Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Internees or detainees

Some recent edits have been changing these words around (mostly 'detainees' to 'internees') out of step with the given references. I am fine in principle with us using the same word throughout the page but I have a rather basic understanding of what they mean. I just want some reassurance that no one is being silly. Do these words even matter? Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what that edit was getting at as they also changed it in direct quotes. I’m fine with us picking one to use more consistently, but changing quotes is not an option even if we do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I will note that from a quick survey sources seem to overwhelmingly use detainee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Please change the "as genocide" part of the beginning sentence into "as amounting to genocide." EvaTheWingdale (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. BSMRD (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Leaked papers link Xinjiang crackdown with China leadership

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/leaked-papers-link-xinjiang-crackdown-with-china-leadership

This reference should be included imho. 2001:14BA:9C36:5100:0:0:0:97B (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How many have been killed?

Definition of genocide:

“the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide"

However the article, as it stands, fail to provide any estimates of how many people have been killed.

This data needs to be added or the description “genocide” should be changed. 78.70.18.9 (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQs at the top of this page -- the label of "genocide" has been endlessly debated and consensus is to retain it in order to reflect the majority of reliable sources. The term genocide is also not restricted to straight-up killings, either. — Czello 10:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add properly sourced estimates of how many people have been killed. Thanks, Doanri (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Statistics like birth rates are irrelevant without context; This whole page needs to go.

Declining birthrates do NOT constitute a genocide (otherwise Japan would have genocided itself somehow). Statistics don't work this way. Declining birthrates can be explained by far less speculative means, e.g. people with increased earnings tend to have fewer children.

The only kind of valid evidence to constitute genocide are photographs or videos of muslims running from China towards the nearest international border, which we have ZERO evidence of. It is NOT the job of anyone to prove that there is no genocide, as that would put the onus of proof on someone to prove something's non-existence, which is ridiculous. A lot of people on this thread have good intentions but simply are out of their depth on this particular topic. This page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.192.120 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

First, Genocide denial is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Second, the idea that the Uyghur Genocide is fake, is WP:FRINGE. Why do you consider "muslims running from China towards the nearest international border" to be the be-all end-all of proof? RandomPerson184729 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent RfC on this page about the term "genocide", and the conclusion was that the claim of "genocide" cannot be made in Wikivoice. Accusing someone of "genocide denial" is a personal attack, and it actually conflicts with the conclusion that the RfC came to, which is that "genocide" is a highly controversial claim in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of genocide is controversial, yet consensus that "Uyghur Genocide" is an appropriate title was established twice. Being controversial doesn't mean it is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, claiming things such as genocides to be fake is not allowed, Pointing such out is nowhere in the ballpark of a personal attack. 65.36.70.48 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely, if you are denying the existence of a genocide, you are engaging in genocide denial? WP:ASPERSIONS applies here. Doanri (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A very literal and wholly semantic argument. 'Genocide denial' as a term is virtually exclusively used to describe instances of people denying known, historically proven instances of genocide, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred, or that substantial numbers of people were murdered at Srebrenica. The term doesn't apply to legitimate disagreement about, for example, whether an ongoing situation, about which no one yet has the full facts, constitutes genocide and if so, according to which definition. According to the most common definition of genocide - ethnic mass killing - there certainly has NOT been any Uyghur genocide and it is denying nothing to say that. Serious human rights abuses, which are practically undeniable, do not automatically equal genocide. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Part D clearly states that preventing birth rates with the intention to eliminate and ethnic group is genocide. And if there's any one source that should be the outright definition of genocide, it's the very convention that made it an international crime. Granted, yes decreased birthrates cam be caused by other factors, like in Japan. But the Japanese people are not being put into concentration camps, and there is evidence of forced abortion and sterilization. The idea that birth rates are irrelevant is ridiculous when the UN's Genocide Convention itself says that it can be Genocide. OboTheHobo (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the UN definition and its provisions BUT, there has never been a prosecution, nor any notable instance of genocide, even disputed ones, which did NOT involve mass ethnic death, whether actual killing or denying the means of sustaining life. It's hardly surprising therefore if most people associate genocide with mass-killing. The least we should be doing IMO is make clear what definition is being used. This is like reading an article about rape in which no non-consensual sexual penetration of anyone is mentioned or has occurred, it's perplexing at least and defending the content by saying that some legal definition exists which is at odds with the everyday understanding of a term doesn't clarify a lot. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The way you say "some legal definition" makes it seem like this isn't *the* legal definition. That's the convention that criminalized genocide in the first place and was made in direct response to WWII. And just because no one has been punished for it doesn't mean it isn't genocide. I'd agree that making it a bit more clear is a good idea, however, but there are already parts of the article that specifically cite that part of the genocide convention. OboTheHobo (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to belittle the UN definition. Still, the fact that this clause has never been employed, either in any legal setting, nor in the 'court of public opinion', means that to all but a handful of readers who know the legal definition, as opposed to the everyday, historical usage of 'mass ethnic killing' - the reason for using the word is obscure at best. The only reason I know is because I have edited the main genocide article and have read some of the work of Lemkin, but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite to understanding the article. Many of the sources which I have read are more explicit and thus clearer than we are. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

The mass protests didn't really kick off until at least April 2017, so the Uyghur "genocide" starting point of 2014 doesn't really make sense at my point of view. Maybe it should be changed to 2017? EvaTheWingdale, January 14th, 2022. EvaTheWingdale (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

US left-wing denialism in 'Denial' section

The source for the claim that "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" is very inaccurately 'copied'. What the source actually states is that a small number US blogs have published articles saying that accounts of abuses are being weaponised as anti-Chinese propaganda and some of these blogs say some accounts are false or exaggerated, (if this were not sometimes true, it would probably be the first time in human history that SOME exaggeration did NOT happen. It would also probably be the first time in human history if SOMEONE were not sceptical about accounts concerning an unfolding issue. Even if these left-wing bloggers turn out to be wholly wrong - being sceptical about an unfolding issue hardly constitutes 'denialism', in the sense of being a 'genocide denier', which usually denotes someone denying a situation where pretty much all the facts are known or knowable). Most of these bloggers don't even appear to deny that persecution of Uyghurs is occuring, though they often dispute the scale and believe that the claims are being 'weaponised' against China.

