Jump to content

Talk:Xinjiang internment camps/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 17 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


Xinjiang re-education camps → Xinjiang internment camps – Current name violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:COMMONNAME. Proposed name is more precise, more common in Anglophone coverage and more neutral. Melmann 19:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Per nomination, as the nominator.Melmann 19:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment As apparently further clarification is necessary. It breaks WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY because there is a broad, nearly universal, consensus among reliable sources that the purpose of the camps is cultural and religious genocide and ethnic cleansing. CCP's cover story is that these are vocational re-education camps. Thus this title is fundamentally propaganda, and against policy. If we exclude it from consideration, 'interment camps' is thus the most common term which is not against policy (which is why we use it in the article body too). Additionally, the only reason why the propaganda term 're-education camps' is so common is because reliable sources mention it under quotation marks to draw attention to CCP's attempts to hide one of the largest scale crimes against humanity of modern history. Melmann 11:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It should occur to you that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate any form of social justice (this is ironic given your own claim to fight advocacy), but a re-iteration of consensus from secondary sources. It appears that you are trying to take the accusing side's POV from some English-language media by degrading the defending side as cover story, when the objective thing to do as an encyclopedia is to compare statements of both accusations and defenses (don't forget, many foreign governments have sent visiting delegates and subsequently expressed their support to China's defense), with due weight of course, then let the readers decide for themselves.
  • If most current sources do call it re-education camps, then it is accepted that the term is WP:COMMONNAME. Statistical evidence as tabulated by MarkH21 below currently shows so. NoNews! 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Most current reliable Anglophone do not call it re-education camp, and ones that do do so under scare quotes to make it clear that this term is CCP propaganda. You are the one who is seeing two sides here, when I am simply trying to get Wikipedia to follow current reliable source usage. There are no sides here, just reliable sources and what Wikipedia says based on them. Melmann 19:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • First, your claim that Most current reliable Anglophone do not call it re-education camp is fickle at best. Based on MarkH21's statistical evidence there's a significant number of academic articles that obviously still call the facilities as such, without quotations. And a statistical comparison shows that "re-education camp" is still the dominant term, versus other terms such as the proposed "internment camp". You have yet to shown that "internment camp" is statistically in wide-use.
  • Second, to make it clear that this term is CCP propaganda, this is totally false as Chinese state media officially calls it "Vocational Education and Training Centres", see MarkH21's reply to Jtbobwaysf below. Use of the term "re-education camp" is primarily within Anglo-European media and non-mainland Chinese-language media in HK/Taiwan/Singapore.
  • Third, even if some articles that you previously cited place the term "re-education camp" under quotation marks questioning their intentions, they have not consistently used any other term. There are scatter uses of "detention camp", "internment camp", "concentration camp" etc that statistically do not match to "re-education camp". Therefore leaving the article's title as it is with the cited allegations of "detention/internment" etc in the content is sufficient.
  • Fourth, I don't see any issues with seeing two sides when it is Wikipedia's guideline to be objective. The Chinese' defense of the facilities, when supported by so many international countries and the OIC (see article), must be taken with due weight and not casually brushed away. This is primarily relevant to the content, but not so much to this RM.
  • NoNews! 04:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is mostly nonsense and POV pushing. We cannot use academic sources for this discussion as there is no way we can disprove likely COI of the so called academic sources, we must assume that many of these academic sources receive funding from PRC/USA, or other state actors. The PRC's position is well noted in this article with due weight (I am pretty sure most of us editors wouldn't want to attend any "education" at the facilities) and the subject of this move discussion (and any move) is the name, and due weight doesn't need to be given to the PRC's name of the facilities. These arguments are ludacris. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So now you're accusing academic sources of having conflict of interest and therefore shouldn't be trusted? This sounds even more preposterous and unless you have evidence that concretely point out which journals are unreliable, then you can list them here; otherwise you appear to be opposing me just for the sake of opposing. I have made it clear that my last point is in response to Melmann's failure to show objectivity with regards to article content and may be disregarded for the sake of this RM. You have failed to appropriately respond to any of my earlier three points. NoNews! 01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes academic sources are not RS. Your and Mark's assertions above that re-education is the name of the activity ongoing at the camp (facility) and detention is alleged is laughable, and is PRC PR at best. This is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
sometimes academic sources are not RS -- which ones are not RS then? The link is here for everyone to see and criticize, if you can point out the ones that are not RS it would not only help this RM but the (re-)evaluation of all academic sources. Do so. Otherwise your claim is sweeping and unbelieveable. The onus is on the claimant after all.
In addition I'm not going to argue with you whether re-education is the name of the activity ongoing at the camp, for that you can consult the contents of the article. This RM is about the title, and thus far I've already made my point that "re-education camp" is still the WP:COMMONNAME. Sure some English-language articles have accused many things happening in there such as internment, detention, torture etc, but there has not been coordinated and predominant uses of terms such as "internment camp", "detention camp", "concentration camp", "prison" to refer to the facilities as of yet. "Re-education camp" it still is. NoNews! 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unless the following results have completely changed since the last requested move in August 2020 (feel free to re-run these searches), Xinjiang re-education camps is the WP:COMMONNAME in both media coverage and academic sources.

