Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Info Box Information Accuracy?

Victims

Currently, the box says "est. >1 million detained". Is this the current number under detention or cumulative total? And what happened to the previously detained? Have they been exterminated? Since we are calling it genocide, is it safe to presume they have been all killed? If not, can we clarify that in the info box? Because its very much open to speculation as opposed to being informative. And where exactly is the source for this? (see info box on Holocaust wiki page)

Deaths

How come there is no information on death toll? there are about 12.8M Uighurs in China. How many have been exterminated? 1 million? The words "mass death" appeared a few times in the main article. Surely, we must have a head count or an estimate of death toll right? If you look at other currently occurring genocides covered by Wikipedia, like Bosnia, Rohingya and Yazidis, we always provide death toll. Why do we have no deaths here? Uighurs (12.8M) by far outnumber the population of Bosniacs (3M), Rohingya (1.5M) and Yazidis (1.5M) combined. surely, the death toll must be in the millions.

If you read the article and also the sources, they called this a "cultural genocide", whatever that might may, and not a physical genocide. Thus there are no deaths. 86.147.5.56 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Refugees

Why are we not disclosing the number of refugees? The current Rohingya genocide only killed 25k ppl and the remaining 700,000+ fled the country. Why did other countries not report their Uighur refugees? Surely, there must be millions of them by now. Are they collaborating with China to kill the Uighurs? If so, we should disclose their collaborators too. Or why isn't the 12.8M Uighurs fleeing? Are they all dead?

Again there are no genuine refugees as they left using their passports. Do you really think that if China is such an authoritarian country as the americans or australians try to make out, people can actually escape? The uyghurs generally go to turkey first, as that is the land of their ancestry, much the same as Jews claiming the Holy Land as where they are from. 86.147.5.56 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Target

Do we have reliable information that Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, and other Turkic Muslims are systematically targeted? The article claims that these other groups are also targeted because they are all Muslims? So should the article be "Genocide of Muslims in China"? Or is it a particular sector of Islam?

Attack Type - Killing and Infanticide

Is there RS for these? Its not explained in the article itself. How are they killed? Gassed? Gunned down? Hanged? Same with infanticide. Article did not explain. It merely asserts bad stuff happened without saying what is the bad stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim for infanticide is related to forced abortions under the one child policy (which it should be noted is done to the Han Chinese population and is against Chinese law as well, which hardly makes it genocidal in implenetation and if occuring is the result of overreaching social workers) . The claim of infantacide is a POV exaggeration of an unfortunate policy that happens across the entire Chinese collectivist culture regardless of race or religion. Deku link (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

a person casually reading the article would not be able to come to the understanding you just described. this is a genocide article, so it is automatically implied by the tone that PRC must be killing all the new borns so that Uighurs become extinct. its not a genocide unless their very existence as a group is in jeopardy. as one of the commenters asserted above - this is not just a cultural genocide, it is a "full blown genocide". so we need to describe how Uighurs are being eliminated from existence. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and as much as the convention on genocide is brought up, many editors here are ignoring that the largest thing that must be proved is "intent." There are many claims made in the article that cited sources only say are accusations, the sources do not confirm them themselves. There's POV issues all over this article, however, and this has been discussed ad naseaum in some cases. Deku link (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The claim for infanticide is not a recasting of the allegations regarding forced abortions under the one-child policy (that would certainly be a POV issue). Rather, the sources for reported infanticide that I had provided above seem to be pretty plainly describing allegations of killing newborn children against the will of parents, which is a notable difference from killings of (more often than not female) children that occurred under the one-child policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is a blatant propaganda outlet directly funded by the state department (its article even says so in a heavily sourced intro, catholic news agency is not a reliable source, the fox news source is not making any new claims and defaulting to other sources, and the New Indian Express uses Asian News International as a content feed, which has been found to fabricate information and is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deku link (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've stated before on this talk page, and I'll state again here, there is currently community consensus that Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source and that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. While we certainly should attribute it, it ain't a "blatant propaganda outlet".

Secondly, Catholic News Agency is a reliable source with a good reputation for fact-checking and accurate reporting; I cannot find evidence that it is sloppy with facts and it certainly doesn't pull punches when it runs stories that make the Catholic Church and affiliated entities look bad (1 2 3 4 5); it appears to be reasonably independent from censorship concerns. It's certainly Catholic, but I don't think that we hold a religious affiliation to disqualify reliability (as both Deseret News and Christian Science Monitor are WP:GREL at WP:RSP).

Third, I think it's gotten a bit more NGO recognition beyond the five sources I provided above. I think it's noteworthy enough to include, provided specific details are properly attributed.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You left out an important part of the WP:RSP entry about Radio Free Asia: In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. You quoted the sentences immediately preceding and following this cautionary statement, but left out this statement.

One of the reasons why this cautionary statement was included was because in the discussion about RFA at WP:RSN, it was shown that RFA has engaged in disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan over the past year. Compare RFA's wild speculation about 40,000+ ([1]) or even 150,000 deaths ([2]) in Wuhan / Hubei province with the scientific estimate of fewer than 5,000 excess pneumonia deaths ([3]). RFA has repeatedly pushed poorly sourced conspiracy theories about the CoVID-19 death toll in China - theories which have turned out to be false. That's one of the reasons why it is only to be used with caution in geopolitically charged areas.