Over and above the sourcing and accuracy considerations, which might well be fixable. Are the opinions of a handful of US left-wing bloggers notable AT ALL. Even if we accept the inference that these people are making themselves into useful idiots of China, so what! Even the sources used characterise these people as few and marginal. WP covering them is very parochial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling a section "Denial," which begins with a "See also" link to Genocide denial is a clear violation of neutrality. It is not necessarily denialism to question the accuracy of unproved allegations or accepting them say that they do not constitute genocide. Also, the statement "some American left-wing media outlets" violates "Unsupported attributions." What percentage of "left-wing outlets" can be described as some? 40%? 1/100th of 1%?

Also, if we are going to cite "anthropologist and China expert Gerald Roche," writing in the left-wing media outlet The Nation of all places ("Xinjiang Denialists Are Only Aiding Imperialism" July 6, 2021), we should mention that he blames the United States for complicity in the genocide, hence the title of his article. Quoting his opinion seems undue anyway, since he isn't an expert on genocide or denialism and his views have not received attention beyond the readers of The Nation.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

TFD... Its been explained to you at length by nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same... While you may feel that it isn't neutral there is no violation of our NPOV policy here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make a persuasive argument, you might want to avoid basing it on a false premise, viz., that "nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same." Also, instead of an ad hominem personal attack, you might explain why you think calling a section "Denial" does not violate neutrality. Is it because reliable sources group people who don't classify human rights abuses in Sianking with holocaust deniers? If so, can you explain why the SPLC has a section on Holocaust Denial, but nothing about Uyghur genocide denial? TFD (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Our sources use the term denial/denier, so our use of the term conforms with NPOV (specifically "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."). How do you think it violates NPOV? And please be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

They are notable because they have received extensive coverage in reliable sources, I don't believe that we are actually trying to source anything to the bloggers/outlets themselves. Your own personal opinions are irrelevant, please don't share them. This isn't a forum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The first source (an opinion piece in The Diplomat) quotes "a Uyghur American attorney and activist" who calls it "genocide denial." The second source, an article in ProPublica says, "In one clip [spread by the Chinese government], a woman denies accusations of forced labor." The third source, an article in The Guardian says that China's UK ambassador "denied claims of abuses." The fourth source, published in .Coda (you recently voted for its reliablity) actually uses the term "Xinjiang denialist," but it is referring to denial of "Uyghur oppression," which it does not call a genocide. The final source, in The Nation is an opinion piece hence expressing the author's opinions and not a reliable source for facts.

The most one can say is that some people have compared this with holocaust denial, although it seems to be a fringe position.

TFD (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

When I looked pretty hard in the Codastory source, I could just about find one person/one article in one blog that is implicitly denying "the existence of the camp network" - which WP is claiming is a sufficiently widespread phenomenon among "some American left-wing media outlets" for us to report it. A nameable group of other bloggers say that US State dept or media exaggerate the extent of the abuses and/or US sources "weaponise" the claims, which is not necessarily denying anything of course. Apart from our coverage, being fairly inflated and inaccurate, (and I would agree 'loaded' in its use of 'denialism' over matters that people should be able to legitimately disagree about) - apart from that, this is so damned parochial. Mud-slinging within minor US news blogs is wholly disconnected from the events in China IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That Diplomat piece is a feature piece not an opinion piece. What in the world makes you think its an opinion piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the author, who is an editor, not a reporter. In any case, it's a moot point. The source does not accuse anyone of denialism, but quotes an activist who uses the term. TFD (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors can write as well, "Feature" is The Diplomat's highest level of article. We don't currently use that source to accuse anyone of denialism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TFD and HEB, this section is about the paragraph relating to denial supposedly occurring in "some American left-wing media outlets", if you want to discuss other claims, can you please start another section - otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation. I claim that the "US left-wingers" paragraph inaccurately represents the relatively poorly sources it uses, is cherry-picked and fundamentally, fringe-ly parochial relative to the topic. No one seems to have answered any of those points, but I cannot tell because you seem to be talking about other things. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was fringe-ly parochial then we wouldn't have significant coverage in WP:RS. Are you disputing the reliability of Axios and Coda Story? Those don't appear to be poor sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

They are relatively parochial AFAI can see and two sources is pretty thin gruel for an unattributed claim and an unbelievably low-threshold for "significant coverage", especially as these are essentially opinion pieces about an inherently parochial subject - what a tiny group of left-wing US bloggers are/are not writing. But the issue is anyway academic if they don't say what we say they say, which they don't. The Nation is a better known source outside the US, but that piece doesn't describe the 'nay-sayers' as "left-wing", in fact it is at pains to not identify them and is at pains to distinguish between legitimate scepticism (including about whether what is occurring is 'genocide') and what the writer considers 'denial'. Furthermore the Nation article covers many other aspects and discusses "US complicity in ongoing colonialism in Xinjiang" and states explicitly "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror." None of these other aspects of the Nation article find their way into OUR article, so AFAI can see the Nation piece has been CHERRYPICKED to imply what someone here wants it to say. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Two feature pieces in WP:RS is one feature piece away from meriting its own article WP:GNG wise, thats really strong and much stronger than we need to make the inclusion. They don't appear to be opinion pieces. If you would like to migrate more from the The Nation article into the article here you are more than welcome to as long as you abide by WP:DUE, but I would note that we don't actually use it as a source for "US left-wing" but the source we do use for that statement does "What is more, these fringe views appear to be creeping into other areas of the American left." "While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized." "Left-wing support and equivocation for authoritarian regimes is by no means a new phenomenon." "While a few fringe media outlets are unlikely to shift mainstream political opinion on China’s actions in Xinjiang, they can create significant problems in some areas of the left." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the claim that this handful of "left-wingers" are "deniers' is in WP:VOICE - even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty. Therefore these 'denialism' accusations should at least be attributed to the two accusing sources. That person X wrote text Y is verifiable, that the opinions expressed in text Y amount to 'denialism', not legitimate disagreement is an unverifiable opinion. Two minor sources making sweeping generalisations may satisfy you, it points to me to how some editors here are wholly unconcerned with accurately representing the balance of sources on contentious issues, but are in fact amplifying anything that endorses their own position and ignoring anything that doesn't. If a broad swathe of major US sources pointed to a significant left-right divide on this issue, coverage would be justified, as it is, it's fringe-y sources writing about a tiny number of even fring-ier ones, but expressed in WP:VOICE and extrapolated to imply a general phenomenon.