    Google search results (English-only, Google News only, excluding Wikipedia and blog via X -Wikipedia -blog, sub-results using site:Y):

    • "Xinjiang re-education camps": 2,150 results
      • Generally reliable sources: 10 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 28
    • "Xinjiang detention camps": 4,960 results (3,350 of which are from the Shanghaiist blog, 1,610 from all other sources)
      • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 17
    • "Xinjiang internment camps": 3,240 results (1,820 of which are from Radio Free Asia, 1,420 from all other sources)
      • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 16
    • "Xinjiang detention centers": 587 results
    • "Xinjiang concentration camps": 450 results
    • "Xinjiang re-education centers": 141 results
    • Using Uyghur or Uighur returned relatively very few results that are not worth listing here.
      Generally reliable sources here means: Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Der Spiegel, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, TIME, and The Wall Street Journal.
      All of these are generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. I'd run a thorough search on non-Western English sources too but it's a bit time-consuming.
      Broader international sources here means the previous list plus: ABC (Australia), AFP, Al Jazeera English, DW News, Haaretz, The Diplomat, The Japan Times, The Korea Herald, The Straits Times, and The Times of India.
      — MarkH21talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC); Updated with Broader international English-language sources 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

    I ran the academic source searches with results showing that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Xinjiang re-education camps" (similar to the December 2019 news outlet search):