Just as a comparison, the CoVID-19 death toll was far more accurately reported by Xinhua ([4]). The number reported by Xinhua is fairly close to what scientific estimates ended up finding (only about 15% off). RFA's speculations, by contrast, ranged from about 10 to 30 times the scientific figure. RFA's claims in such a geopolitically charged issue as US government allegations of genocide by China have to be attributed, and we should be careful not to give them too much overall weight in the article. We should consider removing any controversial claim that relies heavily on RFA, unless there is some very good argument for keeping it in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"it was shown that RFA has engaged in disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan over the past year” Really? Do you have a WP:RS which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My above comment links to RFA articles that engage in completely wild speculation about the death toll in Wuhan and Hubei province, placing it at 40,000 or even 150,000. Those are insane estimates, which are 10 to 30 times the scientific estimate. RFA sourced these crazy figures from social media speculation and random non-experts that it claims to have interviewed, such as "an [sic] Wuhan resident surnamed Zhang" (no qualification given). A number of good scientific studies about the extent of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Wuhan and the death toll have now been published in scientific journals, yet RFA keeps on publishing wild, unsupported speculation. If that's not disinformation, I don't know what is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: You brought this up in the very same RfC that achieved a ommunity consensus that Radio Free Asia is generally reliable. As was stated in that discussion, the urns story has also been discussed by multiple generally reliable outlets. In addition to the Bloomberg News and Time Magazine sources discussed in the RfC, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. Rather than WP:ORing your way into declaring the urns story to be disinformation based upon your own personal extrapolations, I think that the vast majority of reliable sources treat the urns story as credible. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC result specifically called the reliability of RFA into question in "geopolitically charged" topic areas, suggesting in-line attribution of its claims. This was partly based on RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I discussed in the RfC. As for the sources you list above, the first Washington Post article is really terrible, as it engages is some of the same wild, poorly grounded speculation that has since been debunked by scientific studies (which have found fewer than 5000 excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan, and a matching low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of only a few percent). The second Washington Post article doesn't appear to say anything about the death toll in Wuhan or China. The FT article is not nearly as bad, as it does not list the wild numbers that RFA came up with - it just notes that there has been social media speculation. This is an area in which WP:SYSTEMICBIAS may come into play. However, these articles are largely sparked by the original claims by RFA, and RFA has since published even crazier numbers - recently suggesting 150,000 deaths in Hubei province, as I noted above. In these geopolitically charged areas, we should be very cautious with RFA, attributing its claims in-line and avoiding placing too much weight on them. Otherwise, we risk putting dubious, poorly grounded claims - such as those it has pushed about the CoVID-19 death toll in China - into Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way does there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use call the reliability into question? It seems to imply quite the opposite, in my reading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The part of the RfC close that you're conveniently omitting calls its reliability into question: In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. RFA's disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in China is one of the factors that caused this cautionary note to be put into the RfC result. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What you think is disinformation is not relevant to this discussion. Either provide a WP:RS which supports these assertions or strike them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not concerned that RFA has pushed death tolls that are 10 to 30 times larger than the scientifically established figure? I'm not arguing for putting anything in an article in Wikivoice. I'm saying that we should be cautious about making controversial statements about China in Wikivoice, based on a source that we know has pushed disinformation about CoVID-19 in China over the past year. Not treating such a source with caution would be extremely reckless. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether I’m concerned or not is irrelevant. Either provide a WP:RS which supports these assertions or strike them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about the reliability of sources and specifically misinformation pushed by those sources don’t require direct citation to reliable sources on a talk page. Outside of articles contributors are allowed to put two and two together to figure out ways in which a source could be unreliable or biased. If a medium article claimed that the moon has a secret Rabbit Colony at its core, you wouldn’t need to cite a reliable source to point out how that’s inaccurate. Deku link (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You can’t call it misinformation or disinformation unless a WP:RS does. An editor can’t raise concerns about reliability unsupported by WP:RS, it always has to be supported. Also just FYI we can’t use Medium for anything beyond limited about self, its generally unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

you absolutely CAN call it misinformation in talk pages and discussions of the reliability of sources without citing WP:RS. WP:RS applies to information included in articles and not discussions about the weight applied to sources and a level of scrutiny given to them. If we had to cite WP:RS for every single claim rather than point out the obvious (ie RFA blatantly inflating COVID death rates), we’d be gridlocked from calling a spade a spade on talk pages. There is a consistent behavior to biblethump on WP:RS where it’s not needed. Deku link (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It actually is relevant, because we're deciding how much weight to give to this source and how to present its claims. You're misusing WP:RS. I've provided actual scientific studies of mortality and seroprevalence in Wuhan, which show that fewer than 5000 people died in the city of CoVID-19. RFA recently speculated that 30 times that number - 150,000 people - may have died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. WP:RS does not say that editors cannot compare different sources on a talk page and realize that one of them is making wild claims that are contradicted by scientific studies. I don't need to show a reliable source that says that 150,000 is way more than 5,000 before saying on the talk page that these two numbers are completely inconsistent. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond to a few more portions the top-level comment here, there are sources throughout the article that describe the oppression as being targeted at "Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims" quite a bit. Some sources enumerate these to include Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs as well. If you're arguing that there must surely be millions of Uyghur refugees by now, I don't think that takes into account how hard it is to get out of China and how expansive the Chinese surveillance state is, though in any case it's certainly WP:OR for us to speculate on that in the text of the article without reliable sourcing. (The talk page here isn't a forum, so I don't feel the need to expand upon that much more.) Additionally, the sources listed Xinjiang internment camps page might provide us more guidance if we would like to update the number detained (the page has a few estimates separately listed, which is generally good practice when there are multiple estimates floating at the same time). Regarding deaths and abuses writ large, one source to read would be a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Genocide Research describes what is going on as comprising political re-education involving coercive Sinicization, deaths in the camps through malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, withheld medical care, and violence (beatings); rape of male and female prisoners; and, since the end of 2018, transfers of the most recalcitrant prisoners – usually young, religious males – to high-security prisons in Xinjiang or inner China. Other camp "graduates" have been sent into securitized forced labour. Those who remain outside the camps have been terrified into religious and cultural self-censorship through the threat of internment (emphasis added). No matter how someone wants to spin it, beating people to death is indeed a way of killing them. The source, however, does not provide an estimate for the size/scope of killings writ large, so we would require another source as an estimator. I believe the lack of its inclusion there is because there really isn't a consensus estimator out there, as far as I can tell. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While I can understand a good estimate of death toll is hard to come by, but a genocide is more than just killing a few random ppl or a few prisoners getting beaten to death or raped in camp (ie. Abu Ghraib). The words mass death did appear in the article itself. But no details or explanation is provided. Mass killing, if deliberately targeted, is the definition of genocide, but the article does not clearly claim that China is intentionally targeting Uighurs for mass killing. Thus, either a) we remove any claims or rumors of mass killing or b) we clearly state the accusation of mass killing (or mass death) and provide extensive detail from the source. Mass killing is an extremely serious accusation, we should not just leave it as "There have been multiple reports that mass deaths have occurred inside the camps." as it currently is stated in the article. Mass deaths need to be speficially highlighted to give its due weight on the issue. Most casual reader will attribute mass death or mass killing as the very definition of genocide. Currently, this leaves the issue incredibly misleading. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Mass killing, if deliberately targeted, is the definition of genocide” no it isn’t, as our sources clearly explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

A deliberate, organized attempt to physically destroy an ethnic, religious or national group is, however, what is meant by "genocide". The IP is correct that random killings or abuse do not constitute genocide. And IP is correct that mass killing is almost always what is meant by "genocide". The underlying issue here is that this article was originally written about alleged human rights abuses generally, but was later renamed "Uyghur genocide". As most of the material in the article is unrelated - or at best tangentially related - to the accusation of "genocide", readers are likely to be confused. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think thats true... The alleged human rights abuses generally are covered at Human Rights in China, Xinjiang, Xinjiang conflict, Xinjiang internment camps, etc. This page is for a specific set of abuses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking back through the early history of the article, I see that it was originally about "ethnocide", which was defined as cultural destruction (i.e., not genocide). The article has since been loaded up with all sorts of accusations, both related to the original focus of the article (on allegations of cultural destruction and Sinicization) and related to the new focus of the article (on allegations of genocide), as well as accusations unrelated to either ethnocide or genocide. The article is a mess. Even the first sentence is extremely confusing: The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China. So is the "Uyghur genocide" a genocide, or is it just more generally a "series of human rights abuses"? You've been arguing that the first sentence is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide. So the "Uyghur genocide" is not a genocide? Or it's an allegation that there's a genocide? What is this article about? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles evolve as the issues they cover do, thats just natural. Whether or not its a genocide Uyghur genocide is the common name, this article is about the the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China and that remains true regardless of what the title is. If there wasn’t a scholarly consensus to call it a genocide (or its subcategory ethnic genocide) then we wouldn't do so. If you have sources which say the scholarly consensus is to call it something else I imagine you would have shared them during your crusade to get the name changed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus to call it a "genocide". The allegation of "genocide" is extremely controversial and contested in this case. In the move discussion, you'll recall, it was repeatedly demonstrated that reliable sources refer to "genocide" as an unproven allegation made by specific parties (e.g., the US government, an obscure DC think tank). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated multiple times on this page thus far, multiple reliable sources (including those listed as WP:RSP perennially reliable) have described the situation as a genocide without qualification. A short (non-exhaustive) list of some of these sources include:

• News.com.au, which reports that The Chinese Embassy in Canberra has aired a bizarre nine-minute propaganda film riddled with misinformation in an attempt to downplay the acts of genocide being committed against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang.
• Australia's ABC News refers to a discussion on human rights abuses in Xinjiang as discussion on the issue of Uyghur genocide in China.
• Axios (RSP Entry) has affitmatively referred to the abuses as cultural and demographic genocide or simply demographic genocide(1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9, etc.), and has assigned responsibility to the Chinese government in its straight news reporting. More recently, Axios has begun to refer to the situation simply as China's Uyghur genocide.
• The New Yorker (RSP Entry) notes in an investigative reporting piece that "In 1944, as Lemkin, a Jew, witnessed the horrors of Nazism, it occurred to him that the vocabulary of modern law was missing a word, so he coined one: "genocide." Over the years, the term has taken on a specific legal definition, but Lemkin had a broad understanding of it. "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings," he noted. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups." Such a plan is unfolding now in Xinjiang. As in the cases that inspired Lemkin, it is happening under a shield of state sovereignty."
• Vox (RSP entry) also goes into this in-depth with a well-written data journalism piece that affirms conclusions regarding the ongoing genocide.

With regards to China's widespread and blanket denials and tactics to defend itself, additional reliable sources seem to treat them as utter rubbish that includes disinformation A short (non-exhaustive) list includes:

• Global News reports that China‘s ambassador to Canada says reports of genocide and forced labour of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province are the "lie of the century," despite international bodies like the United Nations deeming the reports of such activities "numerous and credible."
• The Globe and Mail reports that China has repeatedly described Adrian Zenz's findings as "lies" even in cases where it has confirmed that his findings are truthful.
• National Public Radio has reported that The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union have all leveled sanctions on China due to their treatment of Uyghurs, which includes detention camps, forced labor, sterilizations and abortions, which a 2020 State Department report has called genocide. China denies the allegations, despite personal testimonies, extensive reporting and, indeed, satellite footage of Uyghur detention camps in China.
• The New York Times (RSP entry) reports that Chinese officials and state media outlets have pushed the government’s narrative about its policies in Xinjiang in part by spreading alternative narratives — including disinformation — on American social networks like Twitter and Facebook

I don't think that there is much more to say here; multiple reliable sources report about the genocide not only as an "allegation" or "accusation", but as a genocide. Framing it as mere accusations is not appropriate for this article. And, given reporting on China's denials, it's likely that mentioning the denials prominently in the lead without comment on the veracity thereof would constitute undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this over and over again. MarkH21 has shown again and again that the vast majority of sources describe "genocide" as an allegation. Even most of your above sources avoid putting the accusation into their own voice. The few sources that you're able to scrounge up that do put this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim into their own voice are generally either opinion pieces, or incidental text like video captions. To go through your sources one-by-one:

• News.com.au: This is a video caption, not even a news article. If this is the type of source you're using to back up the truly exceptional claim of "genocide", you're digging pretty deep.
• Australia's ABC News: Nowhere does this source say that there is a genocide. It says that the guests discussed the "issue of Uyghur genocide", because that's what the guests discussed. ABC is not claiming, in its own voice, that that characterization is correct. Throughout the article, it repeatedly attributes that characterization to Vicky Xu.
• Axios: This is the only website here that's actually calling this a "genocide" in its own voice. We can't make such an extreme claim, that nearly all news agencies describe as an allegation, based on the writings of one reporter for a relatively minor news website.
• The New Yorker: This is not a news article. This is an opinion piece in the Magazine (as opposed to the separate News) section of the New Yorker. It's written in a highly personal, narrative style, and the author acknowledges that the view they're expressing of what constitutes genocide is more "broad" than the actual legal definition.
• Vox: This article consistently attributes the allegation of genocide to the specific people making the allegation. This might also be a good time to remind people that titles are not reliable sources.
• Global News: This source does not claim that there is a genocide. It describes and attributes the accusation.

I could go on, but it gets tiring debunking your false claims about sources. If there were a consensus among news sources that there is a genocide, you would have no trouble finding numerous news articles that unambiguously stated things like, "China is carrying out a genocide against the Uyghur people." Instead, you're citing opinion pieces, news articles that describe "genocide" as an allegation, video captions, etc. You're trying to put an extraordinary claim in Wikivoice - a claim that is enormously grave and impactful. You had better have rock-solid sourcing for a claim as serious as "genocide". You don't, and repeatedly trying to put this claim in Wikivoice is just WP:POVPUSHING. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to ignore the peer-reviewed journal and law review articles in your analysis then feel free to go ahead, but I don't think that such an analysis would be sufficient or leave you on solid grounds to accuse me of POVPUSHING. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead Restructuring

Leaving aside the first sentence issues, the lead is bad. Either the first paragraph needs a rewrite, or the second and third do. The second and third paragraphs refer to critics of "the policy" but the first paragraph makes no mention of what "the policy" is, it simply asserts that ethnic cleansing and internment is happening without providing a reason. Either the first paragraph needs to be rewritten to provide a neutral explanation of what the Chinese government says it is doing, which is what the second and third paragraphs imply a response to, or the second and third paragraphs need to be rewritten to account for what the first paragraph actually says. I understand this is an issue many have strong feelings about, and that the first sentence is currently under RfC, so I'm making a post here to get some feedback before rewriting the lead unilaterally. BSMRD (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The "policy" in the second paragraph appears to be an attempt to be parallel to the "has pursued policies" part in the first paragraph, though the plurality doesn't match. I think changing the second paragraph's word from "policy" to "policies" would alleviate this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Change: " in order to show that the women where of bad character which in the Authority's view would invalidate their testimonies." to " in order to show that the women were of bad character which in the Authority's view would invalidate their testimonies." Lagbhag (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. BSMRD (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Motive

Regarding this edit[5], motive is a reason for doing something, not the consequence of it. Please understand that. It has been reverted by @Buidhe once and I believe their reasoning[6] is sound. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If we have motive in infobox of Holocaust, why can't we have it here? Of course these events are very different, but there is no questions that the motive was Sinicization based on content of the page and as summarized in the lead (here is an example of scholarly source that say it directly, here is another, one can easily find a lot more). here is a review article. Also note that the motive was in the box for quite some time, and one needs consensus to remove. If you think that sources say it was another motive, then what it was, exactly? And if the sources do not provide other motives, then it means there no any actual debate what the motive was, but a consensus of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have already explained, in the Holocaust motive, the answer is clear and is actually a motive. A reason for doing something. Sinicization is a consequence of this "genocide", not the motive. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Desire for a particular result can be a motive. When sinicization is listed as a motive, the plain meaning is that the actors are motivated by a desire for sinicization. Is that desire not clear from the sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. Same with other countries, e.g. Russification. That was the purpose, and it was achieved. Now, this additional scholarly source tells explicitly that the motive was Islamophobia. Yes, that can be included as an additional motive with ref. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need this in the info-box. I couldn't find anything about motive in the article and without sources we can't put anything in the info-box. TFD (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, actually, many sources say it:

1. According to last RS (just above, Abstract), "The total internment which is currently being carried out has two main motives: Islamophobia and the crucial geo-strategical position of the Uyghur homeland."
2. According to this, "The Chinese policy, which we call Sinicization (or more appropriately Hanification) has led to serious persecution, repression, discrimination and loss of the cultural heritage of the indigenous Muslims". They are taking about current policies by China in Xinjiang. So, Sinicization here is clearly the cause and intent.
3. This tells about "the ongoing effort of the Chinese state to ‘Sinicize’ – that is, instill with Chinese norms and practices – the Uyghur population in order to more easily control the region and exploit its resources". So, the goal/purpose is to "instill with Chinese norms and practices – the Uyghur population in order to more easily control the region and exploit its resources".
4. This tells China’s policies toward Uyghurs should also be put in the context of the CCP’s oft-repeated goal of achieving “national unification”—one of the three pillars of what Chinese President Xi Jinping calls the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” China analysts have typically understood “national unification” as referring to the territorial control of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and other disputed territories. So, according to the source, that's why A Chinese government document stated, “break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins.” “National unification” is just another word for sinicization.

Of course this can be worded differently, but in short this is sinicization, islamophobia, and a desire to establish a firm political control over the territory by the CCP by means of political repression and sinicization, according to these sources. So, the third motive for the campaign is supression of political dissent. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The question "why they are doing this?" is of course important and should be reflected much better on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reportedly Torture?

Why is this page locked? Why does the Torture subsection in the Human rights abuses section say "reportedly" when the sources give the their own voice to the allegation. There are plenty more sources verifying this allegation. Please add https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/uyghur-xinjiang-tribunal-police-torture/ and https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1005263835/new-report-details-firsthand-accounts-of-torture-from-uyghur-muslims-in-china. Robotokat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Revising Lead

I propose that we insert the following sentence as a lede:

The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

References

I believe that this is accurate, direct, and in line with WP:Lede (notably MOS:OPEN), though this insertion has been twice reverted by other editors. I am looking to see if there is consensus surrounding this change, and how we should proceed moving forward. Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above and I don't really see any point in rehashing recent discussions.PailSimon (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The lede addressed above was in terms of getting proper sources for the lede that currently exists and debating whether or not to use the term “genocide”. I am proposing a new lede that I believe is more direct than the current one. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Right your lede uses the term genocide which is relevant to all the discussions above.PailSimon (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This was discussed in the section First sentence rewrite above (particlarly the comments in December 2020), where using the reference you give (the introduction of a resolution by US senators) to write such a first sentence was pointed out by Drmies as insufficient. This doesn't preclude giving a direct definition of "Uyghur genocide" if it can be cited to other sources (e.g. published academic journal articles or books). — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is NO WAY (sorry to be so emphatic) in which we can accept a judgment by a US Senate committee as somehow unbiased and authoritative enough to allow us to state their conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. They shouldn't even be cited unless ascribed. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @PailSimon: I had found 10 non-government sources for the revised lede, and used them when I updated it. If the issue at hand was the U.S. government being the source used to justify the prior lede, why has it been taken down when I inserted 10 independent sources instead? Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In considering whether the testimony before a U.S. congressional committee is reliable, remember the Nayirah testimony. I think congressional testimony is a primary source, and therefore WP:OR. And one of the requirements of a WP:RS is that they do fact-checking. If the New York Times ran the Nayirah story verbatim from a congressional committee without fact-checking, I think that would still not be a WP:RS. Al Jazeera is reliable for some purposes, but I wouldn't accept their unverified claims about atrocities against Muslims. And I've seen some unverified accusations against the Chinese on ABC News (Australia). I would take Human Rights Watch seriously -- when they do serious fact-checking. But I'd have to read their source documents. --Nbauman (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • Since the only people calling it a genocide are those who have understood neither the legal definition of genocide nor the dictionary definition, I don't understand why the title of the article uses the word genocide. Testimony of victims can go to proving that crimes against humanity happened, but without evidence that the intention of those crimes was to wipe out the Uighur race, the definition of genocide is not made out. To argue otherwise is just extremism.

--Bacon Man (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: See this discussion among others.PailSimon (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see this section (I did not see it before). So what? The suggestion by Mikehawk10 is very much reasonable. I do not think this phrase is an assertion of anything made in WP voice. This is just a definition of this page subject, which is something different (i.e. how reliable sources define this subject; when I see "Uyghur genocide" in a newspaper, what the authors mean?). As far as we have such subject/page, we must have the definition. This is not really based on views by US Congress or whatever. I would check more, but I do not see clear links to previous discussions. One should realize that the situation with coverage of the Uyghur genocide in sources has changed significantly after previous discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you, and the lead has now been re-added as there are clearly 5+ editors who are now in favour. — Czello 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Add agreement.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that this is not a Wikivoice statement. The first sentence of the lede comes across as an unequivocal statement that there is an ongoing genocide in Xinjiang. The title of this article is already bad enough. Above, PailSimon wrote that, The title is less then ideal however the lead of the article makes it clear that these are accusations. The new lede does not make clear that these are accusations - it states, in Wikivoice, that there is a genocide. We obviously have POV problem here. Both the title and the lede should make clear that there are accusations of genocide. The lede should explicitly state who is making those accusations, and should reflect the contested nature of these accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not state in wikivoice that there is a genocide it says "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks to me like a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide, and I'm sure that that's how many (probably most) readers will interpret it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But we don’t and they won’t... Its explicitly *not* "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The title absolutely will make them view it as such. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is titled "Uyghur genocide," and it begins with, The Uyghur genocide is .... It's simply not credible to claim that people will not read this as a Wikivoice statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats because Uyghur genocide is the WP:COMMONNAME, if you want to change the page’s name we can discuss that but please don’t fib about what we currently say in wikivoice, which is "ongoing series of human rights abuses” not genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're being reasonable here. A reader who comes to a page titled, "Uyghur genocide," which begins, "The Uyghur genocide is ..." is very likely to interpret that as a definitive statement by Wikipedia that there is an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs. You can claim that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for issues of human rights in Xinjiang (which I find doubtful - "genocide" is just one of the several charges described in the article, and it's a highly contentious and heavily disputed charge at that), but you can't seriously dispute that readers are very likely to interpret the title and opening line as a statement that there is an ongoing genocide. Given your above statements, I take it that you agree with me that this article should not depict the claims of genocide as established fact. If that's the case, then would you support changes to the lede to make it clear that "genocide" is a claim (and to make it clear that the claim is not being stated in Wikivoice), and to attribute that claim? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Again it seems like you want to change the name. The reader will interpret that there is an ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China which is called the Uyghur genocide. Which is exactly what we intend to convey and is established fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't see how a statement that begins with "The Uyghur genocide is" could be reasonably interpreted to mean that there's a genocide against the Uyghurs? Even if you think it can be interpreted otherwise, do you agree with me that that sentence can very reasonably be read to mean that there is a genocide? Finally, do you agree that the lede should not present the claim that there is a genocide as a fact? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable interpretation, which is different from saying something in wikivoice. Again it seems like your issue is with the name of the page and you’re just obfuscating because we already have consensus on that point and consensus went against you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Since, as you admit, a reasonable person reading the lede might well interpret it as a definitive statement that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs, we should alter the lede to make it clear that we are not making a definitive statement. It would be unreasonable to insist on a wording that could be reasonably interpreted as a definitive statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead in question is fine and is in line with established consensus that has been recently reaffirmed. In a recent ANI thread, TimothyBlue and Czello both correctly noted that a consensus had been achieved regarding the first sentence in the lead, with Timothy specifically citing comments made by themselves, me, Oranjelo100, and My very best wishes. It also appears that Horse Eye's Back supports the current lead. While consensus can change, I don't think it is a good use of community time to re-litigate this issue twice in the same month, especially considering how emphatically the previous discussion on this topic ended. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement (if any) was made by the title of the page (i.e. Uyghur genocide). So, yes, a reasonable person reading the title "might well interpret it as a definitive statement", sure. But now we simply need to explain in the lead what "Uyghur genocide" is. And yes, I think a consensus was reached. If anyone does not like it, please make an RfC to change the title of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those objecting to the title. It does not make sense to title the article "Uighur genocide" and then explain immediately that when we say genocide, we mean something that might not be genocide. "Uighur repression" would be a better title. It is true that many respected scholars have said they think that what is happening in Xinjiang is genocide, but then again many have disagreed. Yet almost everyone outside China who has studied the subject agrees that the Uighurs are being repressed. The article then does an excellent job of detailing the various forms of repression.

