Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Section on definition of genocide

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

• Weaponizing human rights
  Weaponizing human rights

Adrian Zenz as a source - really?

This article is pretty bad already, perpetuating a lot of repeatedly debunked propaganda to hype the new cold war against China. It's one thing to use "respectable" sources that then depend on Zenz's "research", which helps at least preserve the verneer of credibility. But the use of Adrian Zenz as a source for anything in an article about China ought to be taken with a heaping grain of salt considering his inability to do basic math and his comedic religious beleifs about g-d wanting him to fight big bad China. This is hardly a neutral academic, mind you, perhaps some of the claims coming from him should not be taken at face value? If China ACTUALLY wanted to genocide Uyghurs, it would take away their passports, revoke their status as the titular people of Xinjiang (which is officially Xinjiang UYGHUR Autonomous Region), demote Xinjiang to a regular province, expell every Uyghur from Xinjiang, not give them an exemption to the 1-child policy for decades, ban the their Perso-Arabic alphabet, force them to call themselves Hui or Tatar, (per the Soviet model for de-Crimeanizing indigenous Crimeans). But they are doing the exact opposite. This article smells like propaganda and hasn't lived up to scrutiny nor time.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have any edits you would like for the community to consider, please list them out for everyone to consider. If you have any reliable sources that refute Zenz's statements, please feel free to discuss them. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and the articles are written from the understanding and sources available to the volunteers who edit the pages. Chrisagrant (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have lived in China for more than 25 years and this article sounds like complete nonsense. Too many westerners have a Yellow Peril mentality when it comes to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.164.63 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz is part of The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established by the US government in 1983. It was described by journalist Joe Conason as "the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries," according to US media outlet The Grayzone. Zenz claimed to have provided some statistics for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). ASPI has been exposed as a "right-wing, militaristic" think tank funded by US and Western governments, mega-corporations and weapons manufacturers. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197187.shtml GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Grayzone nor Global Times are WP:RS. See WP:RSP for more details. If you can find criticisms from reliable sources, this can be considered. Chrisagrant (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The section "the portion of the net increase that occurred in Xinjiang made up 80%, while the portion of new placements without subtracting removals that occurred in Xinjiang was 8.7%" makes literally zero sense and is not backed up by the primary source at all. So to arrive at his number, he did: 3774318 Total IUDs implanted - 3474467 Total IUDs removed = 299851 and then he took the Xianjiang numbers: 328475 IUDs implanted - 89018 IUDs removed = 239457, Now the math says he's right! (238457 IUDs added / 299851) * 100 = 80%. But, wait a minute. What about the other regions? Let's pick some just two others Hebei: 295684 IUDs implanted - 111425 IUDs removed = (184259 Net IUDs / 299851) * 100 = 62%, Henan: 342451 IUDs implanted - 136170 IUDs removed = (206281 Net IUDs / 299851) * 100 = 69% Now, obviously 80% + 62% + 69% is way more than 100%, so what is going on here? Oh right Adrien Zenz is a terrible source and complete hack and nobody here even bothered to check the numbers of his updated "justification" for getting his basic math wrong. Remove this nonsense already, it's been debunked so many times it's actually cringe it's still in this article. - Psydonk (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be summarising the primary source ourselves (especially as it is in Chinese), and making our own calculations based on its data is a clear example of original research. The paragraph should end after the secondary sources are quoted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The title is not objective or impartial and should be changed.

Using a title such as 'Uyghur genocide' not only neglects the strong evidence that there is not a genocide in Xinjiang, but also mislead the reader automatically into believing things that the Western media has already indoctrinated them. I request for the title of this page to be changed. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The title is less then ideal however the lead of the article makes it clear that these are accusations.PailSimon (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I support the renaming idea. Calling things like this genocide renders the word overused and meaningless.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320 Honestly, all I'm thinking about is how the world has almost forgotten about the situation with the Rohingyas in Myanmar. All genocides suck, but it's sad when the value of one's life depends on where you're in thanks to geopolitics. There's so much plight for the Uyghurs (e.g. World Ugyhur Congress, etc) but there are hardly any for the Rohingyas. ShelteredCook (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GrignardReagent007 Genocidal denial isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you deny that there isn't a systemic attempt to forcibly incarcerate, sterilize, and erase Uyghur ethnic identity I don't think you should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is banned in China due to censorship attempting to bring it here doesn't help. Des Vallee (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To deny a genocide, there should be one to start with. Well maybe it is banned in China for good reasons, as many attempt to rewrite history in an extremely subjective manner. That, is in fact against WP:NPOV ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GrignardReagent007 Maybe you shouldn't be on Wikipedia if you think Wikipedia is banned in China for "Good reasons" nor should you be on Wikipedia if you think there is no genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It is my freedom and responsibility to make sure that content on Wikipedia is as objective as possible. If that is indeed what you are against, then maybe you reflect on your own approach. --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GrignardReagent007, you do not have the freedom to start chattering about indoctrination by Western media or whatever: it is a violation of WP:AGF and disregards WP:RS. I urge you to drop those kinds of accusations from any future comments on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with Drmies. Also, WP:NOTFREESPEECH; "freedom" is not an excuse for unacceptable behavior. Normchou ^💬 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

PailSimon What do you think would be a better and objective title to reflect the current situation in Xinjiang? --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to scream "genocide denial", there first needs to be strong evidence of an ACTUAL genocide or ethnic cleansing - ex, banning Uyghur script, stripping status as titular people of Xinjiang, etc. Arresting Islamist terrorists in a time of rising extremism, a few "eyewitnesses" that drastically change their statements over time, and "research" by end-times tinfoil hatter and his anti-China defense-contractor sponsored think tanks are hardly a slam-dunk. I pointed out that the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as titular people of the autonomous region, is nothing like that of people who have faced actual genocide, and instead of trying to support your argument, (ex, finding INDEPENDENT research and sourcing not tied to Falun Gong, Zenz, sponsored by governments in feuds with China and/or defense contractors that indicates a steep population drop), you went ad hominem and screamed genocide denial. We at Wikipedia must be consistent in what we call genocide. If we call what is happening in Xinjiang genocide (disproportionate incarceration and discrimination, but with a steadily increasing population permitted to live in their historic homeland and keep identity), we would render the word genocide near meaningless and then have to apply it to thousands of other articles (where there is a wide-held consensus that "genocide" is not a proper descriptor).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed. Aside from the obvious camel's nose fallacy in the above argument, what people call "atrocities" today might well be "business as usual" in the past, but that would not change the nature of such conduct. The goal of Wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia, NOT to act like some frozen-in-time "language police". By the way, to those who are pedantically obsessed with the title, the article genocide definitions might be useful. Normchou ^💬 05:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Normchou, I'm not sure why you would call concerns about the title "pedantic." The goal in having Wikipedia reflect the prevailing historiography here is of significant import, I would challenge. As for the presumed usefulness of the genocide definitions page, I actually do not find that article that easy to parse, though admittedly, perhaps I'm missing something. El_C 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I'm not sure why you would extrapolate my allusion to a specific type of behavior to all concerns of the title; assuming good faith, I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Reasonable concerns of the title are helpful for building a better encyclopedia; in addition to that, I suggest that an editor should not narrowly focus on only the title when assessing the article. The content is equally, if not more, important. Normchou ^💬 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Normchou, obviously, there are various facets to the subject that are of import. The title is just one of these. But approaching it, in particular, through the tone and tenor of a "language police," is probably a mistake. As far as rhetorical devices go, it just doesn't seem that useful. Whatever editors decide is representative of the prevailing scholarly and mainstream consensus, will be..., well, that. And that's it. No need to embellish further. El_C 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. When in doubt, it is always helpful to review the overarching goal of the project. Normchou ^💬 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320 We call it a genocide because the incarceration of 25% of the Uighur population, numerous eye witness, complete consensus, reports of forced sterilization are all consistent with genocides. Denying the Uighur genocide is genocidal denial, my good friend. What sources? What citations do you have to back up this bold and bogus claim offical records of Chinese government. Nearly every NGO like Amnesty International state it is a genocide, again nearly every independent board has found it as a genocide. All of which have also been active in exposing the western war crimes as well, so it can't just be "western propaganda". Des Vallee (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Two things, the article itself states that Amnesty International has no position on the "Uyghur genocide" so you're wrong to say every NGO calls it a genocide, even so the UN has yet to call it a genocide and most nations support China on this issue, secondly genocide denial is not neccessarily bad or prohibited, for instance Wikipedia denies "White genocide". PailSimon (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any WP:RS which say that the Uyghur genocide is a conspiracy theory (I don’t even think official Chinese media goes that far, they tend to portray it as a misunderstanding caused by incomplete information available to the international media)? If not then thats an inappropriate comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory for the comparison to hold. The point is that Wikipedia quite often engages in genocide denial, which is not a bad thing per se of course. PailSimon (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide denial is actually a bit more than the sum of the two words makes out which is how you are using it. Care to rephrase now that you’ve learned what the term means? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well I mean if you want to morphemically twist the term 'genocide denial' to define it as that then to say that denying the "Uyghur Genocide" is genocide denial and therefore should not be done is begging the question.PailSimon (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The term “genocide denial” only means one thing... Wikipedia has never engaged in genocide denial. You were mistaken about what the term meant, thats OK but now that you know better getting defensive isn't helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well sources are divided on whether or not it is genocide so the article should reflect that and not partisanly call it a genocide. PailSimon (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad we’re back on track. I think the outcome of the move discussion was clear and its too early to re-litigate it, the OP has also been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also just to be clear the WP:COMMONNAME could still be Uyghur genocide even if there was no genocide, your argument needs work so its a good thing you have a year or more to work on it before we reconsider this question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia calls contested things "X Allegations" or "Allegations of X" so if you are to be logically consistent it only makes sense that this article follows the trend. PailSimon (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in titles we don’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the definition of genocide (again):

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.