    1. Scopus (since 2017):
      • 2 results for Xinjiang re-education camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang concentration camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang internment camps
    2. Web of Knowledge (since 2017):
      • 2 results for Xinjiang re-education camps
      • 0 results for Xinjiang concentration camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang internment camps
    3. Google Scholar (since 2017)
    — MarkH21talk 21:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
was there a concentration of hits for "Xinjiang re-education camps" from one particular source?—blindlynx (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
When I did those searches, no. The massive number of hits from RFA and Shanghaiist for two of the other searches was something peculiar to how those two websites display old articles on every page(e.g. a banner for "recent articles" at the bottom of every page). — MarkH21talk 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool, that makes sense—blindlynx (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
MarkH21 is opposer. STSC (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
As "re-education" is fundamentally against policy, MarkH21's data proves that most common name that is not against policy is interment camps.Melmann 21:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Melmann: Please explain what you mean by against policy. Per MarkH21's reply to Jtbobwaysf below on 27 January, "re-education camp" is the term described in predominantly non-Chinese academic sources, and the official Chinese term for the facilities is "Vocational education and Training centres" as in the article's first line. NoNews! 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I explained why the name is against policy in the nomination and the subsequent comment. You refusing to engage with my points and repeatedly asking "but why?" does not change the fact that the current name is against policy.Melmann 19:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, you are the one who is failing to substantiate your points, and adequately respond to my queries when I challenged you on them. Please go back to the previous comment and answer to the point. NoNews! 04:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As per the testimonies of many survivors' of the camps, like Mihrigul Tursun, Gulbahar Haitiwaji [1], Gulbahar Jelilova[2], former camp teacher Qalbinur Sidiq [3], Omerbek and many others etc, those camps have very little to do with "re-education", the CCP obviously targets ethnic minorities and committing genocide as per the US claims just yesterday[4].--KH561 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Stating reeducation is the commonname is untrue. This term is not used seriously. The sources that use "reeducation" place it in quotes or dispute the characterization/accuracy in some way. Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] They then go on to label them as internment or concentration camps.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Supporters of the move, including the nominator, have yet to demonstrate how the current title violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments that have been made so far are mostly of personal opinion. Without more detailed explanations, this move is unlikely to succeed. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per MarkH21's evidence. Supporters of the notion have so far not demonstrated that (a) the proposed name is WP:COMMONNAME throughout English-language media (rather just from a few selected media), and (b) that it does not have connotations of bias itself or is a better alternative than the current name. NoNews! 09:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Simple question, is it a voluntary exercise? If not how it can remain just re−education. By Chinese standard Iranian would start calling Sharia punishment of giving lashes as re−education!
  • here word 'intern' is defined as "to confine within set limits," and "one working under supervision as part of professional training,"
So I find term "Xinjiang internment camps" more realistic, and "Xinjiang re-education camps" may be politically right but deceptive one.
Bookku (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @KuroNekoNiyah: Please cite your evidence to "internment camps" known widely on reputable news journals, for it doesn't appear to be so based on MarkH21's overall search results. No one above you, other than MarkH21, has cited the phrase's use and prevalence in reputable news journals so far. NoNews! 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said, if you or KuroNekoNiyah want to cite evidence for a move argument, you can't just present one or a few sources in favour of your argument and call it a day, because it would be easy for me to counter with another source that says otherwise. You need to list all the RS on both sides, compare, then decisively say that your argued term "internment camps" in exact words is comparatively in greater use across all the sources, so please do so. cursory surface examination is sweeping, and in vocational sense (if the term is not directly used) is a subjective re-interpretation of sources and constitutes WP:OR. NoNews! 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Internment campus are more accurate, per prior comments. I won't restate the arguments, but I find it self-evident about how the title does not reflect the common, accurate name. Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Stating reeducation is the commonname is untrue. Do not assume the search engine results above endorse or use the label "re-education" serious. This term is not used seriously: the sources that use "reeducation" place it in quotes or dispute the characterization/accuracy in some way. IS RS describe this in variety of ways, Internmenet being the most frequent. 15:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
    • I believe MarkH21's tabulated search engine results are more objective and thus more authoritative than your sweeping claims of describe this in variety of ways, Internmenet [sic] being the most frequent here. If you have sufficient data or reasonable evidence to back your claim up and challenge MarkH21's data, please show so. NoNews! 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • See my comment above. Political re-education and ideological re-education are not the same as "Vocational Education", and these camps are thoroughly described as camps for forced political re-education in plenty of academic sources. — MarkH21talk 23:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Re-education camp is not the goal of the camps as stated numerous times. They are internment camps, if we all agree that they aren't for reeducation but instead essentially prisons we should call it such. Des Vallee (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support noting that Re-education through labor defines re-education as a practice now discontinued in China. This new re-education term from the Chinese govt we should also use as a DUE altname noting it is the official name. We can also include there are many graduates of the system who write glowing reviews of it. Wikipedia need not take the official Chinese name for propaganda and literally translate it into english. We follow the sources and there are sufficient RS stating that it is in fact a long term internment camp (at best, or torture/genocide location at worst). Very few RS support any education, xinhua is certainly not an RS as it is WP:COI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jtbobwaysf: The Chinese government does not use the term re-education for these camps, their official term for the camps uses vocational education. It is in academic literature like the Greitens-Lee-Yazici article in International Security, Zenz article in Central Asian Survey, and Kriebitz-Max article in Human Rights Review where they are called re-education camps and where their purpose & activities are described as forced re-education and political indoctrination and clandestine political re-education. — MarkH21talk
      • I have checked the three sources you mention and the first two mention internment and the third mentions detention:
      "a wide-scale extra-judicial detention and internment system, aimed at mass indoctrination and political-ideological re-education"