Even more perversely, you are ignoring the fact that none of these sources actually claim what our text says. It takes a whole bundle of WP:SYNTH to get from the accusations made by Axios and Coda Story to "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" -our claim. Certainly these bloggers are accused of down-playing the scale of abuses and of attacking the way the US State department has "weaponised" discussion, but by looking hard I could find only one named blogger who was actually accused of denying the existence of the camps and the abuses. If you attribute and accurately reflect the sources used at present, you are left with two minor US sources saying that one, completely un-notable, US blogger thinks there is no persecution or camps, while a very, very small number of other bloggers think claims about persecution are being exaggerated and 'weaponised' by the US State Dept and/or media. WOW! SEISMIC! All this before we consider the inherent WEASEL of 'some American left-wing media outlets', when what is actually supported by the sources is two named blogs, and the possibility of a very few others, all of which may or may not be meaningfully "news outlets" or "left-wing".

The Nation was being used to endorse the "left-wingers' claim until a few days ago, when I removed a linking word that implied the Nation writer was accusing Americans and/or left-wingers specifically, which he isn't. I also put the remaining sentence in a separate para to clearly 'delink' the topics. The remaining sentence is so vague and out of context that retaining it is pointless IMO, however I didn't remove but brought the whole subject here. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

ps If you really want to write an article about this very fringe-y, far-left-ish coverage of what is happening to China's Uyghurs in the US-blogsphere, go ahead and write it. As someone from the UK, I'd like an article about the abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs to actually stick to that topic, not to WP:COATRACK irrelevant and obscure US domestic disputes into EVERYTHING. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we go with what the sources say, if you want to disagree with the sources this is not the place to do so. I can't find support for "even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty." which would appear to mean that its your opinion and not an actual fact. If however you mean that labels are tricky then yes, yes they are which is why we don't apply those labels ourselves but go with what the sources say which is in this case denial. If we get enough coverage we might break off the section into its own article, arguably we should be doing that with a few of the existing sections given the size of the article. Your own distaste for America is not a reason not to cover it on wikipedia, I think you need to read WP:COATRACK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the sources. In fact I would be fairly surprised if there were NOT bloggers (inc in US, UK and other parts of the Anglosphere) who did NOT dispute US state Dept, US media positions/claims and numbers - and equally surprised if a lot of these people were not 'left-wing'-ish. What I'm firstly saying is that the sources are not being accurately reported by us. Neither of the two sources talks about anyone denying the existence of camps or abuses, except one named woman, who is reported to have claimed early in 2020 that no mass detention or abuse was happening. Some of these bloggers certainly seem to question the scale of abuses, and say that the reporting of the abuses is being 'weaponised' against China, but that isn't what our text says. We claim that they say there is no abuse and no camps - which is patently not what the sources accuse them of. Nor incidentally does the source used claim that LA Progressive was the first such site -as we do - it merely states when LA Progressive started the 'nay-saying'. All that of course is fixable, but I cannot see how this is anything other than very fringe and UNDUE and would remain so even if fixed.

It is self-evident that there is no agreement, even among campaigning groups and parliaments, as to whether the apt term for these abuses is 'genocide'. Some use that term, some use it but qualify it, others avoid it or say they don't agree with its use - such as Amnesty. If there is no agreement about whether, or in what sense, 'genocide' is occurring, how can 'loaded' terms like 'denialism/genocide denialism' be more than accusations? You can only meaningfully engage in genocide denial iro instances where the genocide itself has been established as a historical fact. Accusations are ordinarily attributed to the accuser.

I find your label comments a gigantic cop-out I'm afraid. If the "US left-wingers" text and label were attributed and phrased as an accusation made by two news outlets against specific news blogs and bloggers, your comments might be apt. But the accusations are phrased in wiki-voice, needlessly weasel-led, and phrased so as to avoid making clear how very, very small the numbers of people thus accused are, they are also SYNTHed to 'beef up' the accusation as I say above. Effectively your defence of the text is that because two (relatively obscure US outlets) use the 'denialism' label - WP has to endorse their accusations and opinions by amplifying them and phrasing them in WP:VOICE. Disagreement about the scale of what is happening in China, or what to call it, is not genocide denialism, but we are implyimg that it is. To report this accurately as an accusation made by Codastory against named sites would be neutral, though undue IMO. To report this in-accurately as a fact against "some", unspecified, "left-wing media outlets" is none of the three. In fact the first source used is a good deal more careful and specific about precisely what it accuses these websites and bloggers of than we are.

I don't have any distaste for America. A momentary frustration is not an abiding antipathy and the two or three sources used to justify this text are a tiny percent of those who have covered these human rights abuses worldwide. If the "boot were on the other foot" and these were UK sources - writing about a couple of fringe UK news blogs - either of the right or the left - I would be arguing much the same case. Namely, that attribution of these accusations, including clarification of who is being accused of what should be a minimum. Sourcing is a necessary, but not a sufficient pre-condition for inclusion of text. I don't have any illusions about countries other than the US also being capable of being parochial. I also know what COATRACK says.

We have both made our views plain and we clearly aren't going to agree. I shall wait a few days to see if anyone else wants to chip in before deciding whether I want to take matters further. Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term. I also haven't seen where those Amnesty that use the 'denialism' term are considered 'obscure'. I would not consider Axios and Coda Story parochial, and while I would normally not object to attributing their statements, I am concerned about the inch that becomes a mile. Please keep your posts succinct, otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation - as you said yourself above. Since this is a controversial topic, please formulate your arguments based on what we can see in RS, and not your own opinion. CutePeach (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term - this is my FOURTH time of posting the same source, where both Amnesty and HRW choose to NOT say genocide. Incidentally, 'Genocide Watch' cited below also uses various descriptions, which do NOT include 'genocide', which is ironic given the name and stated purpose of the org is to highlight potential genocide.