You'll see there are five examples. One or more of those five examples by itself does not constitute genocide. There has to be "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." There is evidence of some of the five examples taking place in China, but there is no evidence that this is being carried out with intent to destroy the group. Indeed there is plenty of evidence of the opposite. AT the very least, no-one (even Zenz) suggests that the Uighur population is falling, only that the growth RATE is falling. Without hard evidence of genocide, the title of this article should be changed to "Crimes against the Uighur people." --Bacon Man (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Current title and documentation

Why are there no archives available for this talk page? What happened with the matter of the cultural genocide versus the current "genocide" (per se.) titles? I think this ought to be better documented.

My impression has always been that, above all else, genocide is associated with the liquidation of a population or population segment. Which is to say, ultimately, their murder. But this doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the human rights violations that Chinese authorities are subjecting the Uyghurs to (though, regardless, these are obviously highly egregious violations). What we have, ostensibly being termed re-education, consists of the abduction of adults, followed by their confinement and torture for the purpose of breaking their collective spirits. At the same time, this is accompanied by the abduction of children so as to subject them to an intensive system of brainwashing ultimately aimed at assimilation through cultural erasure. I can't stress enough that this system of family separation constitutes child abuse on a mass scale. Child abuse of the most severe variety, sparing cases of outright physical torture and sexual exploitation. Obviously, contemptible beyond measure. Myself, I would like to see that notion of child abuse better explored by this article.

Note that the article on Reeducation is a redirect to the Brainwashing article. That makes sense when it comes to the children being abducted, but as for the abducted adults, the article (and notion) of Re-education through labor is probably more apt. Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are. Are they quantitatively greater in scale? That I am unsure about. Finally, with regards to the current title, does it make sense for Wikipedia to take the side of defining it as a "genocide" (per se.) versus that of the more diffused cultural genocide descriptor? If so, why?

Myself, I'm pretty much agnostic about all of these questions at this point, but this is what crosses my mind as I glance at the current state of this article and its recent title change. The problem, again, is that upon attempting to investigate any of this, surprisingly, not only is there no documentation specifically about this title question at the top of the talk page, but there isn't even ordinary talk page archives being displayed anywhere for one to consult. What is happening here? This is a sloppy way to engage such an important topic, and the argument can be made that this sloppiness is harmful to the project's reputation. El_C 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are there no archives available for this talk page? Not sure why it's not showed above, but there are some here 1, 2, 3. — Czello 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. Adding {{Talk header}}, so at least there's that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean all of that is just your unsubstantiated opinionPailSimon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, is this what passes for discourse here? Yikes. El_C 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PailSimon, the irony is that I am asking pretty much the same question you asked above, about whether or not it is genocide. Except, unlike you, I'm noting that I'm actually agnostic on the matter — so how is that an "opinion" (unsubstantiated or otherwise)? There's a point when extremely terse responses to detailed comments simply come across as being so vague, they basically amount to diversionary noise. So, please do better. El_C 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean what are you supposed to say to this for example - "Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are" What exactly are you basing this on? You just assert it without explanation. There's not really much to respond to here.PailSimon (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not much to respond to with respect to what? That component (question) alone? My view is that there is nothing wrong with me having noted my current leaning toward answering that particular question in the affirmative — yes, that's right, based on my own overall impression. Which may or may not reflect reality or its prevailing perception therein. Ultimately, I think you calling it an "assertion" (outright) is too strong a word. It was not meant as a rhetorical question. El_C 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Change the title The U.S. National Security Advisor Robert C. O'Brien recently said, "If not a genocide, something close to it going on in Xinjiang.” The U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said, "When the United States speaks about crimes against humanity or genocide ... we’ve got to be very careful and very precise because it carries an enormous weight.” ("'Something close' to genocide in China's Xinjiang, says U.S. security adviser", Reuters, OCTOBER 16, 2020) Per neutrality, we should not use descriptions that even the avowedly anti-Chinese U.S. government is reticent to use. TFD (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It clearly is a genocides, it is the common name and almost all NGOs describe it as a genocide. Those who think this is all some sort of propaganda. The Four Deuces So wait is China not forcibly incarcerating 25 of the Uyghur population? So have mosques and other places of worship not been closed by Chinese government? What about the extremely widespread reports of sterilization, or rape? I get a bit sick speaking on these subjects, the term isn't "anti-Chinese" nearly every NGO refers to it as a genocide, this isn't some conspiracy at all TFD. If so there is no position you can state this. Per Common name there is absoultely no justification for renaming it. If we look at other reliable citations of independent NGOs like Amnesty International if anything they are more harsh towards China, this isn't a POV title it's a clear definition used by most independent organizations. Anyway we have an archive on this we can bring this up if this happens again. Des Vallee (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a move request to change the title back to the cultural genocide title — rather, it is more of a query as to how and why the title was changed from that to the current "genocide" (per se.) title, in the first place. As to whether we should define the incarceration, assault (sexual and otherwise), forced sterilization, as well as any other abuses, as a "genocide" (again, per se.) is a perfectly legitimate question to pose. One which may be worthy of discussion — dispassionately, Des Vallee, if you will. Simply arguing that it's the COMMONNAME does not necessarily makes it so. Again, from my perspective, compiling decent documentation about how and why we are where we are would be a good thing. El_C 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly are you placing so much weoght on the opinions of certain NGOs? Where does the absolute authority of these NGOs come from exactly? NGOs aren't the only reliable sources, if they are to be called reliable at all. PailSimon (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Per the BBC, genocide is "the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence." ("How do you define genocide?", BBC 17 March 2016) Your description does not meet that bar. The article then quotes experts who say that by overusing the term, it loses its meaning. They mention a speech by the renowned human rights expert, Michael Ignatieff. In the speech, he said, "Genocide has no meaning unless the crime can be connected to a clear intention to exterminate a human group in whole or in part. Something more than rhetorical exaggeration for effect is at stake here. Calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking place."[1] TFD (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that whether or not this rises to the level of genocide is a topic of ongoing discussion, at the very least it is two or three worst human rights situations currently occurring on our world. I though that this Quartz (I will admit they have a generally pro-China byline) piece [2] on the naming issue presented a good balance of views. Apparently there has been a change in academic/media consensus on the issue in 2019 and 2020. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces and El_C, there seems to have been rough consensus for the move to Uyghur genocide at Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_2. 5 oppose votes were stated as "per Buidhe", and Buidhe later changed their vote to move, further weakening the opposition to the move. Regarding El_C's point about lack of murder - we do have solid evidence of forced sterilization of Uyghur women. This biological component is what takes it from "cultural genocide" to "genocide, period". That said, I think we should better explain all this in the lead.VR _talk 19:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Vice regent. Again, I'm not sure whether forced sterilization should be seen as a novel interpretation of the "genocide" (per se.) definition, or whether instead it can be seen to accurately reflect the definition's modern iteration (and/or to what extend it is a combinations of both). But that is an interesting point to consider. El_C 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• By definition genocide is largely timescale agnostic and that lack of clarity is on purpose as the important elements are intent and effect with the rest being highly secondary, forced sterilization would 100% count as would much more subtle strategies of eradicating populations over long periods of time (such as failure to provide medical care, forced economic destitution, marriage restrictions etc). Historically we find cases such as the California genocide or Circassian genocide where there was little of the industrialized killing that we associate with certain famous modern genocides. On the larger issues you raise I think there are both practical questions of how to address this specific issue at hand and how philosophically wikipedia should handle occurring or alleged to be occurring genocide, one of the problems with the term is that it can only be applied with absolute accuracy after the conclusion of events (by which time of course such a discussion is on a level of academic much beyond WP:COMMONNAME). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well said, Horse Eye's Back. I'm still not certain you're right about it being 100 percent a genocide, but that is certainly a cogent argument that leaves me with much to think about. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: That would be a bold claim and not one I would be willing to make, as far as I know the allegations of systematic forced sterilization are still allegations and are likely to remain so for a while even if true. There may be a better overarching term for the pattern of abuse we are currently seeing in western China, I’m not convinced that the current title is perfect but it represents a decent consensus as well as satisfying our naming requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, Horse Eye's Back, sorry for partially misrepresenting what you said. I still don't know if I agree with your conclusion, but I do take your more nuanced points on-board. El_C 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals.[3] In the linked article, the California governor apologized for the genocide, referring to the murders. Genocide, deportation and forced assimilation were three distinct but related actions taken against aboriginals. Similarly 400,000 Circassians were murdered. But the Uyghur genocide articles doesn't mention any mass killings. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you would like to completely re-write what we have now to change it to your "strictly speaking” definition per the publishers of Ancient Aliens, Pawn Stars, Swamp People, American Pickers, and Truck Night in America be my guest. Just FYI of their current lineup Ancient Aliens actually does the best job at actual history and the linked article doesn't even say what you’re claiming it does, but I digress. Back on topic: Mass murder is not now and has never been a necessary component for something to qualify as genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Actually I was relying on experts such as Michael Ignatieff, whom I mentioned above. Now it could be that your interpretation of the definition of genocide is right, and most of the experts are wrong, but policy says we follow the experts. Don't know what the ancient aliens, etc., reference is meant to convey. But I think we should follow expert opinion there, rather than your personal interpretation of the evidence. TFD (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• You cited History (American TV network). Thats not my personal interpretation, I actually have issues with the traditional definition of genocide but thats as you said irrelevant. Ignatieff raises the exact same issue about intent being at the core of the traditional definition of genocide in the quotes you provide that I did in my comments. Lets get back on track: the source you provided does not say that "the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals” it say "Up to 16,000 Native Californians died in the genocide” which does not limit the genocide to the murders at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I cited an article by Erin Blackmore, a journalist whose articles have appeared in "The Washington Post, NPR, National Geographic, TIME, Smithsonian, and The Atlantic."[4] I used the article to refer to the fact that the governor of California referred to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals as a genocide. Do you have any doubt he said that? If not, you're just being argumentative. TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• It was a strange discussion. The reasoning for the move was that it met the UN definition of genocide. But that's OR - we would need to show that experts share that opinion, which for the most part they don't. It seems more like forced assimilation to me. TFD (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you knowingly push forced assimilation just a *little bit* too far it becomes genocide, the primary difference between the two of them is with the intent not the effect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Logically speaking, how can deportation lead to genocide when according to your definition it is genocide? TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Deportation alone could not make a genocide, it would need to be combined with other elements. Deportation could lead to genocide as it did in Nazi Germany but I can’t think of any case in which it qualified alone. Can you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• No of course not. But you just said, "Mass murder is not now and has never been a necessary component for something to qualify as genocide." TFD (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe, Horse Eye's Back, but it is a rather vague distinction. Regardless of whether one places more weight on motivation or outcome, I'm not sure an analysis of the teleology and epistemology of that question should happen sort of in the abstract. As for deportations, it largely describes the Armenian Genocide, for example. Of course, deportations are not automatically genocidal. Finally, I doubt I'm the only one who is drawing a parallel between the Uyghur atrocities and those encountered in the American Indian Residential Schools. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Labeling the current situation as genocide is completely premature and improper given the lack of key genocidal elements (ex, official second-class citizen status or stripping of citizenship, banning of language, sharp population drop, etc). Furthermore, this article isn't even just about the situation of Uyghurs - it also brings up allegations by other minorities that do not consider themselves Uyghurs (like Kazakhs). It seems that the title "Uyghur genocide" was chosen simply because Uyghurs are the largest (and titular) people of Xinjiang and there was strong desire to use the g-word among a small group of POV pushers, even though the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, (the proper and original article title), is not focused exclusively on Uyghurs but rather at various Muslim groups of Xinjiang experiencing separatist sentiments. At the very least, we should be consistent about the article corresponding to the title. Is this article about what one thinks is a genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or a listing of grievances and allegations from various Turkic peoples in Xinjiang with "Uyghur genocide" slapped on as title to be clickbait?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: thats not exactly right... This page was created in 2019 by Mikehawk10 and then rapidly built up by a large variety of editors. Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism still exists, it does not appear to be "the proper and original article title” as you asserted. Perhaps you are mistaken? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you explain why your assessment that the human rights abuses constitute genocide is not synthesis? Or if it is, why we should make an exception in this article. TFD (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• The current title is very much justifiable, as reflected in scholarly sources [5], books [6] and reliable news sources [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The abstract of your scholarly source says it explains why the label genocide is now being used by growing numbers of scholars. Policy however says that we should not present minority opinions as facts. TFD (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, after looking at the "Definition" section of this page and sources there, it appears the majority view right now it is probably a genocide. What would be an alternative title you think? My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Being able to correctly represent scholarly and mainstream consensus often proves challenging. It isn't that clear to me that "genocide" reflects the "majority view right now" — even though, at this point, I am leaning toward the "genocide" definition (which I wasn't at the beginning). Still, I will strive to keep an open mind. El_C 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• There's no challenge for the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and a number of other incidents. What concerns me is that by taking a side in the debate, we are no longer neutral. Of course each editor can have their own opinions, but they're not supposed to influence editing. TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Right (official Turkish narrative and Holocaust deniers, respectively, aside), but those do involve mass fatalities, which does not seem to be the case here. Thus, the classical genocide definition isn't actually hazy with those as it is with the subject, so I'm not sure it makes sense to draw such parallels about the challenges it faces when defined as a "genocide." El_C 18:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but speaking about the casualties, we do not really know them, given the information "freedom" in China. One should realize that people in such camps are staring dying for a number of reasons including diseases, malnutrition and abuses. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Same. Still, I'm not sure how practical it is to hide mass fatalities, in general, even in a country like China. Even in a country like North Korea, in fact. That much mass death usually ends up being leaked, or otherwise discovered, like with satellite imagery, and so on. Anyway, until actual data, even of the most tentative nature, has been made available, it largely remains in the realm of speculation. El_C 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, this is not Holocaust or Armenian genocide, I agree. But an imprisonment of a million people based on their ethnicity and religion, allegedly with forced sterilizations [8] is significant. Some Uighurs were taken from Tajikistan and Cambodia into Xinjiang [9]. They did complain about genocide [10], to the International Criminal Court, but it said China is not party to the court’s founding treaty. Hence my personal inclination would be to keep current title. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Even those who aren’t saying genocide are saying some very dark things. See the op-ed by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the Guardian [11] where he describes it as "an unfathomable mass atrocity.” Seeing as no-one else has been willing to suggest alternate titles “Persecution of the Uyghurs” would probably satisfy WP:COMMONNAME but a small standalone Uyghur genocide page to explain that argument would be needed as the topic passes WP:GNG on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, My very best wishes, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... Horse Eye's Back, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. El_C 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I linked six RS above, and they all tell about "genocide" (whatever that means). So does this page in section Uyghur_genocide#Definition. That has nothing to do with me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Except you haven't provide six reliable sources and Uyghur genocide is not the common name. Common name means that's what it is normally called in reliable sources, not what you and your friends call it. TFD (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, uh, a bit better decorum than "what you and your friends call it," if you will. My very best wishes, I, for one, am not as sure as you are. And, to put it even more bluntly, just not that convinced by you at this time. El_C 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Take for example the AP article that was provided:

Some go a step further.

"It’s genocide, full stop. It’s not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it’s slow, painful, creeping genocide,” said Joanne Smith Finley, who works at Newcastle University in the U.K. “These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population.”

Clearly this is being treated as an opinion, rather than the consensus of genocide scholars. I don't think we should be stating things as facts unless they are treated as such in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Its being treated as the opinion of an expert which is a little bit different than being treated as a general opinion. Based on their CV Dr. Smith Finley appears to be a subject matter expert[12]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is about the title of the article and whether we can use her opinion and others to assume that there is in fact a genocide, rather than that some experts have concluded that. In comparison, there is no doubt in any reliable sources that the Armenian genocide was a genocide and hence we use genocide in the article title. TFD (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical and ongoing is apples and oranges. The closest analogue is the Rohingya genocide whose genocide status is similarly contested. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, the Rohingya genocide whose genocide status is similarly contested: primarily, as with the present case, by the government deemed responsible by those who do not "contest" the genocide. Chinese and Burmese governments are both similarly invested in throwing everything possible at avoiding the label of "genocide" being attached to their regimes, while self-consciously impartial sources will always quote experts when they want to use potentially controversial terms like "genocide" so as to avoid appearing to take a position themselves. There are always going to be someone contesting the word, in every case of genocide, but it would be false equivalence to imply that the "not-a-genocide" argument is very widely spread or commonly held out-of-universe. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are very good points, you’re more than likely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just like the Holocaust and Armenian genocide, there is academic consensus that the Rohinga genocide was a genocide. The only people who denied they were genocides were the governments responsible and their supporters. So I will rephrase what I wrote: "The discussion is about the title of the article and whether we can use her opinion and others to assume that there is in fact a genocide, rather than that some experts have concluded that. In comparison, there is no doubt in any reliable sources that the Rohinga genocide was a genocide and hence we use genocide in the article title." TFD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, Iraq prison abuse scandals is not titled "genocide". Keith McClary (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of the US State Department's determination that what has happened in Xinjiang does not raise to the level of Genocide, I think it is sensible to reconsider changing the title of the article. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ Dhawk790 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Something else

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

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

UN statements

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

Reference formatting

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

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

I prefer formatting like

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

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

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

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

Reactions by India

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

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

Official designation by the U.S. government

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

Name of the article and bias

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

Naming of Uyghurs

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

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

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

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

No consensus on genocide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revising Lede

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persecution: ethnicity vs religion

I wanted to start this discussion because I recently changed the lead of this article to focus on the ethnicity of the Uyghurs (Turkic) rather than their religion (majority Muslims). User:Mikehawk10 reverted my edit, per: 'Reverted good faith edits by Blue Wiki (talk): They are many non-Uyghur Muslims that are also wrapped up in this, including Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslims.' In fact underlining my assertion that the Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples are not being persecuted because of their religion, but because of their ethnicity, and because they are not Han Chinese. I want to resolve this issue by seeking the opinion of other editors, because this is an important distinction in understanding the reasoning for the persecution. --Blue Wiki (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the persecution is happening exclusively because of religion or ethnicity, but instead as the result of both. This is what the vast majority of RS appear to be reporting, from what I can tell. This is certainly the case in Western media's reporting on the overall situation, (ee 1, 2, 3), but also in the Chinese academy. (See Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences researcher Li Xiaoxia's quotes referencing "religious extremism and ethnic separatism" in 4).

Regarding the first sentence in particular, the three sources cited each refer to the number as being the number of "Muslims" that were detained. This phrasing is not accidental, as the original source of this number is a United Nations report on the topic which that explicitly states that the estimate refers to the number of "ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities" being forcibly placed in the Xinjiang re-education camps. For this reason, I believe that the current phrasing of there being "more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive detention camps" is a more accurate portrayal than the proposed alternative. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive comments. This remains a complicated issue, maybe in the future there will be more clarity on the topic. We shall see. Blue Wiki (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding a new section, as people start to question the truthfulness of the "Uyghur genocide"

There are now more and more voices suggesting that the "Uyghurs genocide" was nothing but the US government's fake propaganda strategy during Trump's term, mainly advocated by Pompeo. For example, this Youtuber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKvulTU8oU) had visited Xinjiang in 2020 and debunked many rumors, and another (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i915eArrego) had explained many suspicious points of the US's Uyghurs genocide claim in details. There are also thousands of videos on Youtube or TikTok showing the normal modern daily life of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that is totally different from what the western media portraited. Not to mention the China government and media have already given tons of evidence that disproved many of the Uyghurs genocide rumors.