      "Since summer 2017, troubling reports have emerged of large-scale internments of Muslims (Uyghurs, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz) in China’s north-west Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region"
      "so-called re-education camps (再教育营) established around 2017, which detain large parts of the Uyghur population".
      Vpab15 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Vpab15: Yes, they're not mutually exclusive. Academic sources describe internment and detention for involuntary political/ideological re-education. The point was that re-education is a term applied by independent academic references, not by the Chinese government. — MarkH21talk 11:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Mark, I assume you read Chinese correct? Are the Chinese terms being used by the Chinese wikipedia entry also incorrect in your opinion? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: As my userpage notes, yes. I am not sure what you mean by the second question. Like the English Wikipedia article here, the Chinese Wikipedia article for this topic uses 新疆再教育营 / 新疆再教育營 ("Xinjiang re-education camps") in wikivoice while noting that 职业技能教育培训中心 ("Vocational Education and Training Centers") and 教培中心 ("Education and Training Centers") are the terms used by the Chinese government. — MarkH21talk 16:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Can you please summarize what Chinese language sources are predominately using re-education 再教 rather than 教育 education/training? I looked a little at the sources for 再教 just now, and I see VOA and RFA, many Taiwan sites, NYT, & BBC. VOA is clearly a US govt source. Education is used a lot by PRC (xinhua, etc), given there is no free press, nor free social media, in China there is no real need to analyze term usage in PRC. What is the RFA source, is this also the US govt? What is the Chinese term for internment in Chinese, and is anything like this being used in Chinese language press? I am guessing that type of term is not used in PRC. Sorry so many questions and pardon my ignorance on this issue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Chinese state-owned media generally use the government's official terms of "vocational education centers" and "training centers" except when responding to how external sources describe the camps (e.g. Xinhua quoting a government spokesperson more or less saying that there are "education and training centers" in Xinjiang but no "re-education camps" in Xinjiang).
RFA is Radio Free Asia, which is funded by the US government (like Voice of America).
The term 拘留 means "internment" or "detention", and is used by Chinese-language media not owned by the Chinese government together with 再教育 ("re-education"), e.g. BBC Chinese. — MarkH21talk 06:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for calrification. Common sense would indicate that no voluntary education is going on at these prisons. It would be like referring to a US prison as an education facility, since some of the prisoners were pursuing their GED. It appears that mostly was is going on at these centers in China is detention, internment, torture, with maybe some 'education' sprinkled on top. Calling it education anywhere in the name is UNDUE as we know this is not the primary purpose. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
For politically-related articles, a lot of Common sense and it appears that are often subjective interpretations. Therefore these still merit deferments to RS. And currently, most RS (per MarkH21's statistical data) are still referring to the facilities as "re-education camps" with allegations of detention, internment etc, NOT directly as "detention camp"/"internment camp"/"concentration camp" or the like. NoNews! 04:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as 'internment' more accurately describes the nature of these camps. - Amigao (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "Re-education" is clearly the pro-Chinese government narrative which is not neutral. Internment is more accurate. WatABR (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see some strange views being promulgated, here are some pointers from the current discussions:
    1. The Chinese government's official name for the facilities is "Vocational Education and Training Centres" (see article). The current use of the term "re-education camp" is predominantly in non-China English language sources. With regards to claims that "re-education" is not neutral or "re-education" is pro-China, there is more proof needed to show that the term is not neutral, that Chinese started calling them "re-education camp" or is eagerly promoting the term among their media; otherwise these claims aren't valid. Chinese state-media Global Times and CGTN both promote the official term and label "re-education camp" as "so-called", suggesting a discouragement of the use of the term in China.
    2. There is great ambiguity if we go by a title because it appears more accurate, because this suggests a subjective interpretation. If "internment camp" is accurate, then why not "detention camp"? Why not "concentration camp"? Why not "prison"? Are all these equally accurate? When appears more accurate becomes the indicator to determine the RM then are we going to have RM after RM from here onwards because some editor claims that "detention camp" is more accurate than "internment camp" or the sorts?
    3. Therefore we should still go back to RS use of the term as the indicator to determine this RM. Based on current statistical tabulation by MarkH21 it is clear that use of "re-education camp" is greater than "internment camp", so any editors that support the move notion should properly show evidence to challenge MarkH21's data and show that use of the term "internment camp" (yes the entire term "internment camp", not simply pointers of "internment" because we're talking about the article title) is greater and more prominent than the current "re-education camp".
NoNews! 01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. "Re-education" is not neutral according to many sources. By having the term in quotes or using the phrase "so-called re-education camps" (see link), they question the term.
  2. Per above, a term that is questioned by reliable sources cannot be accurate.
  3. MarkH21 shows that "internment camps" is widely used. Again, a lot of sources use "re-education" but just to question the term. We should go with the most common non-controversial term, which is "internment camps". Vpab15 (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Many reliable sources likewise still use "re-education camp" [25] without quotations. The Economist and Bloomberg still use the unquoted term, in reports dated within the past week. Al-Jazeera had a quotation in the first instance of a report, then removed it for mentions thereafter. The Guardian only used quotation marks in the title, and referred to the facilities without quotations throughout the main text. What do you take of this, does it mean that these sites are no longer RS? That they still use controversial terms that cannot be accurate? I would suggest taking a closer look at WP:BIASED to determine if sources that place it in quotation marks are merely portraying a form of bias. NoNews! 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what you mean by biased sources? As far as I can see, all sources agree that what happens in the camps is internment, imprisonment, detention, or whatever synonym you want to use. Biased sources linked to the Chinese Government are the only ones pushing the "education" POV. Vpab15 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • First, reliable sources can push biased narratives, the most prominent (outside this article) being the liberal-conservative divide in American media, and here I'm suggesting that sources that use "re-education camp" in quotes are portraying that bias, and does not necessarily mean that the term is non-neutral.
  • Second, whatever happens within the camps, as claimed by these sources, is a secondary concern in this RM because we're going by the name that these facilities are referred to, which is currently predominantly "re-education camp".
  • Third, your claim that ... only ones pushing the "education" POV is irrelevant here because RS use "re-education camp" rather than "education camp" or "education centre", as shown by my links in the earlier response. In contrast, barely any mainland Chinese media officially endorse "re-education camp" (you can try to find any that does). NoNews! 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