I think I said the two US outlets were 'relatively obscure' ie they aren't major news outlets with international standing AFAIK. I certainly did NOT say that these sources were parochial, I said the content was, ie text about two US news blogs which hardly anyone in the US has ever heard of and certainly not the other 95% of the human world. To attribute is not something which WP editors deign to do, it is a requirement where the content has not been established as a fact to be rendered in WP:VOICE. I have a concrete proposal which I will attempt to make below, later. At present we are WEASELING a very sweeping accusation, although the number of those accused is tiny and their names are known, and we are not even accurate about what the 'some left-wingers' have supposedly said and written. How many policy errors does that add up to? Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Horse Eye's Back and CutePeach say. Hard to follow the objections due to lack of concision, but (a) "See also" is different from "Main article" - it's a clearly related topic; (b) we currently use the word "denial" in the section and not "denialism" and do not make any Holocaust comparisons, and the sources all clearly use the word "denial" too; (c) Gerald Roche is definitely a China expert; it's irrelevant that he isn't specifically a genocide expert. (I'd have no objection to more of his article being used elsewhere in our piece.) (d) to considerably expand the content on the left would become undue, but the minimal coverage we now have is definitely due; as evidence for this being noteworthy, there are plenty of (mainly RSOPINION) sources that draw attention to this, using the word "denial", which could be added as sources if we need more to show noteworthiness, e.g.:

• a major US left-wing academic and a genocide scholar in an al-Jazeera op ed say "some sections of the left continue to dismiss reports of China’s atrocities as an American imperialist ploy...The most steadfast bastion of denialism has been the Grayzone";[1]
• another CodaStory piece[2] referencing several leading China scholars denouncing the publication by a major US left outlet of a piece of what they call "denialism" (and "apologia for the campaign of harsh Islamophobic repression now taking place in Xinjiang");[3]
• a Ha'aretz piece by an academic expert on disinformation and fascism uses the word "denialism" in relation to some left-wing media outlets;[4] and
• a BylineTimes opinion piece by an Islamophobia expert which uses the word "denialism" and says "the far-left blog The Grayzone...falsely claimed that stories regarding forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang are a propaganda campaign" in a post shared by John Pilger and others.[5]

The Coda Story piece we already cite was republished by Genocide Watch, further showing noteworthiness.[6] And a New Republic opinion piece says that "parts of the conspiratorial far-left remain convinced that the crimes against humanity in Xinjiang are simply Western propaganda".[7] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Something expressed as an opinion in The Nation does not become a fact in Wikipedia. I am surprised that you and Horse don't accept that since you disagree with 90% of the opinions expressed there. TFD (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think this at least needs to be elaborated a little. Done. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, what you say is all very well except that our text bears little relation to what the sources used say. OUR TEXT: The abuses, and the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets. The first such group to do so was a small left-wing blog called LA Progressive which began publishing denial articles in April 2020, while The Grayzone has been the most influential outlet to publish such claims.

The sources used - almost exclusively- speak of two specific named news blogs, 'downplaying' the scale of the abuses, not mainly denying their existence. Sources chiefly describe the 2 blogs as 'far'left' and sometimes as 'anti-imperialist' and don't say anything about who was first to publish these 'denial' stories. "Some American left-wing media outlets" is inherently and unnecessarily WEASELLY when the common thread is two named news blogs and vague mentions of a few others existing, while comments like Grayzone being "most influential are inherently judgements, not facts and should be attributed if included. Personally I remain of the opinion that what a very small number of US bloggers are writing is both too unsurprising and too obscure to be of much interest or importance to this topic, but if people want to include it, they should at least accurately reflect what sources say, including iro being less WEASELLY about 'the accused' and more accurate about the "accusation". Forgive me for saying but a small number of fairly marginal sources and one or two academics is a very low threshold to justify inclusion of ANYTHING in WP:VOICE, especially so since these are grave accusations.

I haven't looked closely at the Al Jazeera piece, but even at a glance, the writer attacks at least 2 other groups who have "let down" the Uighurs according to the writer: "And so, the Uighurs are wronged four times over: by China’s oppression, by American imperialist cooptation, by left-wing denialism, and by Muslim leaders’ dereliction" - none of the other accusations finds it way into the article, nor does The author's claim "For the Trump administration, the Uighur’s plight was yet another card to play in its China-bashing, along with Hong Kong and COVID-19. It is blatant CHERRYPICKING to single out his comments about "faux anti-imperialism", render it in WPVOICE and ignore the rest of his comments. Just as the 'Nation' quote ignores the author's claims that: "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror … … The US War on Terror made it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to redefine Uyghur resistance as terrorist extremism, rather than national liberation or anti-colonialism".

I would drop my objections if the text was written more accurately in terms of who specifically is accused of exactly what - which appears to be mainly two blogs "minimising" the scale of abuses. I disagree with you strongly about leaving the link to "genocide denial" where it is - it belongs as a REAL 'See Also', You cannot deny the existence of a genocide which has not been firmly established yet either in any court, nor in scholarly judgement nor in general usage. Apologies for my delay in replying! Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction, reference to Trump is now in "The Nation" text, though not reference to the "War on Terror"'s role in justifying Chinese actions. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional Sources

This article released by the Associated Press does not seem to be included in the article and includes up to date information on the topic: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9 Wackword (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting, it seems like half travel blog, half AP news piece (coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel). Given its collection of observations it would be hard not to just cherry pick. I have been on official tours before so remain skeptical, but it is not our place to judge. While I would pause on rewriting the introduction just yet, if this does signify a change in tact the current structure of the page does not easily allow for expressing it. I would favor getting confirmation through typical news articles then a new section may be in order (see also [8]). We would not change our DPRK page because a journalist went there and saw dancing happy people. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, our article is currently based heavily on opinion pieces (such as the New Yorker piece that is cited in the lede) and US government sources (such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is Adrian Zenz' employer). There needs to be a greater level of clarity in the article about where the various allegations come from, and we need to avoid putting claims by partisan organizations (e.g., government think tanks like ASPI) in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:You appear to be mistaken. That New Yorker article [9] is a feature piece of investigative journalism not an opinion piece. Or are you referring to a different piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's an opinion essay in the "magazine" section, not the news section, and it's written in a highly personal style. It's fine for telling us the viewpoint of the writer, but it can't be used to make statements in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t labeled as opinion and The New Yorker publishes reporting in their magazine section. The writer is one of the finest investigative journalists currently alive, they don’t write opinion pieces (certainly not feature article length ones). Unless you have something other than your personal opinion which says its an opinion piece we’re going to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See the article "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified" by Columbian university professor Jeffrey D. Sachs: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/apfjc5yg352d554k2ar2wwwkk8ryw9

