Talk:Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2024 and 12 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rosieposie32 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Prof Whitney (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Xijin remarks from academic source

A response by Hu Xijin sourced to an academic text was removed from the Opposition. First, the grounds were "editorial" (if "editorial" remarks like this are significant enough to be sourced to an academic text, as this was, it is no obstacle). Second, the same editor removed it again, this time saying it was undue. This is does not make sense-- Hu is a major media figure in public discourses and the single sentence is due. Unlike some of those we cite, Hu is notable enough to rate his own Wikipedia article. Following its removal, we include no Chinese journalists at all. We do however cite several American newspapers, and we cite them directly (not even in a secondary source). The undue problem leans quite in another direction. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the Reaction heading is about serious and/or official statements. A hot take is not due here. Let's stick with serious reaction commentary. - Amigao (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point we are addressing here is that these legislations are often an object of derision in the Chinese public sphere. It's not about whether we agree the the aptness of the metaphor -- even sarcasm can be a "serious reaction". I would have no issue with your position if it was cherry picked from Hu's article and cited to Hu's article. But we are discussing a reaction serious enough for inclusion in academic sources, despite its acerbic tenor. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the cite has broader commentary or a contextual summary, that would be far more useful than dropping in a stand-alone hot take. - Amigao (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

background section - best to leave this out

In my opinion, this section is very much out of place in the article. It takes up half the page, but none of the sources used actually discusses the law and it only serves to divert attention from what we should be focused on, which is the law itself. On top of that, if we are going to discuss the historical aspect of the law, there is already a section which already appears to do that (legislative history). The background section did not exist until very recently so even if the information is relevant, it does look like most editors did not think it was relevant enough to be included in the article. The revision history indicates there has been some dispute over this material so I will wait for others to comment, but if nobody objects, then I will move to remove this section. Crwd-ppu (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The background section is useful but should be trimmed down, probably as a simple first-paragraph excerpt of Persecution of Uyghurs in China for brevity. - Amigao (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the sources we use for the excerpt actually discusses this law, my issue is that it would simply reintroduce all the problems which currently exist with background section that I outlined in my opening post. What do you suggest we write for the excerpt? Crwd-ppu (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The background was substantially trimmed. It is well-sourced and quite relevant. - Amigao (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should to be more objective in how we define what is relevant. If we start using sources which do not actually discuss what this article is about, we run the risk of turning it into a shoehorn for other content. I think it is worth repeating that this section was created only very recently so I do question how committed we should be in actually retaining it. It appears that we are not going to agree to our basic positions, so is there something that we can agree on? Can we at least agree that if a source does not include any reference to the law, then the article should not include any information which references that source? Crwd-ppu (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much stricter standard than is applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's generally acceptable to have background sections with information from reliable sources on a general topic that do not explicitly mention the article title (so long as it is clearly about the general topic and avoids WP:SYNTH).

The background section here is now 4 sentences long. Is there a specific part of those 4 sentences you have a concern with? — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]