--Bacon Man (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Restarted discussion

Mikehawk10, When you say that the lede is fine, do you mean that you do not think it could be interpreted as a Wikivoice statement that there is a Uyghur genocide? I think any reasonable reader is going to view it as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, so unless you're arguing that we should make such a Wikivoice statement, I don't see how you can view the lede as "fine". -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re beating a dead horse, its not a wikivoice statement... End of story. Stop trying to make an end run around consensus, this is becoming disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 brings up a reasonable point though. There are others wordings that could improve the presentation and tone of the first sentence, e.g. something along the lines of (underlined differences with the current version):

The Uyghur genocide is the designation of an ongoing series of human rights abuses as a genocide perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.

Other alternatives could include who is using the designation (perhaps too wordy?), refer to the Genocide Convention, or use other terms. A discussion about how to refine the first sentence is at least worth having. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: The lede should make it clear that "Uyghur genocide" is an allegation, and it should also specify exactly who is making that allegation. Using "Uyghur genocide" in a sentence is probably the easiest way to go about this: The United States Department of State has alleged that the People's Republic of China is committing a Uyghur genocide. Subsequent sentences can explain what the elements of that alleged genocide are. The first paragraph should also contain the Chinese government's response to these allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: We already have a sentence in the first paragraph that conveys the opinions that critics of the policies have, which reads, "Critics of the policy have described it as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang and have called it an ethnocide or cultural genocide, while some governments, activists, independent NGOs, human rights experts, academics, government officials, and the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile have called it a genocide.". Let's not be unnecessarily reductive here; reducing the designation to mere allegations put forward by the U.S. state department does not reflect how the situation is covered in reliable sources, especially given the wide breadth of the sorts of parties who have called it a genocide (especially with multiple generally reliable perennial sources plainly referring to the situation as a genocide). China's response thus far has been (initially) to publicly lie deny that the camps exist, then to acknowledge they exist but frame them alternatively as happy-dory boarding schools or vocational training camps inspired by counterterror efforts (and to deny that any human rights violations exist in the region). WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies here, and Chinese government denials should not be given undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: This revision will not have pinged Thucydides411 since it was not on a new line with a new signature. See WP:PINGFIX. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mandy Rice-Davies never applies to any article on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia policy. It's an essay, and a very poorly thought-out one at that, which asks us to violate two core policies: WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You can look at the talk page of the essay to read some of the objections.

This is an article about China, and relying heavily on US government allegations or "reports" by obscure DC think tanks, while ignoring the responses by the Chinese government, would be absurd. The lede currently makes almost no mention of the Chinese government's responses to the allegations, and it fails to even properly frame the allegations as allegations, instead putting the charge of "genocide" in Wikivoice. As MarkH21 shows below, reliable sources overwhelmingly do not treat the allegations of "genocide" as true in this case, but instead attribute those allegations to the parties making them. On Wikipedia, we can't for ourselves decide that the allegations are true, that the responses to the allegations are irrelevant, and then proceed to put the allegations into Wikivoice and omit the responses. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 and Thucydides411: Perhaps we should compile the usage in RSes (something that seems to have been dearly missing in many of the drawn-out discussions on this talk page. Many high-quality RSes (even very recent ones) use genocide when describing events in their own voice (with respect to Uyghurs/Xinjiang) only when it is accompanied by either in-text attribution to a specific entity, quotation marks, the word "allegations of", or something similar. None of the following use unqualified genocide as a description of ongoing events in their own voice, instead using:

Examples of RSes that only attribute or qualify "genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang

ABC (Australia) January 20, 2021: attributed March 10, 2021: attributed, genocide declaration, or genocide allegation April 7, 2021: attributed Associated Press January 20, 2021: attributed, accusation of genocide, or genocide designation February 1, 2021: attributed or accusation of genocide February 4, 2021: attributed or genocide accusations February 18, 2021: attributed Axios January 19, 2021: attributed February 23, 2021: attributed March 9, 2021: attributed, genocide allegations, "genocide", or allegations of genocide March 30, 2021: attributed BBC February 2, 2021: attributed February 8, 2021: attributed, decide on matters of genocide, or assessing genocide March 19, 2021: attributed March 26, 2021: accused of genocide or accused China of committing genocide March 31, 2021: accused of [...] genocide CNN March 9, 2021: attributed, Xinjiang genocide allegations, accusations of genocide in Xinjiang, allegations of a genocide in Xinjiang, or its allegation of genocide March 25, 2021: attributed or the genocide accusations April 17, 2021: attributed or "genocide" Forbes January 19, 2021: attributed or "genocide March 9, 2021: Evidence Of Chinese Genocide, allegations of genocide, or "genocide" April 11, 2021: attributed, "Acts Of Genocide", allegations of genocide News.com.au February 20, 2021: attributed April 5, 2021: attributed or "genocide" Reuters March 22, 2021: attributed March 27, 2021: attributed SBS (Australia) Februaru 25, 2021: attributed March 15, 2021: attributed or "genocide" The New York Times March 25, 2021: attributed April 1, 2021: attributed or accusations of genocide April 2, 2021: "genocide" April 7, 2021: attributed April 12, 2021: accusations of genocide April 14, 2021: attributed The Washington Post February 11, 2021: attributed March 17, 2021: attributed or "genocide" March 30, 2021: attributed, accusations of genocide

I don't doubt the assertion that there are some RSes (e.g. a news.com.au video clip) that use genocide in their own voice to describe events, but it does not appear that it is close to being the dominant trend. It appears that the dominant trend in RSes is to describe the existence of accusations of genocide, with evidence and designations given by the corresponding governments, reports, scholars, and activists.