In my opinion the label "genocide" which was first used by the then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is highly controversial and should not in any case be used in Wikipedia, who has thereby degraded itself to a weapon for the US foreign politics. A better name of the article would be "The Xinjiang rebellion" or something like that. 80.220.94.163 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

wow, I could not disagree more with this IP. "The Xinjiang rebellion" would be an extremely POV pro-China title. Most available RSes rely to this as the Uyghur genocide, so we will as well. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We generally don’t base article titles off of random opinion pieces. The article title has been discussed to death. I don’t think that a single opinion piece, even if written by a professor, is anywhere near enough to tilt existing consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The current title is reflected by reliable sources. The characterisation of an ongoing "genocide" has been agreed by numerous entities including various parliaments around the world. Past move discussions have established a consensus that the page title is appropriate, and furthermore there is currently a one-year moratorium in effect on moving the page unless substantial new information arises. Citobun (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that many/most of the sources/commentators are using a definition of genocide (often explicitly so) which is very different from the 'common understanding' of the word (ethnic mass-murder, as opposed to ethnic mass-suppression) and we are doing nothing to make this distinction clear. Thus, intentionally or otherwise, the actual effect is to imply that mass-murder is happening, which no sources support. I happen to have read Lemkin and be familiar with various distinct legal and scholarly definitions, but it shouldn't be necessary to know Lemkin and international law in order to understand an article's title or its lead, which is currently the case IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a widespread view that the claims of genocide are, legally speaking, unjustified. This view is held, for example, by the US State Department's legal advisors ([10]), though they were overruled by the political decision-makers in the Trump administration. This view needs to be described more prominently in the lede. At the moment, the lede pretty much ignores the view that there is no genocide, which is strange, as that view appears to be the majority view of the world's governments and is held by many legal experts (including those at the US State Department, as I've mentioned).

Beyond that, readers will be misled by the lede as it is. The average reader will think of "genocide" as it's usually defined in the English language (which is essentially the same as the definition in the Genocide Convention, I'll add). That definition implies mass killing. Since no mass killing is even alleged in this case, that should be clarified prominently in the lede. I don't think any of us wants readers to come away from this article thinking that something entirely different (mass killing) is being alleged than what's actually being alleged (cultural assimilation, indoctrination, decrease in birth rates). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed that Foreign Policy article before [11]. The view isn't as widespread as you claim. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide, yet this view is barely discussed in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What's your source for "Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide"? You have mentioned the US State Dept, which should probably be given more space in sections 6.2 and 7.2, but they are very much in the minority, apart from the official position of the Chinese state and its allies, which is a bit too WP:MANDY to give more space to, and a couple of random opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty also says that what is happening is not genocide [12]. We devote a whole section to the 'Uyghur Tribunal' an organisation with zero powers, zero history and almost zero credibility as being anything other than a campaigning vehicle, but ignore the opinions of two of the most established, respected and neutral human rights orgs - ie Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both of which say that serious human rights are probably occurring, but not genocide. I was summoned here by bot for a previous RfC and haven't followed all the sourcing, but it is difficult to disagree with Thucydides411, sources that disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide, appear to be chery-picked or simply ignored or worse and a false impression is created by overuse of the word 'genocide' without ever clarifying explicitly what it means in this context, which is NOT the most generally accepted meaning, of ethnic mass killing. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility"? What are the sources that expressly disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide? Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? CutePeach (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility" What a ridiculous question! There are sources that clearly state it has NO legal powers, NO affiliation to any legal body, has NO history, was expressly formed by people wishing to draw attention to these human rights abuses (a wholly homourable wish by them, but hardly a neutral nor a judicial one) and NO sources saying it DOES have any legal powers, structure, history, purpose etc.. It's formed by a campaigning group and if it were in any other country we would be calling it a publicity stunt or a show trial. The absence of sources saying what its authority, powers, structure, history, purpose etc are make my lack of credibility claim justified. Russell's teapot applies here.