I suggest maybe we can add a section about all this. Even if some people will never believe in these explanations/debunking, it is still part of the story and should be mentioned to give everyone a complete picture. WakemanCK (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

YouTube and TikTok videos are not reliable sources. The sources we've identified overwhelmingly conclude that the genocide is real. — Czello 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not forget to keep WP:WEIGHT in mind when mentioning such viewpoints. Some guy on YouTube is NOT a reliable source. If you have reliable sources to back up your claims, please provide examples of those instead. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are any reliable sources doing it (there are) then there's no reason they shouldn't be included.PailSimon (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable news or other sources providing coverage that there is no current genocide occurring, please provide them. Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Most countries (as the article itself details) reject the idea of genocide.PailSimon (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a genocide, for the longest time the Armenian Genocide was regarded as false, we therefore state so. Countries press agencies are not reliable source, independent non-profits and NGO's are. I really don't understand your denialism. Des Vallee (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't denied anything for a start. Anyway many NGOs haven't called it genocide like Amnesty International. PailSimon (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The first movements to recognise the Armenian Genocide as a genocide came up about 20 years after it happened, and after extensive independent investigations. That speaks to the amount needed to apply this label. Reading through articles, any sort of conclusive evidence regarding Uyghurs speaks to what in Germany would be called Zwangsassimilierung. I.e. the erasure of a cultrue without the extermination of people. Genocide, at least in German, refers to the physical mass-murder of an ethnic or similar group. I would presume a similar distinction to exist in English given that for example Maria Theresia is not being accused of a genocide -- neither in German nor in English -- for trying to erase Romani culture by forcefully "re-educating" people in a quite similar fashion that this article describes the Chinese government's policies in regards to Uyghurs. I do think the article should stay up to document human rights abuses, though that should -- as is normal on Wikipedia -- include context about the accusations, the accusers, and relevant questions regarding the validity (such as Zenz calling his own estimate "speculative", a statement which is not found anywhere on this page), as well as not applying labels that have not found anything close to majority recognition within scholarly debate. See my comment below for a more detailed description of what I think the primary issues with the current state of the article are. Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Nowadays, it is hard to define "reliable sources". You think mainstream media and "independent non-profits NGO" are reliable sources? Look at those reports about Syria a few years ago, all came from the same source White Helmet, which was later found to be an unreliable source. You think western government are reliable sources? Do you still remember 2003 Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? On the other hand, why do you think Youtubers cannot be reliable sources? They show you real-life local videos that mainstream media do NOT have. Besides factual things, their opinions are also real opinions. You can state clearly that these are opinions from Youtubers. Without these, currently this page is very biased and one-sided. WakemanCK (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, to those who think it is "overwhelmingly conclude that the genocide is real", sorry, it is NOT. Read this article, from The Economist (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/01/22/what-is-genocide). "Some human-rights campaigners argue that calling the atrocities in Xinjiang “genocide” will stoke useful outrage and rally the world to oppose them. Others retort that making an accusation the dictionary makes clear is false undermines the credibility of the accuser". WakemanCK (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The source you are citing only questions the accuracy of the label, and does not dispute the reality that atrocities are committed in the region.

It does not work like that: You're saying that " 'overwhelmingly [sources] conclude that the genocide is real', sorry, it is NOT. ", but then back up your claims with sources only questioning the word used to describe it. Just because the word might be a misfit doesn't mean the events don't happen. You're questioning the reality of the genocide, whereas the sources only question the label. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about the label genocide so your comment makes no sense.PailSimon (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It clearly isn't just that. To cite some examples from the post that started it all: "[...] debunked many rumors [...]", "[...] showing the normal modern daily life of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that is totally different from what the western media portraited.", "[...] these explanations/debunking". Or take a look at the title: "people [who?] start to question the truthfulness of the 'Uyghur genocide'".

Doesn't sound like a discussion about labels to me. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey! If you're looking for guidance on how Wikipedia handles reliable sources, and for some general guidance, please check out WP:RS. It's a document that outlines Wikipedia's reliable source policy, and it's a big help for those that are interested in learning about how Wikipedians handle these sorts of things. Wikipedians happen to have discussed whether or not to consider YouTube as a primary source before. At the time, Wikipedians had achieved a consensus that YouTube is generally unreliable for factual reporting because most videos are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable. For those reasons, we try not to use YouTube in articles except when linked to a verified account of news organization or other public, verifiable source. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if Youtube is not acceptable, at least consider the article from the Economist I quoted above. As you can see, some people here do not even know that the use of the word "genocide" itself is already controversial. Not to mention there is evidence that the whole thing was a fake propaganda campaign to begin with. Though no western media would dare to comment more than what the Economist had already done, otherwise they will be condemned by the more naive general population as well. Hopefully, just like 2003 Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, years later after seeing millions of Uyghurs living happily in Xinjiang, people will realize they have been fooled by the biggest lie since 2003. WakemanCK (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. The Economist only questions the label 'genocide', but in now way questions the human rights violations. So no, there is no evidence that "the whole thing was a fake propaganda campaign [whatever that is supposed to mean] to begin with" (or if there is evidence for such an affair, you have so far failed to provide it). Your talk about the "more naïve general population" also skews a little bit too much towards the muddled waters of conspiracy ramblings for my tastes. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The title of this thread demonstrates that this clearly is an attempt push a fringe POV.  // Timothy :: talk  09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to point out how biased and one-sided this page is. I thought people here cherish neutral point of view.WakemanCK (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@WakemanCK: I recommend you read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NOTNEUTRAL. "Neutrality" doesn't mean that all viewpoints are given equal weight, especially when the sources are all fairly conclusive in one direction. — Czello 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, we need expert sources. That means actual experts rather than governments, human rights groups or news reports for analysis. Some of these sources however be fine for facts, such as what happened or what was said. There is for example academic consensus that the Armenian genocide was a genocide and documentation of the Turkish government's refusal to acknowledge it. TFD (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Naturally, genocide denial is going to both occur and be espoused as an ideology by those responsible for said genocide. This whitewashing attempt reminds me of the time a friend sourced the claim that Trumpcare would significantly reduce medical costs in the US... to Trump making that claim. What beautiful, unimpeachable logic.
  I'm obviously well aware, of course, that the two examples are not even close to comparable in terms of scale, but for the sake of our sanity, I'd prefer not to dwell too much on actual genocide denial. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support (kind of): I don't think YouTube is a good source or that there needs to be a new section, but I would say that this article does not match journalist criteria, nevermind encyclopaedic ones, in how it presents sources. I have mainly read about this topic in German and French media, and when those accusations are voiced, it is most often presented in a way that gives information about a) what is accused (which this article does), b) who is the accuser (which this article often leaves out), and c) are there any questions regarding the validity of the accusations (which this articles does not do at all). So I was rather confused when I first saw this Wikipedia article, which makes the same claims that I have read in news articles, but mostly without any such accompanying context about the sources (the articles does b) sometimes, but c) never as far as I can see).

Take a look at the very first sentence of this article as an example: "Since 2014, the Chinese government under the Xi Jinping Administration has pursued a policy which has led to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive detention camps without any legal process."

This claim about "one million" is accompanied by three sources. Source [2] is the Trump administration, which as basically everyone agreed above, is not a good source since it is a government statement without any accompanying evidence. If it is used as a source, it should be made clear in the article where the claim is coming from. Source [3] is Adrian Zenz. And source [4] appears to be Human Rights Watch, but it is actually just Human Rights Watch referencing Adrian Zenz.

Upon seeing that and having read a bit about Zenz in German media, I tried adding the information that Zenz himself has called his own research "speculative" in an interview with the German FAZ (translation by me): "Although he described his own estimate as 'speculative', the 'one million', a number with symbolic political power, was now out in the world."

The edit got immediately removed. Why is it not important context for a reader of Wikipedia to know that the person upon whom most of the estimates in this article rely on has called his own estimate "speculative"?

A similar lack of transparency exists with the article image for example. According to the image description, the image was taken from "the wechat MP platform account Xinjiang Juridical [sic] Administration", which published a series of images which the Judicial Administration says is a prison for drug rehabilitation. It was then uploaded by user C933103 under the title "Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County" (with no source) to Wikipedia and is now being used on the page Uyghur Genocide, implying the inmates in the image are Uyghurs. And did anyone along the way provide any source for changing what the image portrays? Nope. What the image shows was simply being slightly modified each time: It went from 1) being officially published as a prison for people involved in drug crimes, to 2) becoming a picture of "Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County" (with no source, unless drug rehabilitation programmes in prisons are generally labelled as such on Wikipedia, which I don't think they are), to 3) being used on this page, implying it is specifically used for Uyghurs. I tried to find any articles in German/French/English that would disprove the claims of the Judicial Administration regarding these images to no avail. Hence I can only presume that the person who uploaded the image and the person who put it in the article have taken some "editorial freedom" in the description/usage of the image.

To summarise: I do see where the complaints about this article are coming from, since it features editorial decisions that are in my opinion not just below the standards of encyclopediae but also most news outlets. Though should they be rectified, I see no reason why there would need to be a new section as of this point in time. I also don't agree to use YouTube videos or the likes as a source. Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the variety of sources in the lead, you raise a good point about how the article currently stands. That being said, doing a bit of searching in both Western (there are countless througout the article) and Arab (1, 2, 3, 4) english-language media both often refer to the United Nations as the source of the 1 million number. Spanish language media (1, 2, 3) also uses the 1 million number frequently, both in Latin American publications and publications based in Spain. In short, the one million number is well reported, and it is not sourced solely from Zenz; we should avoid making the assumption that Zenz and the United States are the only sources of the number. Additional sources (such as the ones I have included above) should be added to the opening paragraph along these lines, which I plan to do soon.