At the back of the detainees shirts you can see that it actually says "Rehab Center" BilmoBlampkins (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Most people refer to them as re-education/interment/concentration camps. It's the same reason why we use DB Cooper instead of Dan Cooper, despite him using the latter psuedonym. Eridian314 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose “internment camps” contrary to WP:NPOV and fact. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - These are actually internment camps. Government send people in internment camps forcefully. Education or re-education cannot be given forcefully. Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's already been proven by WP:RS sources and personal testomanies that these are not just camps to "re-educate", it's part of the Uyghur genocide. Findings by other users above also support that this "re-education" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 'Re-education' simply does not accurately capture the the nature of these camps, but as was shown above, the findings of other users also indicate that internment camps are also a more common term. Those opposing this change on the basis that the term violates WP:NPOV - this is misleading because the neutral term is not necessarily the most apologetic term, but rather the most accurate term which describes a thing for what it is. SacredSunflower (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is abundantly well documented by numerous international observers and bodies and numerous victims and families of victims who found refuge in the west. "Re-education" is not neutral, it is clearly spun PR from pro-Chinese government sources. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the name "internment camp" is more WP:NPOV than "re-education camp". I think "detention camp" might be a better choice too. Félix An (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The title "internment camps" is accurate, neutral, and commenly used by reliable third party sources.--Zymogen.88 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The article calls them "internment camps" in the very first sentence. 1857a (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support . The reason for sending so many people into these camps is for political purpose. This is undisputed fact. Even the Communist officials admit it - it is to "remove extremism" or to "fight terrorism". This, by definition, is internment. Calling it "re-education" is already violating WP:NPOV and is racism and propaganda, because it assumes that these Communist officials have superior "knowledge" and the power to "re-educate" minority groups outside the legal system. Who do they think they are? More superior human beings? MWU12345 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's been documented by multiple sources that these people are there against their will and have been placed there by the government. Hence, it is "Internment". Calling it "Re-education" is simply inaccurate.Mitsurugi78 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Internment is possesses more accuracy compared to re-education in this case. While re-education means to instruct someone's behavior and/or thinking again, it is a fact that rape, sterilization, and perhaps murders/executions occur in these facilities, which cannot be placed under, in any way, the previous definition. By nearly all reputable third party accounts, the actions that occur at these camps are much more consistent with internment versus re-education. Therefor, it would be of great benefit to the context of this article for the title to include internment, rather than re-education. Matthewberns (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