The same BBC source which is used to detail the tribunals conclusions in the article states EXPLICITLY that neither Amnesty nor HRW consider what is happening to be genocide "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." Amnesty and HRW have long and honourable pedigrees of speaking against HR abuses (wherever they occur), I'm sure they know what 'genocide' is and know how it differs from mass incarceration. The conclusions of the tribunal are listed, the Amnesty and HRW position in the same source is ignored totally. It's called CHERRYPICKING I believe! Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? Lots of places, including the title. Acres of the article are devoted to arguing that this IS genocide, often beefing up what the source says AFAI can see, removing any hesitancy or qualification and failing to be explicit about exactly WHY genocide is being argued, despite there being no known deaths, which is crucial to the most common definition and EVERY previous prosecution and virtually every previous instance of genocide. The irony is, to my mind, that the attempt to get that 'bad word' to stick means the article is not covering the virtually indisputable fact that serious HR abuses are taking place. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, please don't ridicule my question. If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked. The holocaust became known during WWII through the accounts of victims who managed to escape, not from judicial or such organizations you deem to be significant. Until international organizations are able to inspect the Xinjiang camps, the only independent sources we have are the accounts of victims and their relatives, as reported by RS - like the BBC. If you want to change the page name, we will need something much stronger than Amnesty and HRW stopping short of calling it a genocide. If we go with what Amnesty calls it, it would be "Xinjiang dystopian hellscape" [13]. CutePeach (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked I'm sorry, but that's an absurd assertion. AFAIK, there are no sources saying that Joe Biden isn't a Martian. Sources are explicit that the tribunal has no mandate, no legal powers and was formed by people wanting to draw attention to the plight of Uyghurs (which by the way is a very honourable thing for them to want to do. But, as I say not a neutral objective nor one with any judicial weight at all. The tribunal is a novel campaigning tool with no real claim to be anything other than that). AFAIK, the holocaust became known from accounts getting out though neutral couriers, not people escaping. But what does that prove? That itself is a campaigning logic on your part, not a reporting one. "We cannot establish the full facts of what is going on" does not translate into "the limited reports we have must be believed, because this COULD BE another holocaust". I would not want to exclude witness reports, but I'm aware of their limitations. No incident in human history has so far been described as a genocide, which did not involve significant human death. Substantial numbers commentators, news outlets and well-established orgs(such as HRW and Amnesty), use other terms - so how can it be the WP:COMMONNAME? Very dishonestly IMO, this WP article does not even make explicit that a 'non-standard' definition is being used to support the use of the term 'genocide' throughout. I happen to know a fair amount about Lemkin and the UN definition. What is happening here is that readers are being asked to already be Lemkin experts in order to understand the article title. Apart from being confusing and dishonest IMO, it's actually counter-productive. Boys calling 'wolf' comes to mind. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, but we don't have anyone claiming that Joe Biden is a martian... We do have you claiming that the Uyghur Tribunal is not credible so you're going to need to provide a source for that. I think you have the situation reversed, you're making a claim of substance not of absence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing on talk, not trying to insert text in the article about the legal authority and weight of the tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, since the views of the tribunal are reported, whilst those of HRW and Amnesty are ignored. It is very well sourced that the tribunal has no legal authority, no history, no supervising legal body and was formed explicitly to draw attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Individual witnesses there seem to have considerable reputations, but the body as a whole is a novel campaigning tool AFAI can see. It is also very well sourced that Amnesty and HRW have long honourable histories of researching and campaigning for human rights, and neither is exactly a friend of totalitarian regimes. The BBC reports the conclusions of the tribunal, HRW and Amnesty in the same article. WP reports the tribunal conclusion, but ignores that of Amnesty and HRW - who both consider that serious and widespread HR abuses are taking part, but don't consider it to be genocide. If that isn't CHERRYPICKING to promote a particular position, I really don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete you are advocating a change to the article text and even its title without providing reliable sources. When you provide the requested reliable sources, we will discuss them and make the proposed changes, if necessary. This includes your argument about the legal authority and weight of the Uyghur Tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, which is entirely your own. Your equating of victim accounts of genocide to claims of a teapot orbiting the sun is similarly quite novel, and would require very strong sourcing. CutePeach (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach I am not equating victim accounts to Russell's Teapot - whatever gave you that idea? Victims's stories are widely reported and are relatively consistent and credible, but inherently unconfirmable. Therefore there is no reason for us to either endorse nor question them - and to do so frivolously would be very insensitive of me.

I was equating the credibility of the Uyghur Tribunal to Russell's Teapot - ie of course there aren't sources saying that it isn't very credible. There aren't sources saying that it IS CREDIBLE either, but there are plenty saying it has NO legal, judicial or political AUTHORITY nor any prior history and (if I remember well), saying that it was formed specifically to draw the world's attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Fine, but that's a campaigning role not an investigative nor judicial one. The credibility of an human rights org, as with a news source is an earned reputation not a presumed right, and the tribunal hasn't been around long enough AFAI can see to have acquired a reputation, nor has it inherited credibility by having judicial powers or authority from the UN or some other body. The tribunal is a faux-judicial campaigning tool, much as a poster or slogan might be used to draw attention to a cause. I'm not asking the article to say that about the tribunal as it's obvious, but I'm entitled to point it out on talk in a relative-weight discussion.

The same BBC source used to support the tribunal text, says specifically "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." I have ALREADY posted that source THREE times in THIS section alone, and several times posted the quote.

I found that BBC source easily the very first time I visited this article, the HRW and Amnesty conclusions are NOT included, the tribunal ones ARE. Amnesty and HRW are also campaigning orgs, but both have long histories of impartial campaigns against HR abuses anywhere, unlike the tribunal. So if anyone has WEIGHT, it would be HRW and Amnesty, but they aren't included. It is difficult for me to not conclude that the reason the tribunal is included, but the other more established orgs ignored is simply because the tribunal says genocide is happening the other two choose other ways to describe the abuses. Cherrypicking to endorse a favoured position AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It could also reflect a shift in mainstream U.S. thinking towards a less confrontational position on China. TFD (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to refer to the dispute, but not to put it in wiki-voice or allow it to affect how we portray this crisis in Wikivoice. We would need better independent authoritative RSes referring to this as not a genocide to do that. The Sachs opinion piece above is not good enough for that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

New evidence on Xinjiang proves propaganda

Hey guys,

there is an organization named Xinjiang Victims Database. From those organizations that publish on Xinjiang they are one of the few that are not funded by the US government. They also accuse China of crimes against humanity so the are completely unsuspicious of being a Chinese op. They recently published two reports, the Primary-Evidence Report and the Facilities Report, you can find both directly on their homepage: https://shahit.biz/eng/

As the name suggests, the Primary-Evidence Report is a collection of mostly uncommented primary evidence, such as 51 detailed reports from people who had been detained. It also contains information on the Karakash list, one of the leaked Chinese government documents, that you may have heard about. It actually contains much more but these two chapters are the most important ones.

The evidence presented therein sums up to the following: In late 2016/early 2017 China started to build a prison network and began to arrest people, hundreds of thousands, possibly up to a million. They also issued a new family planing law. Before 2017 there was the one child policy but it was only enforced on Han. From 2017 on the new law allowed people in urban areas to have two children and three in rural areas. Since Han typically only had one child, it was primarily enforced on minorities. One of the main reasons that got people arrested was having too many children. China also declared Kazakhstan an untrustworthy country, which got many Kazhaks arrested for having traveled to Kazakhstan. People were sent to prison first and later to "Re-education camps". Torture occurred in these prisons and camps, when people disobeyd the were beaten or sometime put in a so called Tiger Chair. However, in early 2019 China released the prisoners, at least 90% of them.