You make a good point with respect to the wechat link that you have described, though further investigation shows that multiple (activist and reliable media) sources state the image depicts political re-education camps (including Human Rights Watch, Radio Free Asia, and Al Jazeera) or use it to depict the camps (like this NBC affiliate). The image description itself should be edited to incorporate the RS, accordingly, but the image description as its stands appears to be true. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the level-headed discussion! Regarding your first point: Indeed, the number of one million is mentioned by multiple media outlets and is sometimes attributed to the UN. However, that is a bit of a distortion. In the FAZ interview I linked, it even mentions this fairly misleading practice (again translated by me): "[Zenz's "one million" number] put the topic on the front pages of the international media and was eventually taken up by the United Nations. Three months after Zenz's paper was published, the chair of the UN Committee against Racial Discrimination in Geneva announced that there were "believable reports" that one million Muslims were interned in Xinjiang. From then on it was said that "according to UN data" this was so. But the real source is Zenz."

If the UN itself or other credible bodies have conducted their own studies and they all came to the conclusion of >1 million so that there was a scientific consensus, I'd be happy to leave it as it is. It's just that as far as I have seen so far, when any international organisation or NGO that references the number of >1 million, it is either usually in reference to Zenz or referring to "reports" with no further explanation. And I think it would be fair that -- given that even Zenz himself has called the estimate "speculative" (since he's extrapolating based on very few interviews) -- this circumstance should be portrayed transparently.

Regarding the image: Yes, I have seen it be used on BBC this way too. But the image was published by an official Chinese WeChat channel and not the BBC, and it was published among other images of the facility, including this one, in which you can read on the jumpers of the prisoners something like "Compulsory detoxification [???]". I have not been learning Mandarin for long and I cannot recognise the last character, but the first part of it seems in line with what the claimed purpose is. Plus, China is indeed extremely harsh on drug abuse and does have prisons specifically for convicts involved in drug crimes. If those images are to be used in another way, in my opinion there needs to be some evidence that the facility is not used as a prison for drug criminals. The images were not taken by the BBC or any other news outlet, and there has not been any article with evidence or an argument of why it should not be such a prison. In light of this, I do find it rather questionable that Wikipedia editors would act as an arbiter for which description is correct in cases like these, since none of the articles even mention what the source of the image is, what its original description is, and why it should be wrong. Sarrotrkux (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Just to lay out my understanding of the reporting on that "one million" number, there was a 2018 UN report that stated that estimates of the Uyghurs in camps ranged between "tens of thousands" to "upwards of one million" Muslims, and I think the analysis that you've put above is fair regarding the 2018 statement. A Reuters news story from 2018 reflects exactly what you're saying, writing that the "[a] United Nations human rights panel said on Friday that it had received many credible reports that 1 million ethnic Uighurs in China are held in what resembles a 'massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy.'"

It looks like the UN's position has evolved since then. There was another report, namely A/75/385 that was released later, in October of 2020. The language of the report indicates that has since firmed up on the number and states on page 6 that "China has sought to justify its coercive detention of over a million Muslim Uighurs, Kazakhs and other predominately Muslim ethnic minorities in state run 're-education' camps as part of 'de-extremism regulations.'" The language it uses in the sentence I've quoted is unequivocal about stating the number, which is notable. Other sentences in the same paragraph use "hedging" statements, like prefacing claims regarding forced labor and political indoctrination with "reportedly" and saying that "reports... assert" that forced sterilization has occurred. This provides for contrast, and this sort of word choice makes me think that Al Jazeera was reporting responsibly when it published in January 2021 that "[t]he United Nations says at least one million Uighurs and other Muslims have been detained in Xinjiang".

Regarding the image, Radio Free Asia seems to be doing a lot of the investigative reporting, which I think would bring up problems if it were the only source saying what it is saying. But, RFA is not the only source saying that this is an image of a "re-education" or "internment" camp, and I don't think that we should go with the official government Chinese WeChat channel over reliable, independent sources like Al-Jazeera.

There's also a bit of a mess with different reliable sources assigning the copyright of the image to different organizations (Radio France Internationale appears to claim that Reuters owns the copyright on the image, for example, but I don't see why Reuters would own the image any more than the Chinese government). The original source image seems to be correct in handling the copyright, but you do bring up some good points regarding how we should be cautious in handling these things.

I admittedly cannot read Chinese, so I can't speak to the meaning of the characters on the uniforms in the photo you've linked. But, it looks like generally reliable sources are supportive of the caption that is currently present. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There are reliable news sources (that is, "reliable" by established Wikipedia standards) reporting that China officially denies that atrocities occurred. For example, this BBC News story (already cited on the page) includes a quote of the Chinese official line that the camps are "vocational education and training centres". China's official denial probably is notable enough to include somewhere, although not in too much detail unless its weight can also be established by reliable sources. A1415 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC) (update: done by this editor)

Including random photos of a uyghur child and grandmother relating to Marriage incentives makes no sense

Initial discussion

The placement of these images under the "Marriage incentives" subheading have nothing to do with marriage or wedding traditions. Is the child or grandmother getting married? If not these images don't belong here and should be removed. (Stop undoing removal)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonksboi (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree.PailSimon (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep the pictures but move the pic of the kid down under "Children's names” or somewhere else. The use of that image long predates the existence of any of those sections by the way, see December 2019: [13]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the individuals in said pictures have no relevance to the subject of the article, they haven't been victimized or anything so their inclusion is strange.PailSimon (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Including pictures for background is a common practice, nothing strange about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: What background information do these pictures provide exactly? PailSimon (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No it's not, these images have nothing remotely to do with the article unless you're trying to say these are images of people who were genocided. PailSimon is correct, their inclusion is strange and doesn't make sense. These images are also from 2005, way before the so called "genocide" even started. Stonksboi (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey HorseEyeBack is Mikehawk10 your socketpuppet account? Stonksboi (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They are not nor am I a sock. If we’re all sharing are you a sockpuppet or do you have any? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with HorseEyeBack: these images are good on the page just because they represent people from the oppressed ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, too, and that's why I've reverted the edit removing them. Per MOS:PERTINENCE: "[images] are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." TucanHolmes (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What understanding is provided by the pictures in question?PailSimon (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the section talks about family policies, it is helpful to show images of people subjected to such policies. This article is about an ethnic group, so showing members of that ethnic groups help people visualise the topic (it helped me, for one). And that's what I'm saying: I agree with you that simply taking a random picture of a Uyghur woman/child is not very illustrative for the purposes of this section, but instead of just discarding those pictures, we should try to find better alternatives (more connected to the topic) to replace them. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree better pictures should be provided but that does not justify their present inclusion. Either better pictures should be provided or there should be no pictures at all.PailSimon (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not what MOS:PERTINENCE recommends. Keep them until we have better ones. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how MOS:PERTINANCE recommends irrelevant images with no relevance to a topic.PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They are relevant to the subject, although arguably not precisely on the subject. Do we have better/more relevant images? If so, they can be used. If not, I do not see any problem with keeping what we have. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not in line with other Wikipedia pages. For example, if you go to a page about the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, do you see pictures of random Muslims? No. If you go to the page about Francoist concentration camps, do you see any pictures of ordinary Spaniards? No. If you go to the page about the Indian removal, do you see any pictures of random Native Americans? No. And the list goes on and on. Pages like these either feature actual victims (with the picture showing visual relevance to the topic at hand, not just random images) or specific persons significant to what the page is about. Wikipedia articles do not include pictures solely based on a shared ethnicity. In fact, pages about ethnicities in general typically do not feature lead pictures specifically to avoid what you are doing here, namely implying that "this is how ethnicity X looks like". There have been long discussions about this already, and the consensus is to not use individuals as a representation for an entire ethnicity. This is also not helped by the fact that the images chosen here -- a young girl and an old lady -- seem like an attempt to elicit an emotional response rather than contributing anything directly relevant to the article. Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the images "elicit an emotional response" on the subject of the page as you say (and I agree), then they arguably belong to the page. An idea that WP pages (or any other information) should not elicit an emotional response would be wrong. To the contrary, the pages should be interesting, informative and elicit an emotional response. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

WP pages may elicit emotional responses, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopediae do not attempt to elicit emotions, that is not their goal. And since the consensus on Wikipedia is to not include images of individuals whose sole purpose is to imply "This is how ethnicity X looks like", random images of Uyghurs simply have no place here. You specifically said, I quote: "these images are good on the page just because they represent people from the oppressed ethnic group". Again, that goes against the consensus to not add images for the purpose of "this is how ethnicity X looks like". Ethnic groups exhibit a vast variety of physical features and there are no rules for determining whether a person is of a specific ethnic group by their looks, and as such images used for ethnic generalisations are inherently exclusive and unscientific. Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that this page is about a genocide I think its a long shot and more than a little bit disrespectful to say that those images specifically are whats going to elicit an emotional response from this page... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You can think whatever you will of it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unless you can prove that these images contribute anything to the article other than an attempt to generalise an ethnicity by its looks, the images have no place here. It's as simple as that. Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, I partially agree. But that's why we should be trying to find better alternatives instead of just discarding them. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No, attempted ethnic generalisations by supposed physical traits are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What? Nobody is doing that, it says Uyghur in the metadata of both images. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, images of random Uyghurs that serve no purpose other than implying that "this is how an Uyghur looks like" do not serve any informational purpose. This is why you do not see any images of completely random Italians on the page about Italians for example. MOS:PERTINENCE is about fostering a greater understanding of the topic at hand. How does knowing about the looks of a single Uyghur child or a single older Uyghur woman foster any understanding about a political policy? It doesn't. It doesn't even foster understanding of an ethnic group unless you believe in ethnic generalisations. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But if thats your argument then why not include the random picture of a man in traditional dress? Your argument is inherently about the fact that these are pictures of women, don’t now pretend that your argument is about the whole ethnic group. BTW this isn't a page about a political policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My argument is about the whole ethnic group, don't pretend that you know me. I don't care if you would choose pictures of two men instead (although then I would at least be less suspicious that they were chosen to elicit an emotional response, which still wouldn't solve the issue of generalisation), I care about generalising an ethnic group based on two pictures. Go look at the consensus here for example. The consensus is that not even entire galleries of images should be used to "represent" an ethnic group. What makes you think two images should be? Sarrotrkux (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep for now per TucanHolmes and Horse Eye's Back. Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. 3 users are for removal, 2 are for keeping it. Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sarrotrkux: I don’t think that count is accurate. Per my comment above, I am in favor of keeping the images in place, at least for now. This, plus TucanHolmes and Horse Eye's Back makes three in favor of keeping it, at least until we can find better images. It also appears that My very best wishes is leaning towards keeping the images for now, if we cannot find better replacements.