trivia in lede

This: 

In 2019 at the United Nations, 54 nations (including China itself)[30] rejected allegations against China and supported China's policies in Xinjiang. In another letter, 23 nations accepted the allegations against China and did not support China's policies.[31][32]

Is essentially trivia and is given undue weight in the lede. Of course China denies it. This should be summarized and the counting of nations looks like trivia and WP:UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. The international response (or lack thereof) is an essential part of the topic. --Calthinus (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No reference for "it has been pointed out" in the introduction

In the first few paragraphs, it says "However, it has been pointed out that the signatories to that letter are predominantly states such as Belarus, Myanmar, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia and North Korea, and that these states have their own histories of limiting civil rights and freedoms, repressing critics and imprisoning dissidents."

None of the article references for that sentence say this, so this should be removed or, if a source is found, it should explicitly say who is "pointing this out". 72.89.196.131 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

These camps were closed in October 2019

These so-called “camps” or “vocational training centers” were closed in October 2019.[1][2][3][4]

CGTN is not a WP:RS (see WP:RSPSS) and is the only source you give that actually backs the claim. The other sources can only very vaguely point towards the claim you make, their use for this statement consists WP:SYN. Doanri (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "新疆自治区主席、乌鲁木齐市委书记等在京答记者问" (in Chinese). 新京报客户端. 10 December 2019., “Chinese: 目前（2019年10月），参加“三学一去”的教培学员已全部结业，在政府帮助下实现了稳定就业，改善了生活质量，过上了幸福生活。”
  2. ^ "视频：CGTN记者探访新疆教培中心 带你走近真相" (in Chinese). 手机新浪网. 30 December 2019., this video said “abandoned re-education center”
  3. ^ "我大使答瑞媒17问：目前新疆没有一所教培中心" (in Chinese). 观察者网. 24 March 2021., “Chinese: 截至2019年10月，教培中心学员已经全部毕业。目前，新疆没有一所教培中心。过去四年多来新疆也未再发生一起暴恐事件。这一切都显示出，我们在新疆的政策是正确的。”
  4. ^ "CGTN Exclusive: A tour of a closed 're-education camp' in Xinjiang". CGTN. 30 December 2019., “All trainees have graduated from the vocational education and training centers in northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, according to the region's chairman Shohrat Zakir earlier this month.”

Xinjiang Documentation Project

I recently created a draft for the Xinjiang Documentation Project. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Were Chips Used to Control 'Behavior' in Internment Camps??

Were Chips Used to Control 'Behavior' in Internment Camps?? 2600:387:C:6E10:0:0:0:2 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.82.69.82 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Report on forced labor in solar modules

The NYtimes and others covered this but on coming here, nada.. Some reason behind wanting to present them as just working on cotton picking and tomatoes?

As there are multiple sources and human rights reports.

Big money behind this, that politicians in the west would rather not be seen?

I included the references and gave some global insight of the ramifications globally.

Putting US and German's out of business as they can't compete with slave labor.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This event has not been confirmed

Since China and USA are enemies, there is a chance this is fake. Please use more neutral sorces Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The majority of our sources are not from the US or China. We don't have any WP:RS which say there is a chance this is fake. If you do please present them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
no. 2. The title of the article says potentially, meaning it is not confirmed and is not a reliable source Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

How come Xinjiang camps are referred to as "internment camps" if human rights abuses, rape, torture, and genocide happen there

How come Xinjiang camps are referred to as internment camps if allegations of human rights abuses, rape, torture, and genocide take place there. If calling Japanese American concentration camps internment camps is a euphemism than the same should go for Xinjiang camps. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We go with whatever name is the WP:COMMONNAME from sources. The majority of sources use this term. — Czello (music) 10:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes but calling Xinjiang camps "internment camps" is euphemistic, surely there must be some source out there that refers to them as "concentration camps" or "death camps", unless if the genocide, rape, and torture is all propaganda.95.151.194.20 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
There very well may be, but for us to use that as the primary name of the article it needs to be demonstrated that's the common name: see WP:COMMONNAME — Czello (music) 14:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Like I said before, if crimes against humanity, such as genocide, rape, and torture take place there then calling them "internment camps" is euphemistic but if it's all atrocity propaganda then I would be fine with calling it that. Like you wouldn't call Japanese American concentration camps "internment camps" would you.95.151.194.20 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, you would need to demonstrate that most reliable sources use the term you feel should be used, in order to use it for this article. Our personal views are not relevant. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This isn't how Wikipedia works. We relay what the majority of sources say, we don't make our own interpretations. — Czello (music) 19:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Well I did find a news article on Vox referring to the Xinjiang camps as concentration camps and claiming that forced labour goes on there. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