In this interview from early 2019 at the end you can see how Adrian Zenz mentions that China had begun to release detainees. He also says that in his view the detention system was not meant to be indefinite and that he expected the majority of detainees to be released within the next one or two years. https://www.nzz.ch/international/china-jeder-uigure-kann-jederzeit-im-umerziehungslager-landen-ld.1457048

One year later, in early 2020, Zenz acknowledged in an article about the Karakash list that China had released 87.5% of the detainees (search Text for "87.5 percent"). https://www.jpolrisk.com/karakax/

What this means in total is that the genocide allegations are an Iraq/WMD style propaganda campaign, because everything except what I'm describing above are lies: The concentration camps, the genocide, the cultural genocide, the mass sterilization to prevent births, the claim that 1+ million were still in detention, the systematic sexual violence, the murders, all of those are bad faith fabrications.

I'm a veteran of online discussions. I know that the human brain is incapable of dropping firm belief in an instant. I know with absolut certainty that your very first reaction will be to throw some BS at me aimed at preserving your current view and to save yourself the trouble of reading anything.

I want you to hold yourself back there. I want you realize that I'm providing detailed information and sources and that there is a vast amount of evidence right in front of your nose. I want you to look at the evidence first and THEN you can reply. I want this to begin with a discussion on the evidence and not with a discussion on your your refusal to even take a look at it. This is your responsibility as Wikipedia editors.

Should you be capable to live up to this responsibility, you absolutely must brace your self for an emotionally challenging experience. Having been lied to like that, being this wrong on something is an emotional hell-ride. Most people are not capable of processing what you need to process here.

However, it is of utmost importance that the truth gets out. Now, not decades later. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laroop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an awful lot of WP:SYNTH to me. I'm not seeing how the websites you link support your claims, and on Wikipedia we follow what reliable secondary sources say – we don't make our own judgements about primary sources as that would result in original research. Unless you have specific suggestions on how to improve the page, this isn't really helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Darren Byler

I recently created an article for Darren Byler. He has written extensively about the Uyghurs and mass surveillance. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

French recognition

The National Assembly of France has recognized the Uyghur genocide [14]--203.218.141.159 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they haven't. It is non-binding. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10423189/French-politicians-officially-recognise-Chinas-treatment-Uyghurs-genocide.html 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:3959:938:B59A:2376 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Most, if not all the recognotions are 'non-binding', which the article accurately reflects. Crudely speaking, they are expressions of disapproval from parliamentarians, which do not bind their respective governments to any (particular) actions. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Therefore it has as much meaning as my recognition that france is committing genocide of North African Muslim peoples in france, because many of them are homeless and beg on the streets and forced to learn french. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:ADFE:BD27:D1F7:8F44 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Except you are not a parliamentarian! But legally you are quite correct, it's a formal expression of disapproval, nothing more. But in the case of the UK (and perhaps some other countries) it's the only kind of genocide recognition that ever occurs. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What does the french national assembly have to say about this? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10505117/Police-clash-convoy-heading-Paris-protest-Covid-rules-energy-price-rises.html 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:117:34B9:D991:800E (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tags atop the page

@PlanespotterA320: You've added tags atop the page and noted in your comment that you believe the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Radio Free Asia to be partisan sources used in a way that doesn't reflect due weight. Is there any specific text in the article that you think is not properly attributed, or do you just think that citing these generally reliable sources is not good practice?

Additionally, you've stated that you don't believe the global south has its views represented in the article—I'm rather confused considering the article frequently uses Al Jazeera (which is based in the Global South). Are there particular countries that you think we're leaving out in the international responses section for which coverage exists in RS? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, AJ as an outlet of Qatar (a nation with extremely high GDP per capita) is not exactly representative of the Global South to put it mildly. Second, obviously any state media outlet writing about alleged human rights violations in another country is INHERENTLY partisan and certainly sketchy (as they have a vested interest in making their country's human rights situation look better by comparison). RFA is officially considered "generally reliable" not "ALWAYS RELIABLE" as well and being a partisan source. If RFA was cited one or two times or was used purely for uncontroversial claims like "The Uyghur Arabic alphabet is used in Xinjiang" I wouldn't put the tag in, but considering that RFA is literally the most frequently cited source (both directly via citation and indirectly via other sources cited that in turn cite it), and used for heavy claims, then it is obviously a problem to have such weight given to sources known to be partisan without even including a disclaimer in the article that RFA is funded by the US government. Especially claims about "anonymous sources" allegedly telling RFA something, which should be taken with a heaping grain of salt. Back to the issue of global south representation, it certainly would be fair to note and include the official statements from global south countries regarding their opinion on the matter, especially leaders of Islamic countries like Pakistan.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding WP:DUE coverage from WP:RS. It doesn't sound like the tags are actually needed unless you have sources which can back up your personal opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the tags are needed because the article HEAVILY cites state media outlets. Like I said before, if such outlets were cited occasionally, it would not be a problem, but the article's heavy dependence on them is clearly a problem. The tags should remain until the article is far less dependent on partisan sources backed by government funding.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing no such dependence, we seem to cite a wide variety of media. I see heavy use of NYT, The New Yorker, The Guardian, Axios, The Diplomat, South China Morning Post, etc which are not state media outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The editorial independence of the BBC is pretty damn-well established—it's one of the most respected news organizations on the planet—while RSP notes that Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use (emphasis mine). There's a community consensus around these for sure, and that Al Jazeera is WP:GREL also appears to be widely accepted (though some editors in the WP:ARBPIA area consider it to have a pro-Palestine bias). — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that as state media they are inherently partisan, because if they published content that the government really didn't like, the government could cut their funding, hence those outlets have financial incentive to tow the government line.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're challenging the reliability of state media in general this is not the forum to do that in. We have clear consensus that these sources are WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a good thing the Chinese media are independent from the CCP. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: is the objection to AJ that it is the media outlet of a Muslim country and thus incapable of upholding journalistic standards on this topic? Or is it the country's GDPP relative to other Global South countries? Both arguments are irrelevant in the context of human rights, in my opinion. Your Pakistani government shout-out is bizarre when your main concern is partisanship. I can't think of any government more in line with the CCP than the Pakistani government [15]. Pious Brother (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Xinjiang Documentation Project

I recently created a draft for the Xinjiang Documentation Project. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth rates in Xinjiang fell a further 24% in 2019, compared to a nationwide decrease of 4.2%.