I agree that there is currently no consensus, but it’s currently 4 in favor of keeping them in some way (unless we can find better images) and 3 in opposition. Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed TucanHolmes in my count, but 3:3 is just as little of a consensus as 2:3 is. But the consensus on this topic in previous, larger discussions has as far as I can see been to not use images of individuals for ethnic generalisations. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have filed a dispute resolution request as I believe ethnic generalisations are a serious issue that should not be left for such a limited amount of users to decide; especially since consensus on other pages about this topic seems to have already been reached (namely that images should not serve the purpose of generalisation), yet any edit to remove the images with that purpose seems to be going to be reverted by Horse Eye's Back. Sarrotrkux (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? I was not the user who reverted the images back onto the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread revision 1003193934. Sarrotrkux (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, the Uyghurs page has the photo of a Uyghur man that is included in this article (but doesn't appear to have been challenged) as well as the photo of the young Uyghur girl. The picture of the adult woman is also used on Hijab by country. I'm not exactly sure where the issue is with using these photos per se, especially given their use throughout Wikipedia for the apparent purpose of intentionally providing visual representations of people from the Uyghur ethnic group. Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I consider the image of the man a generalisation too. My opinion on this discussion includes all images that are used as a meaningless generalisation. The article about Hijabs you linked is specifically about Muslim clothing, hence the image of Muslims wearing those clothes is appropriate in that article. Such relevance does not exist in this article here. For example, go to the page about Christians, and you will also not find such images, since it is not about specific Christian clothing and including pictures of random Christians would be a generalisation of "how Christians look like" as well. Sarrotrkux (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

All images that are meaningless are meaningless, tautologically. I think the central point of contention among editors is which images (if any) those images are. Many of us have taken the angle that they are pertinent to the topic of the article. Nazi crimes against the Polish nation has a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes). Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL has images of school-age children in a section on sex slavery. The Holocaust page has a photo of random Hungarian Jews, the Rohingya genocide page has a photography collection of the Rohingya contained therein, and the War in Darfur page has images of assorted Darfur men and Janjaweed tribespeople. Each of the images serves a purpose, and it's to provide a visual aid to see the subject that the text is depicting. I believe that is what is going on here as well, and they should stay as they are pertinent towards that end. Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

These images do not belong, clearly, the individuals in the photographs have no idea their images would be used to portray a "genocide" when these were taken in 2005. Clearly they should be removed. lol Mikehawk10 you tried to ban me Stonksboi (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the Hungarian Jews depicted on the page for The Holocaust anticipated that their figure would be used in a Wikipedia article on genocide either, but they are appropriate there. Same thing for the pictures on the War in Darfur page. I don’t believe the knowledge of the individual that they would later be used on a page describing genocide is relevant to established inclusion criteria. Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC on image inclusion

 Note: The above subsection contains discussion on the topic of this RfC. Please read the subsection before commenting below.

Question: Are each of the three contested images that are currently in the article (1, 2, 3) appropriate for inclusion therein?

• Option 1: The images are currently appropriate for inclusion in the article.
• Option 2: The images are not currently appropriate for inclusion in the article.

—Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1. I believe that the images are pertinent to the topic of the article, and that they provide useful information to the reader by serving as a visual aid. Per my comments in the above subsection,

Nazi crimes against the Polish nation has a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes). Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL has images of school-age children in a section on sex slavery. The Holocaust page has a photo of random Hungarian Jews, the Rohingya genocide page has a photography collection of the Rohingya contained therein, and the War in Darfur page has images of assorted Darfur men and Janjaweed tribespeople.

On each of the pages noted above, the images provide a visual aid, allowing the user to see the subject that the text is depicting. I believe that is what is going on here as well, and, if better images cannot be found, then the current ones should be kept pursuant to MOS:PERTINENCE, which makes note that editors should, "[w]hen possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." —Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting here, as I have below, that "a photo of random Hungarian Jews" is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the infobox image in our The Holocaust article. The Rohingya and Yazidi articles, similarly, do not contain any image use comparable to what we are discussing here. Either Mikehawk10 just assumed these articles provide a precedent for these images, without actually checking, or he checked, saw that these articles did not provide such a precedent, and decided to misrepresent the situation regardless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Would you mind explaining how you think this image is a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes)? Or how you think it is appropriate to describe an image of "Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz II in German-occupied Poland" as a photo of random Hungarian Jews [with no direct connection to the Holocaust]? Virtually everything in your above comment appears to be a misrepresentation of the contents of other articles, but per WP:AGF I can't assume this was deliberate misrepresentation until you either own up to it or actively deny it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The file of the old market appears to show a bunch of priests with their hands up in the old market, but it doesn't actually appear to show any sort of crime being committed. If you think it does, would you please elaborate on what crime is being committed? Additionally, I don't quite know where you're getting the second point from. This image, which is in the article, shows Hungarian Jews in 1944 in the city of Budapest, not Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz II. Per WP:AGF, I will assume you didn't scroll down to the section that contains the image (and that you instead assumed I was talking about the photo in the opening section). I am, however, quite a bit disappointed in the sloppily constructed accusation here that I'd somehow categorize a photo of Hungarian Jews going to a Nazi death camp as an image of "random" people, especially after framing my comments as either peddling disinformation or being posted "without actually checking" the articles that I cited. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the description of the images refers to the people all with their hands raised as "hostages" and it says it was taken in September 1939 in Bydgoszcz (shortly after it was occupied by the Wehrmacht) -- are you disputing the image description? Anyway, I assumed you were talking about the lead image because it is the most prominent; I had noticed the image you are now referring to, but it, too, shows Jews apparently being marched somewhere, flanked by soldiers with guns. Our The Holocaust article does not include random photos of members of various European Jewish communities years or decades before the start of WWII, as your comparison implies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 1. Visual information is very important for the readers to have a grasp of the characteristics of the actual peoples who are being persecuted. This is especially important given the heaviness of the topic and the susceptibility of it being "abstracted", "politicized", or "ideologized". Normchou ^💬 23:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, with the caveat that there is always room for improvement. These are not the best imaginable images, but they are better than no images and I share the OP’s reading of MOS:PERTINENCE as it applies here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per my reasoning in the initial discussion. If there are better, more pertinent alternatives for the images in question, they should be replaced immediately. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2: For me, adding images of random Uyghurs is akin to going to the page about Francoist concentration camps and adding images of random homosexuals "to show what they look like". In my opinion, it is simply inappropriate and does not contribute anything informative. My argument is mostly grounded in the consensus that was reached in the RfC about including galleries of people in pages about ethnicities or other large human populations, in which the consensus was not to do that. See here and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. In my view, if an entire gallery of images is not fit to appropriately represent an ethnic group, then three images aren't either. They serve a solely decorative purpose and are in my opinion highly problematic as they imply to readers that "this is how Uyghurs look like", which is an inherently exclusive and unscientific suggestion. Sarrotrkux (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep only if context-specific (mostly option 2). Such images seem perfectly reasonable in the Background section (where currently one is), but their use in a "Marriage incentives" section seems questionable. These photos are of real people, possibly living, and are presented here as examples of marriage incentives despite there being apparently no connection. The comparative examples above are good examples. The Polish clergy picture is quite clearly relevant, they are hostages. The Yazidi image is in a treatment sub-section, and shows the receiving of aid. The Rohingya genocide images are direct depictions of a topic mentioned in the text. War in Darfur uses dated images within a Timeline. (I cannot figure out which image is being referred to in the Holocaust article.) None of these take photos of random living people and insert them somewhere that deals specifically with a sensitive topic. CMD (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On the MOS argument, the reference to MOS:PERTINENCE misses "However, not every article needs images", and this is a case where WP:BLPIMAGE completely overrules MOS, as these images are arguably "used out of context to present a person in a false...light". CMD (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for now - simply as best available images that are at least remotely relevant to the subject. Replace by better images as soon as they will be available. This is all work in progress. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly option 2, per User:Chipmunkdavis. Seems like a BLP violation, and in any case inappropriate, to use images of random living people and imply that they're victims of a genocide. The one in the background section is probably fine, and maybe one of the others could be moved to that section, but I don't think it's appropriate to use them in the "Marriage incentives" section. (The one of Mihrigul Tursun seems fine as currently used). —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. If there is evidence from RSs, as there is, that an entire group is the subject of genocide, then it seems to me reasonable to include images of any members of that group. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly option 2 for any such images outside of the Background section, per Mx. Granger and Chipmunkdavis. Having no images is better than having irrelevant images that do not reflect the contents of the article. NoNews! 11:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. I just tried removing all the said images and previewed the article and I found that these images are indeed creating an impact on the perception of the issue being discussed in the article. In other words, the images serve as an aid in visualizing the actual situation there, how it impacts people of all ages (from children to elderly adults), and so forth. I feel including these images only adds to the credibility of the facts that this article presents. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. China has a minimum age for marriage that's in the 20s and these mixed marriages are being presented as being promoted to make mixed babies, so not only are this old woman and girl most likely not in these marriages, they likely don't look like anyone in those marriages. The argument of "we need to see what the women in these marriages look like" is dead in the water. I would say given the sensitive nature of these marriages it's inappropriate to put random people's faces in there. A page on "Rape in Country X" would not include random portraits of identifiable women just because women are the more likely to be raped, that would be an atrocious abuse of people's privacy. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, unless it's been changed in the meantime, that image of Polish clergy shows them gathered with their hands up, and the image data says they're hostages. The date is also within days of the Nazi inavsion. It's clearly related to Nazi crimes against Polish clergy and not a picture of what Polish priests look like. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Here we make allegations that China is forcing minorities into marriage with ethnic Han Chinese (inserts random image of child and grandmother that have nothing to do with it). Yup, pretty absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonksboi (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1.5: keep but move them around: I'm mostly convinced by Rasnaboy here. Trying to imagine the article without the images, it strikes me as much drier and frankly less informative. This convinces me that the images really do serve an actual purpose in the article. I would not be opposed to replacing them with different images if better images can be found, but the current images strike me as significantly better than no images.