By the way @Thucydides411: I don't think that your proposed first sentence really defines the topic, particularly since the US Dept of State is not the only entity that has accused China of genocide. Also MOS:BOLDLEAD on title placement is relevant here, if the article title is to be used in the first sentence. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Thank you for taking the time to go through reliable sources. I think it's quite obvious from the above list that we have to represent "genocide" as an allegation, rather than as an established fact, and that we should clearly attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as much as possible.

For a comparison of how other disputed allegations of genocide are described on Wikipedia, we can look at the article Black genocide. The lede begins, In the United States, Black genocide is the characterization that the mistreatment of African Americans by both the United States government and White Americans, both in the past and the present, amounts to genocide. Based on that lede, we could write, "Uyghur genocide" is the characterization that human rights abuses committed against Uyghurs in China amount to genocide. The next sentence can specify the most prominent allegations (including that of the US State Department). The sentence after that can relate the response of the Chinese government to the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The Black genocide article is actually a great example, thanks for finding that. I think that your proposed first sentence is an improvement, and is both simple and precise. I would just add the mention of other ethnic and religious minorities and Xinjiang (currently present in the first sentence) to give more complete context for the nonspecialist reader. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This would appear to be an end run around renaming the page... This is a page about a series of human rights abuses not about the specific allegation of genocide, “Uyghur genocide” just happens to be the common name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The page is about the human rights abuses. Just as Horse Eye's Back is noting above, we are referring to this by its common name. The article topic is the human rights abuses, and we have a large section on the page about classification. I do not believe that we should present the rights abuses as mere "allegations" in light of reliable sources, and I believe that the current lead (which was inserted with consensus) is a better lead than the one proposed in the restarted discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the article topic is limited to mere characterizations of the actions as genocide. Its topic is the well-documented abuses; the second paragraph of the Black genocide article notes that there are conspiracy theories that also take the name and has a whole section dedicated to conspiracy theories that take the name "Black Genocide". I think that supporting a change to the Uyghur genocide lead based upon a comparison to that in Black genocide is a whole lot like comparing apples and oranges. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining the term "Uyghur genocide" as the characterization of the human rights abuses as genocide has nothing to do with renaming the page nor changing the scope of this article (the wording does not mean that classification must be the sole thing covered within the article and thereby preclude describing the human rights abuses within the article). It's just about providing a more precise definition per MOS:FIRST.

Sorry if it was unclear – I didn't mean my comment to Thucydides411 as to say that this situation is like Black genocide, just that its first sentence has well-formed wording that can be used here, even if it is a different context. I also mentioned this earlier a few times, but "Uyghur genocide" is a descriptive title here and not literally a common name since few RSes use the exact term. This isn't that relevant to how the first sentence should be worded though.

If there's a clear divide here between which first sentence to use, perhaps we just need an RfC. I was hoping to get a more back-and-forth in improving the suggested first sentence before Deku link added it in. Currently, I think we have:

1. No bolded-title first sentence (the status quo pre-March 2021)
2. The current first sentence (stable since 1 March 2021):
   The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China
   • Note: there is a misspelling in the current version of the first sentence: Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region should not have an "h" even though the common spelling of the ethnic group has an "h".
3. My suggestion so far:
   Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China amount to genocide.
4. A more concise version of my suggestion to avoid first sentence clutter:
   Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide.

Between these, I would probably prefer 4 as the most concise and precise, even disregarding what I understand to be Thucydides411's main complaint regarding WP:WIKIVOICE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 4 is good. It defines the subject of the article, conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:V, and is concise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe Option 4 is the best for the article. Deku link (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Those options don’t make any sense to me and again this feels like an end run around the renaming consensus. This page isn’t about a characterization, its about a series of human rights abuses and that will remain true no matter what we change the name to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No, this is respecting the renaming consensus. An article titled "Uyghur genocide" should explain what "Uyghur genocide" means, preferably in the first sentence. If you would like the article to be about something other than "Uyghur genocide", then you're free to propose a new name. As it stands, this is the name the community has chosen. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this page is the exact same as it was when it had a different name... And the name before that... And the name before that... Renaming a page does not change the underlying topic. Again just because the renaming didn’t go the way you wanted that does not give you a license to turn around and disrupt the article instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining the title of the article in the lede is not disrupt[ing] the article. I opposed the name "Uyghur genocide", but if that's the name, the lede should define it. I'm trying to understand your position, but it just doesn't make any sense. You want the article to be called "Uyghur genocide", but you don't think the article is about "Uyghur genocide", and you don't want the lede to define what "Uyghur genocide" means. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, we define the subject not the name. Its also a lead not a lede, theres a big difference there. Tell me, do you consider Uyghur genocide to be a formal or widely accepted name for the subject? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the article should be named "Uyghur genocide", but then argue that the article is not about "Uyghur genocide" and that the lede should not define what "Uyghur genocide" means. Pick one position and stick with it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Pick one position and stick with it” Ahem... Talk:Id Kah Mosque#No working mosques in Kashgar? Talk:Id Kah Mosque#Xinhua is reliable for Chinese government view, with attribution. My position is consistent, whether its about the topic of this page or about what constitutes due weight. If you’re arguing that changing the name of a wikipedia page fundamentally changes the subject of a wikipedia page I don’t think I can agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also again we are talking about a lead not a lede... They are very different things, sometimes people mix them up accidentally or get autocorrected but you are consistently using lede which indicates a WP:CIR issue. @Mikehawk10: this goes for you too somewhat although I do see you using both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes lede inappropriate here? Feels very bad faith to call competence into question over a perfectly normal US English word for “leading paragraph.” Deku link (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, its a common enough and significant enough misunderstanding that a whole section (MOS:NOTLEDE) exists about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That section only details that a wikipedia lead or lede should not be in the style of a NEWSPAPER lede. It has nothing to do with using the word lede in a talk page discussion. Throwing accusations of incompetence over this is bizarre. Deku link (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Read that lead again... There is no such thing as a wikipedia lede, we only have leads. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, and it says abundantly that they are not newspaper style ledes. A lede is also a generic term for the introduction to ANY article (it says so right here, "the first paragraph of a composition") and the article is blatantly stating that the lead or lede not be treated as a newspaper article's lede. It's NOT a policy about the spelling of the word in discussions on the talk page. This is an absolutely silly nitpick and, again, a ridiculous base to make claims of a lack of competence. Deku link (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is not the generic term for the introduction of a wikipedia article, hence why that page does not link to our usage but Lead (disambiguation) does. The MOS authorizes only one spelling and that is lead. I would note that instead of blustering you could just as easily have accepted that you were wrong about lead/lede and moved on, thats what I advise you to do now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that the title "Uyghur genocide" does not accurately reflect the subject of this article, then you should argue for a different title. But this is an article about "Uyghur genocide", and as MOS:NOTLEDE points out, in Wikipedia articles, the first sentence is usually a definition. By arguing that we should not define the term "Uyghur genocide" in the lede, you are effectively arguing that the title does not accurately reflect the subject of the article. Per WP:PRECISE, Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. This article is about "Uyghur genocide" - that precisely limits its scope. If you're unhappy with that, then you're free to argue for a different title. But I have the impression that you supported this title, so I don't know what you're complaining about. This is the title, and the lede should define it. As for the spelling of the word "lede", I'm really not interested in getting into a debate over jargon, British vs. American spelling, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