From this sentence, I understand that birth rates fell in Xinjiang at a rate higher than the national average. What was the birth rate in Xinjiang relative to the national birth rate of China in 2019? It is not clear from the Article if the Uyghur population is growing or shrinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvZisTrash (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you not found the answer since you last asked this in August? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What I cannot discern is whether you're on the payroll of a state agency responsible for propaganda or you're just a garden-variety troll with a national bias, or at the very least a grudge against China. Clearly, you understand that stating these figures in such a manner is misleading. You understand also that Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedia. What gives? ZvZisTrash (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth Rate Decline vs Actual Birth Rates

There seems to be a significant focus on the percentage drop in Xinjiang birth rates, but less attention on the crude figures. The crude birth rate in Xinjiang (after the decline) is allegedly comparable to the national Chinese rate in 2018 (10.69 vs 10.94). Is there doubt on the veracity of these numbers?

2018: 10.94 births per 1,000 people in China. "The Xinjiang government said in its response that the birth rate in the region had dropped from 15.88 per 1,000 people in 2017 to 10.69 per 1,000 people in 2018. "

70.79.234.213 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No one questions that the crude birth rate today is comparable and it is implied in the article. TFD (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

We will need reliable refs that make the connection. It seems some refs are using Xinjiang and Uyghur births interchangeably, we will have to be careful not to do the same. Also some seem to be using Chinese official information. If it is Wiki policy to take that a face value we may need to change quite a bit of this page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Was it removed? Not sure which numbers were meant, but I don't see anything being even implied. CurryCity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Was there objection to adding them back in ? CurryCity (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of ones views of the morality of enforced contraception etc the data set out on the main page is selective and misleading. The same data source shows that the Uighar birthrate was previously several times higher than the Chinese average and has now simply been reduced to the Chinese average. This of itself cannot be considered genocide, at least not unless one believes that the whole Chinese nation who have been subject to exactly the same pressure to restrict family size have also been victims of genocide. The actual birth rate rather than just the reduction in the birth rate should be made explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.32.134 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The references may not be accurate. If China is genuinely involved in forced sterilization (or anything of the sort), they could easily send out false or incorrect data. Animalmaster (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Glaringly obvious NPOV violation

If I understand correctly, the reason this article is not flagged for NPOV violation is that a majority of people responding to some poll decided it doesn't violate NPOV criteria.

This is beyond absurd. Majority opinion is not the way to determine objectivity, especially as most people editing the English-language Wikipedia seem to come from one country (USA), and get most of their opinions from US mainstream media.

This article not only violates any reasonable NPOV criteria, it doesn't even make a plausible attempt at neutrality. As it stands it is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Desassossego2 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you to look at WP:CONSENSUS to see how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. It certainly is not just by a "majority." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You really need to give good reasons for wanting a change rather than just saying something is obvious and being vehement about it, those are not convincing reasons. For instance one reason I gave at WP:NPOVN for overriding the RfC was MOS:LEADSENTENCE which says the lead sentence should use plain English, and citations to three very popular dictionaries giving mass killing in their definition of genocide. And others have given reasons based on the citations for instance. You needn't give a link like that, but if it is important an people dispute it then it can be worth asking at the help desk if there is policy or guideline on the lines you're thinking of. NadVolum (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote

Xinjiang genocide redirects to this page, as it is the most likely to be referred as such. However, a previous large-scale genocide of Dzungars was carried out in this same region. I thus suggest the following addition to the page:

"Xinjiang genocide" redirects here. For the Qing-era genocide in the same region, see Dzungar genocide.

37.166.229.216 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims in lead not supported in cited sources

I'm not extended confirmed, can someone please look into the sentence "Thousands of mosques have been destroyed or damaged, and hundreds of thousands of children have been forcibly separated from their parents and sent to boarding schools." The sentence currently cites these sources: 1, 2, the first of which says "By May 2019, the Xinjiang government is literally able to “parent” at least tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand or more children." and makes no mention of mosques. The second source doesn't mention mosques either and doesn't mention how many children are being separated.

In a previous version of the article, the claim about mosques was supported in this source: 3, which is currently cited in Uyghur_genocide#Mosques. In this edit, the source was removed with the justification "Remove opinion piece as source for factual claim in lede". The edit is currently tagged as "reverted", but the source isn't cited in the lead so I'm not sure what happened. I think the citation should be restored. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 20:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree it should be restored, thats not an opinion piece its a long form piece of investigative journalism and I'm not really sure how an honest editor could confuse it with one (I'l admit that sometimes it can be difficult to tell them apart but this is not one of those cases). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I made this explicitly clear in my original post, but I think that the phrase "hundreds of thousands" should be changed to "tens of thousands" or something similar to reflect what the Zenz article actually says. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 22:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Words like "is literally able to" can be weasly. Is the XJ gov actually "parenting" tens of thousands of children? Or hundreds of thousands? Or is it only potentially possible for the XJ gov to do so? Which part is fact, which part is speculation? CurryCity (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That should be restored. The piece was run through the news desk of The New Yorker, which has a reputation of being one of the most rigorously thorough in their fact-checking of any publication. The specific number of sixteen-thousand mosques might be worth using, rather than the vague "thousands". In terms of children being separated, the NY Times cites leaked internal Chinese documents to say that about 500,000 children were separated from parents and placed in boarding schools—as of 2019. I cannot imagine that a lower number is appropriate given the very concrete reporting. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The article, by the investigative journalist Raffi Khatchadourian, says, "Experts estimate that, since 2017, some sixteen thousand mosques have been razed or damaged." I prefer this type of phrasing to "Thousands of mosques have been destroyed or damaged." Wikipedia articles should not assert greater certainty than the sources it uses. Also, it would also be better to use a source that says something about these experts. One of the advantages of Wikipedia articles over other encyclopedias is that readers can follow text to sources and find out who made what claims and what their evidence was. TFD (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Uyghur genocide – community consensus vs NPOV?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Uyghur genocide – community consensus vs NPOV?. Jr8825 • Talk 22:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for taking on the large task of closing the above RfC. I just wanted to make you aware of this spin-off conversation at the NPOV noticeboard which occurred after the failed earlier close. You may wish to review and close this thread also? Jr8825 • Talk 01:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)