However, I feel the image of the woman would probably be better under the "clothing" section, as she's wearing a headscarf which is one of the clothing items that the Chinese government discourages, and the image of the child would be better under the "children's names" section. Where they currently are, under "marriage incentives", I agree feels odd. As Unknown Temptation pointed out, neither of these people is directly affected by that particular aspect of the genocide, whereas the woman would be affected by the suppression of traditional clothing and the child would be affected by the policy on children's names. Loki (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though I am mostly for removal, I agree that the image of the woman could fit under the "clothing" section. Perhaps that is a compromise we could settle on. Though I find it difficult to put the image of the girl in the "names" section considering you cannot "see" a name, nor do we know the name of her. Especially since I consider images of children problematic unless specifically needed. Sarrotrkux (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Adding them may mislead the readers into thinking that they specifically are the victims of the government. Félix An (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Inappropriate to use such images. There is also the issue of using more Western-looking people to represent Uyghurs - while there are a wide range of appearances of Uyghurs, blondes are uncommon. Hzh (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 due to precedent, as User:Mikehawk10 so aptly demonstrated above. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I can't think of any other comparable article that does this, and the fact Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL and Rohingya genocide (which definitely do not do this) are disingenuously alluded to above by Mikehawk10 and Adoring nanny implies that a thorough search has been done by those in favour of option 1 and they have been unable to come up with any comparable example. (The comments referring to the Yazidi and Rohingya articles should, of course, also be weighed accordingly.) What's more, the use of random images of Uyghur people in this article reeks of the kind of ... well, "race-baiting" may be the wrong term, but ... that shows up in some Euro-American media discussing this issue -- I distinctly remember a certain Newstalk programme back in 2009 giving air time to someone saying they had been surprised by images of the Uyghur people back then and how they didn't "look Chinese", and while I am not sure what percentage of this article's expected readership are as ignorant as that Newstalk caller back in 2009, but I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was quite high. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: The subjects of the images are not tied to the topic of the article by anything other than their ethnicity. The use of images of individual ethnic group members to represent the whole is directly against the consensus at MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, while there is no other claimed relevance of the pictured individuals besides their ethnicity.
  The inclusion of the image picturing what appears to be a minor in the "Marriage incentives" subsection (image 3 in the RfC statement) is by far the most problematic of the three images. The article does not suggest that this particular young girl (or minors in general) are at all significant and relevant in the topic's context (MOS:PERTINENCE). — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: This doesn't just impact the people who are destroyed - it impacts their families, friends, communities, for generations. Horse Eye's Back and TucanHolmes sum up my feelings: keep, but improve whenever possible. Normchou comment regarding not letting this issue be "abstracted", is on the mark and I think a serious problem on many articles.  // Timothy :: talk  02:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Gog the Mild - Idealigic (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, also per Gog the Mild — Czello 17:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion for RfC

Comment and Question: I think that I am seeing an emerging consensus regarding the use of image of the woman in the hijab, namely that the article would be better than it is now if the image is moved from the marriage incentives section to the clothing section. Should I move the image into that section while the RfC continues, or should I wait until the RfC is closed? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Uyghur boycott 20Sept2020.jpg

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

Citation overkill

I have added a reference to the last CN-tag that I found, but as soon as I finished, I realized that so many sections are overcited (WP:OVERCITE). This particularly happens in the lead section (one has 10 references on a singe claim!!!), Middle east section, Organ harvesting section and the Oficial visits to the camp section. We do not need all of them. This is a common problem on controversial topics, where a person spams citations on a controversial claim or a bold/serious one, hoping that it somehow increases the verifiability. We could definitely trim a lot of these excessive citations, especially ones that mention the exact same thing or ones that may be biased in some way. Wretchskull (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation overkill and biased sources are completely different and unrelated issues. If you have concerns about biased sources those need to be addressed separately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias or no bias, that first paragraph of the lead is pretty bad. The first set, after "one million Muslims", is all newspaper source (including two separate Al Jazeera articles). The second batch, after "ethnocide or cultural genocide", is news articles and two journal articles (one only visible in the archive link). The third, after "called it a genocide", has news reports (including one ICIJ news post), two US government press releases, and one Canadian government statement. At the very least, all should be culled to have one news source at most. Some of these sources aren't even used in the article body, so it's unclear what unique information they are meant to bring. CMD (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah I completely agree that we have citation overkill in the lead, but its an issue we’ve tried to address before and leads to a cycle of uninformed or malicious editors removing “unsourced” content and then other editors overreacting and overstocking the citation supply. Personally I like completely citation free lead sections and support the removal of literally all of them, but sorting on grounds of bias is not part of the process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My proposal would be to keep the WSJ source for the first bunch, on the grounds that it is used in the actual article body and arbitrarily that it is currently first, keep the two academic sources for the second bunch, and keep one US government press release (the one on the bipartisan bill) and the Canadian government source for the third bunch. CMD (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve trimmed the repeated sources. I think your proposal is certainly preferable to what we have now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My slight modification to your proposal would be to drop the government sources as well and leave that bit unsourced, none of the sources support the whole thing and its a general enough statement to be left unsourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: don’t falsely claim a talk page consensus when you haven't participated here since opening the discussion and no consensus has been reached. We haven't even discussed anything outside the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I never falsely claimed anything so you can stop accusing me of it. If you actually paid attention, I mentioned other sections rather than the lead. Just because I didn't participate further (I didn't have time) doesn't make a policy-breaker okay, it doesn't even need consensus if it is an obvious or important policy. I checked the sources and simply removed ones that said the same exact thing or quoted OTHER sources that were mentioned. I will revert your edit because it is something unacceptable in Wikipedia policy. Other than all of this, I do not like your behavior at all mate. All of that started simply because I and some other editors told you to stop tag bombing articles with CN-tags, and you made a whole song and dance about it. You went to an article talk that I participate in saying that you were surprised that I didn't know this or that, talking with coarse behavior, and so on. And here, you completely ignored my premise about overciting and said that biased sources have nothing to do with overciting and paying attention to the small mistake I made while completely ignoring my suggestion. WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT are articles that I recommend you check out. I am aware about WP:LAWYER but because this case is relatively obvious, the underlying principle should be to remove redundant overcitations. Now please, if you think that my intention is bad or mean, then I am sorry because it is not my intention. I want Wikipedia to be a great place for everyone. I hope you understand :) Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We haven't discussed those yet, we’ve only addressed the lead so far. If you would like to discuss other parts of the article we can. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also what do you mean "All of that started simply because I and some other editors told you to stop tag bombing articles with CN-tags, and you made a whole song and dance about it.” Following editors around wikipedia is generally discouraged per WP:HOUND, I hope you aren’t editing this page because of me. Perhaps you misspoke? Also are you referring to Gender pay gap? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: It is extremely difficult to take what you are saying seriously because you are accusing me of WP:HOUND-actions you explicitly did yourself. Yes, I am referring to the gender pay gap. If you are wondering why I am here then it is not because of certain editors, I generally visit good & featured article nominees and try to fix existing issues or sometimes visit their talk page and see if the issue has already been discussed, usually in articles with interesting content. Also, you are yet again dodging what I said earlier. I didn't only mention the lead, I explicitly stated the exact sections with WP:OVERCITE. I said "This particularly happens in the lead section (one has 10 references on a singe claim!!!), Middle east section, Organ harvesting section and the Oficial visits to the camp section.. Anyway mate, if you do not like my edit, that's alright. I'm getting a 3O to see what they think. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Horse Eye's Back here regarding the content of the page. We have been through a bit of a cycle of people removing things because they were "unsourced" or "insufficiently sourced" and then accusing the page of being biased because they allege it linked to too few sources. Some of them were added were to show that non-Western sources were also reporting this, per my comments in above sections. Pages that are of controversial topics tend to have more citations and attributions in the text, simply because this ends the edit-revert cycles that, for example, we have been dealing with constantly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors. I am declining the third opinion invitation, as there are more than two editors actively involved. Please assume good faith and avoid ad hominem attacks on each other. All editors clearly have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and I am confident that a sensible agreement can be reached. Please consider Mikehawk10's wise words. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 That is fine, and I understand that. The reason I began this is exactly because WP:OVERCITE says that controversial topics are usually overcited. Adding citations that say the exact same thing (which is why I deleted some redundant citations) are discouraged. If one has, say, 6 citations, it is best to trim three of them and leave three of the best. Anyways, it seems like there hasn't been any resolution to this so I'll just give it up to you guys because I assume you know more. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Playing with words: Genocide/ Genocidal