−
In September 2020, [[Malaysia]]'s new government decided not to extradite ethnic Uyghurs to China if Beijing requests it. Despite the government of Malaysia's stance not to get involved in Chinese internal affairs, it has stated that Uyghurs are being oppressed in the country. [[Mohd Redzuan Md Yusof]], minister in the Prime Minister's Department also stated that his government would provide free passage to those refugees who would want to settle in a third country.
+
In September 2020, the [[Muhyiddin Yassin|Muhyiddin]] government confirmed that it would not extradite ethnic Uyghurs to China if Beijing requests it, continuing the policy set by the [[Mahathir Mohamad|Mahathir]] administration. Although it is the government of Malaysia's stance not to get involved in Chinese internal affairs, it stated that the oppression of Uyghurs in the country could not be denied. [[Mohd Redzuan Md Yusof]], minister in the Prime Minister's Department also stated that his government would grant free passage to those refugees who wished to settle in a third country.
  • Why it should be changed: specify clearer subject than ambiguous "new government"; clarifies that this did not represent a policy change; general copyediting; removes duplicate link Malaysia redundant with preceding heading
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): already supported by existing citatioon

2406:3003:2077:1E60:D760:F1FB:9E28:69EF (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Lightoil (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

In the section about camp detainees, change "Russian-American Gene Bunin created the Xinjiang Victims Database to collect public testimonies on people detained in the camps, and its content had been referenced in articles by Al Jazeera, RFA, Foreign Policy, the Uyghur Human Rights Project, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch." to "Russian-American Gene Bunin created the Xinjiang Victims Database to collect public testimonies on people detained in the camps." with citations to those entities at the end of the sentence.

There is no need to appeal to authority and mention who has ever referenced the database. In other words, it is more encyclopedic to reference them instead of saying they reference it. 195.23.45.50 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  •  Not done Content is properly sourced, content and references contain meaningful information regarding the subject, article will not be improved by proposed change.  // Timothy :: talk  06:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    Is there a reason why the only other relevant info about the database is the follow-up sentence that brings up the "incident" with Andy Lau, which was basically a visual typo that the database corrected immediately and explained in detail (but which was blown out of proportion by pro-China accounts and media as an attempt to discredit the entire database)?
    That such a reaction was elicited might be relevant to mention (it is mentioned in the Wikipedia page for the database itself) if the database is described in detail, but it seems strange - in the case where only two sentences are devoted to it - to use the entire second sentence to cast doubt on the database's validity without addressing all of the other credible work and content in the database, which dwarfs this. Again, there seems to be little concern about this "incident" outside pro-China social media and state media, so this addition/edit doesn't feel very neutral in nature.
    In short, this focus seems extremely disproportionate (probably in the main Wiki on the database also, but there it's more warranted). 111.241.151.97 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    None of the sources covering it are Chinese "state media" whether it is AsiaOne[1] or China Press which are mainstream outlets in Singapore and Malaysia. The "incident" as you say in quotes is also reported in notable HK outlets like Headline Daily[2] and Hong Kong Economic Times,[3] and SCMP is considered acceptable per WP:SCMP. Of course mainland Chinese state media also reports on it but considerable the amount of non-PRC sources on this incident it would not warrant deletion, only at worst being moved to the "Responses from China" section. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Deep undercover? Andy Lau and Chow Yun Fat listed as Xinjiang 'crackdown' cops by US activists, netizens go wild". AsiaOne. 2023-01-17. Retrieved 2024-03-16.
  2. ^ "「警察名單」驚見周潤發和劉德華 「新疆受害者資料庫」惹議". Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2023-01-12. Retrieved 2024-03-16.
  3. ^ "澳洲一機構公佈新疆警察名單 中國官媒發現劉德華周潤發上榜 - 香港經濟日報 - 中國頻道 - 社會熱點". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Traditional Chinese). Retrieved 2024-03-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xinjiang_internment_camps/Archive_3&oldid=1254395213"