At least you’re finally willing to admit that this is about the title and not actually about the lead. There is no debate here, the thing in a wikipedia article is a lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort. The lede should define the subject of the article. You've insisted that the article should be titled "Uyghur genocide", but now you're bizarrely arguing that the article is not about "Uyghur genocide", and that the lede therefore shouldn't define the term. Nevertheless, you do think the lede should begin, "The Uyghur genocide is ...", which you insist is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a Uyghur genocide, despite the obvious fact that it is a Wikivoice statement, and will be interpreted as such by any English speaker. Nothing about your position makes any sense or has any internal consistency. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Remarks like this don't move discussion a long and just frustrate everyone involved. We absolutely are talking about the lede currently and the ways in which bold text reference to the title are included in the lede is variable and absolutely can affect wikivoice. Deku link (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If we have to pick an option among these, I think that the current lead is best and that option 2 is thus most preferable, though I don't see a need for a spelling change. There are plenty of RS that refer to the region with the spelling of "Uyghur" (and even the Global Times and Xinhua seem to do this at times, though not always). I think it's reasonable to view the coverage in RS as reflecting that there is a valid choice of how to spell the term that refers to the people aside from "Uygur"; since the region is obviously not originally named in a Latin script it leaves a lot of sources to define the spelling of the name for the region themselves. I'd prefer for us to use a consistent spelling of "Uyghur" throughout the article for clarity sake. Given the widespread spelling used by RS, I think using "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" is perfectly fine. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The current lede (Option 2) makes an unallowable WP:WIKIVOICE statement that there is a genocide. Uyghur genocide is the characterization of various human rights abuses as genocide. That characterization is heavily disputed, including by the US State Department's own legal advisors, who recommended against designating China's actions as "genocide", but were overruled by the political appointees. Wikipedia can't put that characterization into its own authoritative voice. It's difficult to imagine a more serious breach of WP:NPOV than making unsubstantiated accusations of genocide in Wikivoice, so Option 2 is simply unacceptable and we shouldn't waste any more time considering it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Regarding the XUAR, there are RSes that use the spelling "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" with the "h", yes. But it is neither the common name & article title ("Xinjiang") nor the official English name ("Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region"). It's unusual to use an alternative name that is neither the common name, article title, nor official name, even if for spelling consistency of just one part of that name. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's actual genocide not just designation. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If I may suggest an idea: the lead doesn't need to have the bolded title Uyghur genocide in it. It can start with something like "Since 2014, an ongoing series of human rights abuses have been..." See WP:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS. — Goszei (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

To add on: formulations like "The Uyghur genocide is the characterization of" run afoul of the principle behind WP:REFERSTO, i.e. the use–mention distinction. The article isn't about a designation, it's about these abuses. — Goszei (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see now that my suggestion was the status quo pre-March 2021. I support a return to that status quo, as the exact formulation of "Uyghur genocide" is not used in very many sources. Therefore, we are operating in a "descriptive title" paradigm rather than a "proper name" paradigm, and so AVOIDBOLD and BOLDITIS apply. — Goszei (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Usage in the lede and title was in part supported by some editors claims that it was the common name in certain sources, but many of those sources are simply attributing claims to governmental organizations rather than themselves using the term to categorize the abuses (although other sources now do). Either way, I think this is a good possible alternative to the lede, but we'll need more discussion on this or the options posted by Mike for a new lede. Deku link (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One cannot put "genocide" in the title of an article and then not explain what the word "genocide" refers to. "Uyghur genocide" is a characterization/allegation made by certain parties, most notably the US government. The lede has to somehow explain that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10, Horse Eye's Back, Thucydides411, Deku link, and Goszei: The discussion here has led to a few options and died down a bit, but has not come to a resolution with some differing stances. Since the formatting of the first sentence could benefit from broader input anyways, so I started a simple RfC in a new section on this talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree with those objecting to the title. I would like to elaborate on that in the light of the separate discussion in this section. The article is about much more than (allegations of) genocide against the Uighurs. It is about crimes against humanity and general repression against the Uighurs. An article which was just about "Uighur genocide" and what is meant thereby would focus on the arguments in favor of defining what is happening in the XUAR as genocide, together with the counter arguments. This article doesn't do that. Instead, it discusses the various human rights abuses in Xinjiang, in impressive detail. A more appropriate title for the article would be "Repression of the Uighurs" "Xinjiang repression" or some such as this title is general enough to be accepted by most. Insisting that it be called "Uighur genocide" is more of a campaigner's approach - nothing wrong with campaigning, but it shouldn't be done here.

--Bacon Man (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the genocide claims?

I know that many people think it is real, and there are many sources to back it up, but why are their no sources other than liberal American newspapaers? I have here several sources that deny it. Here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb-MNi8E-TA https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202105/14/WS609dcceea31024ad0babdcda.html https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang Most of these sources are very pro-China and have been in the past, but the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic, so please consider again. Could we have two different sections for the different perspectives? At this point there is no way to confirm if either perspective is correct, aside from actually travelling to China, which is on lockdown for covid 19 right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipgirl your waifu (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

They are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. However, there are no reliable sources that support the claim of genocide, so the article title is misleading. TFD (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So why do we have definitive articles on controversial topics like this? Could we atleast put a sign warning that the article may contain bias?Shipgirl your waifu (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All articles may contain bias. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that "the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic”? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Note that yet another editor is asking why the article makes a definitive statement that a genocide is being carried out. You argued that the title and lede do not constitute a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, but that's clearly not how readers are interpreting them. Given that you argued that the title and lead were acceptable as-is because they do not constitute a Wikivoice statement, will you now support changes to make it clear that we are not making a Wikivoice statement? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This user also seems to think that there are "no sources other than liberal American newspapaers” which is ummm... Questionable. Idiots are going to be idiots, there isn’t much we can do about that. I would also like this to be the last time you ping me about this issue outside of the discussion about it, I don’t find it productive and its starting to border on harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. I don't appreciate seeing editors refer to other editors as Idiots. Convocke (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My description of the user in question here was entirely within NPA. An invective against a broad class of editors cant be a personal attack, at worst its not entirely civil but as an inclusive place we most certainly do have idiots (a great number of them even) who are allowed to edit wikipedia articles. You may choose a more polite word or a less polite word but do you disagree with me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of substantive issues I find with the top-level comment here. Two of them are as follows:

• The user asks the question why are their [sic] no sources other than liberal American newspapaers? Well, there are a number of sources other than liberal American newspapers. Aside from the Newlines Institute/Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights report, there has been significant work by academics on the subject. These include multiple peer-reviewed journal articles and law review articles, some of which are included in the collapsed list below, alongside non-US/non-liberal news sources:

Some Academic Sources

Academic sources (Peer-reviewed journals and law review articles) Waller, James; Salazar Albornoz, Mariana (27 April 2021). "Crime and No Punishment? China's Abuses Against the Uyghurs". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 22 (1). Johns Hopkins University Press: 100–111. at least five counts of crimes against humanity—persecution, imprisonment, torture, enslavement, and forced sterilization— are being committed against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. This paper also argues that the state’s measures to sterilize Uyghur women and reduce Uyghur birth rates signify an intent to destroy the group, therefore constituting at least one count of genocide Radhakrishnan, Adi (Fall 2020). "An Inherent Right to Health: Reviving Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention)". Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 52. Columbia University: 80–139. Healthcare denial in Xinjiang violates Article II(c). There is significant evidence published before June 2020 that indicates the treatment toward Uyghur Muslims constitutes a violation of Article II(c). ... Repeated orders, evidenced from the leaked Xinjiang Papers, demonstrate an intent to "break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins," and to round up "everyone who should be rounded up," with the aim of eradicating the Uyghur communities. Such evidence goes beyond allegations of cultural genocide and encompasses harm perpetrated well before the reports of forced sterilization. The health practices and abusive treatment would fulfil the requisite actus reus elements under the originalist Article II(c) framework analyzed by this Note. Gökçe, İsmail (September 2020). "Güneşin Doğduğu, İnsanlığınBattığı Topraklar: Doğu Türkistan". Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi (in Turkish). 69: 629–652. doi:10.14222/Turkiyat4352. Çin polisinin Uygurları fişlemek için kullandığı mobil uygulamadan, gerektiğinde bir eğitim kampına dönüştürülebilen zindanlara, iletişim olanaklarına uygulanan karartmadan, Uygur diasporasının kökten dinci bir terör örgütü olduğu yönündeki kara propagandaya kadar en ince ayrıntısına kadar tasarlanan soykırım planı sistematik olarak işlemektedir. (in Turkish). Balaki, Naved (1 April 2020). "Islamophobia in Myanmar: the Rohingya genocide and the 'war on terror'". Race and Class. 62 (4). SAGE Journals: 53–71. doi:10.1177/0306396820977753. In China, structural processes enacted by the state have been implemented to imprison over a million Uighur Muslims in concentration and labour camps. Reports of the experiences of Uighurs under these state measures describe forced labour, the sterilisation of Uighur women, coercive thought-transformation and brainwashing, the harvesting of organs, rape and various forms of torture. Many of these violations fall within genocide conventions to which China is a signatory. Fiskesjö, Magnus (2020). "Forced Confessions as Identity Conversion in China's Concentration Camps". Monde Chinois. 62 (2): 28–43. doi:10.3917/mochi.062.0028. Indeed, Chen Quanguo, the Communist Party officer directly in charge of the genocide in Xinjiang, builds directly on his personal experience in force-converting Falungong members in Henan, eastern China. ... Together with measures such as suppressing fertility and depriving children of their mother tongue, the ultimate purpose here is instead the destruction of the victim’s self, their pride and dignity, and their identity as Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and so on, thus destroying their nations altogether, by destroying them one by one and all together — in this genocide with Chinese characteristics, guided by purist, ultra-nationalist ideologues. Finley, Joanne (2020). "Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang". Journal of Genocide Research. doi:10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109. [T]he suppression of Uyghur births on this scale, in concert with the Chinese state’s other efforts to eradicate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, amounted quite simply to a genocide-in-process

• The comment argues that the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic. This is quite the claim! If there is evidence presented in reliable sources that the sources are sinophobic, then let them be presented. Otherwise, I really don't see much here except a false equivalence being drawn between Chinese state-affiliated media entities (China Daily is published by the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party and has issues with reliability in this context; CGTN of which is deprecated outright), and The New Yorker (which has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). The Qiao collective doesn't appear to be much better, as it falsely claims that Xinjiang has in fact never been closed or restricted to outside visitors until the outbreak of COVID-19 in January 2020, while there is public reporting indicating that there indeed have been restrictions applied to and controls put on foreign journalists in the region prior to that time. Qiao's Xinjiang "resources" page contains 13 separate references to the Global Times for facts and massively cites CGTN in a similar matter; based upon this, it would not appear that the collective places a premium on fact-checking or accuracy. Taken together with the fact that Qiao's self-described goal is to be a bridge between the U.S. left and China’s rich Marxist, anti-imperialist political work and that Politico (reliable source) describes them as a group that represents the views of... ultra-leftists infatuated with authoritarian regimes, it does not really appear to be a source that attempts to report objectively, either. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So who made the rule that Chinese agencies are not a reliable source of info? Given the current news of the BBC's Martin Bashir interview with Princess Diana, it would appear that stories and methodologies used by the BBC is very, very unreliable and unethical, and it took 25 years to expose this cover up. The BBC is considered to be one of the more reliable sources of news in the western media, even though we do now know it is not. Therefore the other western media are hardly any more credible than the BBC. Therefore it is more likely than not, that in 25 years' time, the story of the uyghur genocide will be exposed as a western lie. It cost the west nothing to tell lies. 86.176.255.101 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to see the logic behind the reliability of various common Chinese sources(and some western ones) you can find most here [7] BSMRD (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

State run news agencies in authoritarian countries are universally notorious for flagrant lies and propaganda. 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:680:6D80:4C95:CB6D:EFCC:AA5A (talk)

The first source presented by Mikehawk10 is prefaced with the qualification, "By reviewing these available reports in light of the applicable international legal standards, this paper argues that...." All I am saying is that Wikipedia articles should not claim greater certainty than the sources it relies on. TFD (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not quite WP:SYNTH but this article seems to have collected the most severe claims it can and is presenting them all in the strongest terms it can get away with. I can't find anything that directly goes against policy but there is a very clear POV. The only non-western sources here are a few Indian ones which when it comes to China aren't effectively different in view. A great example of WP:SYSTEMIC IMO. BSMRD (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Media bias is shown by preferring some opinions over others, rather than stating opinions as facts. U.S. media for example never said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda but provided greater weight to that theory than any opposing views. Policy (rs and weight) require us to use these sources for facts and to present opinions according to the weight they show. Unfortunately, not content that the media has made a strong enough case, we are willing to misrepresent what they say in order that readers are persuaded as what we see as the truth. Not only does that violate policy, but it makes readers question the reliability of the information in the article. Whenever I come across an article that is biased in tone and falsifies facts, I dismiss it as propaganda. But if it presents the facts and explains the weight of opinion, then it is more persuasive. Obvious propaganda such as one would find on highly partisan websites only comforts the true believers and wins no converts. If I were the Chinese government, I would prefer the style of this article as opposed to one that was objective. It's like in horror movies where a crazy person warns people, but no one believes him or her because they're obviously mad. TFD (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. At a bare minimum I also see sources from China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Qatar, and Israel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

All of which are (excluding China who gets I counted 3 sources out of near 500?) allies of the US, not helping the point. BSMRD (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You said western, not somewhat allied with the United States. That is exactly the point. If you think that there is coverage which has not been included you are more than welcome to add it. Also I see at least eight citation to Chinese sources not three. Is any of the stuff you say true? You claimed that not a single source from a non-Western country was used besides some from India yet I gave you a whole list above to which could be added the UAE, Turkey, the Philippines, and Russia if one was feeling pedantic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)