus on the current naming of the page for a while, and that the current page name is the result of a long and protracted discussion. I don't believe that much has changed factually since that time, aside from additional reports detailing human rights abuses and U.S. governmental statements saying that genocide has been committed. When I initially created the page, I had used the term "ethnocide" when I created the page, so I understand where you are coming from, but I believe the current page naming matches consensus. Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not call it a genocide, because there's zero evidence of mass killings in order to constitute a "genocide" a term that has been so loosely thrown around for political purposes. This article should not be called "genocide". Stonksboi (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Stonksboi: We go from what the reliable sources in the article say, and the sources conclude that this is a genocide. Furthermore, mass killings in the vain of the Holocaust are not necessary for something to be classed a genocide. — Czello 12:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of reliable independent sources conclude that this is a genocide.  // Timothy :: talk  12:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There are various definitions of genocide. The dictionary definition, and therefore the one most people are familiar with, involves actual killing. The UN Convention has a slightly involved definition which distorts the original meaning and includes not just mass killing but rape, sterilization, abortion etc with the intent to wipe out an ethnic group. Lastly, there is "cultural genocide," which is not yet a recognised concept in international law. No-one is suggesting mass killings are taking place in Xinjiang., so the first definition doesn't apply. Rape, sterilizations and forced abortions do take place in Xinjiang, but there isn't clear evidence that this is intended to wipe out the Uighur population. Other crimes in China, such as forced labour and internment, are not part of the concept of genocide.

Therefore it seems reasonable to assert that the "genocide" label is contentious at best. A conservative approach would be to point this out in the introduction, to rename the article "Alleged Genocide" or "Crimes against humanity" and to add a detailed section on the argyuments for and against calling this genocide. --Bacon Man (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What matters isn't the consensus of Wikipedia editors' personal views on the topic itself. What matters is what the reliable sources say. So since many reliable sources call it a genocide, Wikipedia should too, subject to the constraints of WP:LABEL and WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Jancarcu (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology of genocide is really questionable in this case. If you refer to the genocide section, there are relatively few places that have used the terminology. The US state department has even backed off. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ . Is there a formal mechanism for starting a conversation to name changes. I think "Alleged" is a good idea, but I know a lot of people will disagree. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede

I think this section of the lede should be revised: "while many activists, independent NGOs, human rights experts, government officials, and the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile have called it a genocide."

1. I understand that it does not need to cite sources, but if it does, it should be consistent with the text of the sentence.

2. If it is referring to the "Classification: Genocide or crimes against humanity" the phrasing of independent NGOs is misleading as the only one referred to is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The NGOs generally believed to be the most respected with respect to human rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have not used the terminology of genocide. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

“Many” does seem redundant, and to be overstating the case a bit. I think overall your point is a good one, changing the end to “genocide or crimes against humanity” would more accurately reflect the information in the body. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I like both of these options. I think "genocide or crimes against humanity" rather than having them separate is more accurate. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China

Recently, even the US State Department lawyers have admitted there's lack of sufficient evidence to prove "genocide" took place in China (Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) Can someone please update the lead section with up to date information cited from Foreign Policy. Stonksboi (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead currently says, "The United States was the first country to declare the human rights abuses a genocide, announcing its determination on January 19, 2021." I had originally added this as "The United States is the only country to have declared the human rights abuses a genocide, a decision made January 19, 2021, by then President Donald Trump despite reservations by the U.S. State Department."[47] It's ironic that editors who say they want the world to know the truth about Xinjiang would try to conceal information. I suggest that the best path forward is to just report what reliable sources say. If the article is clearly biased and omits inconvenient information, then it will lack credibility. TFD (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that should be noted in some way. I also feel strongly that the title should be re-considered. If you read the section of those who have called it a genocide, it is fairly thin. Mostly US officials, which is particularly problematic given the recent reports of the State Department reconsidering this classification. Dhawk790 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

While this determination by the US State Department's lawyers does deserve some due weight, it must placed into its proper context. A legal determination that the currently available evidence on China's actions is insufficient to meet certain technical legal thresholds for a specific definition of genocide is not an exoneration and should not be presented as such. As the quote from Todd Buchwald in the Foreign Policy source states, the State Department is dealing with a particular definition of genocide that excludes cultural genocide and demands high standards of proof—standards that are hard to meet when an authoritarian government like China is trying to cover things up. Presenting it as an exoneration would be a misrepresentation of the relevant sources. Jancarcu (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RS widely considered this a genocide as of August 2020, when the previous move discussion took place. As buidhe stated in the move discussion that gave the page its current title, these sources included for instance [48][49][50][51] German sources:[52][53]". We're also seeing an increase in parliaments recognizing this as a Genocide, with the Dutch doing so today. I don't see a compelling reason to change the tile, as RS reporting has not wavered on the basic facts since we made the determination to move the page here in August.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How are we defining RS here? There certainly are RS's that refer to it as a genocide, but there are many more that to do not. I think the sources that do that are cited in the article are far fewer than those that do not and use other language. From my perspective there does not seem to be a consensus and that is why I would argue The two leading human rights agencies (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) have not made such a declaration for instance. I think this would be in keeping with a generally conservative attitude for claims like this. For example, you can find a lot of reliable sources that refer to ethnic cleaning in Palestine, but Wikipedia does not refer to the situation as such. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Birth rate

Comparative reductions in the birth rate are meaningless unless one knows what the birth rate was before. Internet sources report that the Uighar birth rate has in fact only fallen to normal Chinese levels of 10 per 100,000 having previously been 15 per 100,000. The main text should make this clear. 78.150.38.110 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide us with examples of these sources so we can verify them and (if they're reliable) include them in the article. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There are many. Just Google it. But try this: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212073.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In which a case perhaps the original AP report reffed in the mainpage should be the source: https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

The graph there shows that as recently as 2015 Uighar birthrates were up to double the average Chinese birthrate. It follows that a 50% reduction would only result in a 'normal' Chinese birthrate being reached. I don't want to make any moral judgment about that - just to point out that the present wording is misleading since it implies a greater reduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Section on definition of genocide

I suggest the article include a section on the definitions of genocide and where the repression of Uighurs fits into that. --Bacon Man (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to insert the definition of genocide citing dictionaries and the Genocide Convention, but it has been removed on the grounds that it is a "controversial edit". I don't see how inserting the definition is controversial. I wished to insert the dictionary definitions from the Collins dictionary, from Miriam Webster and from the Cambridge dictionary. We should then include the full quote of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. If this is deemed "controversial" then negative inferences can be drawn about the integrity of the whole article, as it suggests we are commenting on a "genocide" without a clear and transparent discussion of what that is. The amount of discussion on this talk page suggests clear that there is no consensus. --Bacon Man (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a strong consensus against the POV you are attempting to insert into the article. At least eight experienced editors have very recently strongly objected to your POV being inserted into the article.  // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: I removed it because it's clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And, as I said in my edit summary, a PoV edit. — Czello 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: It’s clearly original research/synthesis that would incorporate a particular POV into wikivoice without backing from reliable sources. Czello has correctly pointed this out as not being permitted in articles per Wikipedia policies (namely WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources use any of those definitions to argue for or against the use of the word genocide? Vpab15 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: The section you seek to add does not appear to have been created with WP:DUEWEIGHT in mind. I was also thrown at first by your username and your signature not resembling each other, it makes it hard to understand whats connected to what. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is content fork and should not be here. That's why we have a separate page about genocide(s) in general. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)