I read the trump administration's statement, and it does not appear to use the English word "genocide", but its adjective "genocidal". One can of course feel "suicidal" without committing "suicide". The "free" western media then printed "genocide" in the news and sowing frenzy in their readers. Of course trump's out of office and cannot now be held to account, but if ever the now defunct administration were asked to explain, all they have to say is "go and read our statement carefully. At no time did we say the Chinese carried out genocide, we simply stated that we feel their policy was genocidal." 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel this is splitting some extremely fine hairs. Calling a policy "genocidal" and saying the government responsible for the policy committed "genocide" are the same thing, there is no difference between them, and if the Trump administration ever tried to backtrack like that they would be laughed out of the room. Loki (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@liar. Do u think trump is scared of being laughed out of the room? We are talking about an american president, and american presidents are well known for taking liberties with the truth, especially trump. Go back to Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinski". Then he went on to claim that he did not lie, as (the truth of) what he said depend on whether it was in the plural or singular, what grammatical tenses were used, and what you mean by sexual relations. You can of course throw the Statute of Interpretation at him, as you could at trump. But back to what genocide actually is: It is the mass killing of a people. Genocide of the Uyghur people by the Chinese government is simply untrue, and clearly there is absolutely no evidence for it. The accusation is pure malice. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The accusation is not "pure malice", since it's not unfounded. There are legitimate indicators that the Chinese government is pursuing a policy of sinicization in the region, which, according to most definitions of the term (see the numerous discussions above), constitutes cultural, or even "proper" genocide. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@tucan. So the WASP americans have committed cultural genocide on all other americans. Why is that Black Americans are not speaking the African languages of their ancestors? How many Native Americans have the White Man slaughtered, yes killed ie "-cided"? The White Man did the same to the Aboriginals of Australia. As for the present Uyghur, why are they muslims? Because they were forced into the religion. Their ancestors were not muslims. Therefore the culture of their ancestors was not destroyed by the Chinese. Was the present uyghur language the language of their ancestors? No, the present uyghurs adopted the language of another people. Populations change languages, religions and ways of life throughout history. African-Americans now have no knowledge of the languages of their ancestors. Why didn't trump's administration call that cultural genocide, and that american policies have always been genocidal? The Chinese have not committed genocide against the Uyghurs. trump's administration even want to make the Uyghurs jobless. trump's statement is purely malicious to take the media off his own wrong doings and failure in the election. There is no genocide committed on the Uyghurs by the Chinese, nor are the Chinese policies genocidal. The Uyghurs' way of life as with all peoples around the world changed, and will continue to change, over time. Any accusations are trump's lies over and over again. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:6D79:B0AA:9972:4E95 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which support your argument? If you are more interested in understanding your own whataboutism argument might I suggest this piece, “Responding to Chinese ‘Whataboutism’: On Uyghur and Native Genocides,”[14] in The Diplomat? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@horse. Do you have any sources? Why don't you read trump's admin's statement for yourself? We are in the internet age, and everything is on the web. Just look it up for yourself. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:353D:ED01:EF0F:15B3 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for what? I haven’t made an argument here, I’m asking for clarification of what you said and supporting sources. Did you read the article I linked BTW? I thought you would find it immensely helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Commment: The OP is clearly playing word games, pushing a POV. Their reply to Tucan is over the top and should be addressed and this closed.  // Timothy :: talk  17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Birth rate

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

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

There are many. Just Google it. But try this: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212073.shtml

The UN's definition of genocide and medical experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

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

Training Center / Camp Graduate Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same story multiple times

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

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

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

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

Radio Free Asia

The article uses Radio Free Asia as a source which seems quite problematic to me given that it is a primarily US government funded org that was set up by the CIA. We certainly would not use RT or Global Times or any other government propaganda agency so why are we using what is essentially the Western version of Russia Today?PailSimon (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think more broadly a thread should be started about Radio Free Asia at WP:RSN. I suspect it's used as a source in more articles than just this one, so it'd be good for a definitive decision to be made there and then it be added to WP:RSP. Just noticed that there is a thread about RFA at that noticeboard. Let's wait for that discussion to conclude and then take a call on this article accordingly. — Czello 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

United States

Amigao removed the following sentence from the lead: "The United States is the only country to have declared the human rights abuses a genocide, a decision made January 19, 2021, by then President Donald Trump despite reservations by the U.S. State Department." Their explanation was "positions of particular countries are already listed below and do not belong in the 3rd paragraph."[15] However they did not move the information elsewhere.

It is relevant to the paragraph it was in, which begins, "International reactions have been mixed, with 54 United Nations (UN) member states supporting China's policies in Xinjiang." The fact that one nation (and only one) classifies it as genocide summarizes international reactions.

TFD (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Good work. The lead section is incredibly lopsided, though it has improved with your edit. The text regarding the State Department viewpoints were recently pushed down to the classification subsection on the basis of "WP:UNDUE", which was ironically against the point. I'm sure classifications made by them are more "due weight" than the "East Turkistan Government-in-Exile". RachetPasse (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources point to Trump himself as having made the decision. Most RS are reporting that the decision was made by the then-U.S. Secy. of State Mike Pompeo, and I can't find sources that point to it coming directly from the top. And, while we could include information on each country's internal deliberative process in the article, I don't think that information is due in the lead, which is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS:LEAD. I don't think that the internal deliberative processes in the United States regarding its decision to classify meet that threshold. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement is an over-simplification given recent events (see: 1). Also, there is a more nuanced treatment of the United States' position in the subsequent section listing out various countries' positions so there is no reason to state only a single country's views in the lead. That would make the lead a bit too US-centric. - Amigao (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you forget the vital part which stated it was a non-binding motion, brought forward by opposition Conservatives or are you being deliberate? RachetPasse (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Calling the human rights violations a genocide when the U.S. is the only country to have made that call is U.S. centric. It is not U.S. centric to point out that no other country has made that call. The Guardian article is an oversimplification. Canada's lower house of parliament, the House of Commons, adopted a resolution, which belongs in the article. But none of the cabinet members voted and the prime minister has said that he will make a decision later. [Note: A resolution is, "A motion adopted by the House in order to make a declaration of opinion or purpose. A resolution does not have the effect of requiring that any action be taken." - House of Commons][16] TFD (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If a resolution is a motion adopted for the purposes of declaring an opinion, then I think it's reasonable to say that Canada's House of Commons have declared the ongoing events in Xinjiang to constitute a genocide. Stating that opinion and affirming it formally in a resolution seems to be in line with reporting from The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, Axios, other reliable sources who have stated that Canada has deemed the events to be a genocide. Since we are relying on the reporting of WP:RS to write this article, I think that it's reasonable to include Canada. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in the comment you are replying to, "Canada's lower house of parliament, the House of Commons, adopted a resolution, which belongs in the article." However the House of Commons is not Canada. While it is part of the legislative branch, it is the executive which determines Canada's foreign policy. That's actually similar to the U.S., where the President not the House of Representatives, determines foreign policy. Note that Canadian news sources do not say that Canada made this decision. The CBC News headline for example is "MPs vote to label China's persecution of Uighurs a genocide." It says, "Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau was the only cabinet minister present. When it was his turn, he said he abstained "on behalf of the Government of Canada."" So Canada has no official position on whether it is a genocide.

Note too that in order for House of Commons resolutions to be binding, similar to the U.S., they must be approved by the Senate and the head of state or their representative, at which point they become laws.

TFD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, besides noting that the resolution passed the most we can say that the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and Greens (that is all but one major party) are calling for sanctions over the matter [17]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Chinese invitation to UN Human Rights Commission

Given the fact that calls for a UN Human Rights investigation are discussed in the lede, I believe it is notable that China has invited the UN to visit and worth mentioning in the lede. I appreciate other opinions. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not due, its also highly unlikely to be genuine. The comment was “The door to Xinjiang is always open. People from many countries who have visited Xinjiang have learned the facts and the truth on the ground. China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang,”[18] which as all WP:RS has noted is not true, Xinjiang is one of the hardest places in the world to get information about and visit in a free capacity. For example Al-jazeera whose reporting on the invitation I just linked was literally kicked out of China for reporting on Xinjiang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be true that the invitation is not genuine, but the sources do not indicate that. The WHO just completed an investigation in Wuhan and a lot of the scientists have indicated the the government was fairly open. If we are going to report on calls for an investigation in the lede, I really think it is worth considering reporting on the response from the government. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, we have no indication its due for the lead. It also literally just happened, see WP:RECENTISM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the Foreign Minister also said “basic facts show that there has never been so-called genocide, forced labour or religious oppression in Xinjiang” which is just as ridiculous. Chinese government sources have zero reliability here and I’m not seeing them being treated as reliable by WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily false balance. If an article reported, "X asked Y to do Z" the logical question is to then answer "what did Y do?" I think it may be worth indicating that a UN investigation has not been launched, but China has indicated an openness for such an investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk790 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We have no sources claiming that China has indicated an openness for such an investigation, they appear to say the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang" indicates openness. How would you characterize? Dhawk790 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We can’t characterize, the quote isn't from a WP:RS its from a Chinese government official. If a WP:RS said "China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang” then it would be a different story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the source was about who was reporting, not who was saying it. So in this case a reliable source is reporting on the words of a government official, there are other examples of this in the article. So for example, the Zenz report uses Chinese government statistics, it is Zenz who is reporting it, but the information comes from the Chinese government, I don't think it would be fair to consider Zenz as unreliable because of that. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We could say Official X said “China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang” but we could not turn that quote into a factual statement or attribute the opinion to AJ. But again, it still wouldn't be due for the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If the call for investigation is due, why isn't the response? Dhawk790 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Because we have significantly more coverage of one vs the other, due weight is based on coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think your point about it being a recent development is important. It may be worth re-considering after some time has passed and potentially more coverage emerges. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China

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

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

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

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

RS widely considered this a genocide as of August 2020, when the previous move discussion took place. As buidhe stated in the move discussion that gave the page its current title, these sources included for instance [20][21][22][23] German sources:[24][25]". We're also seeing an increase in parliaments recognizing this as a Genocide, with the Dutch doing so today. I don't see a compelling reason to change the tile, as RS reporting has not wavered on the basic facts since we made the determination to move the page here in August.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Examples: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

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

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

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

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

As requested, examples of Misleading or False edit summaries: [46], [47], [48], [49].  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Point-by-point response:

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

• TucanHolmes, This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [50]. When followed up with [51], it really alerted me to a problem. Since then I've been keeping an eye on this. I agree its not one edit, its the whole story.  // Timothy :: talk  12:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Actually I have noticed this user making similar low-level POV edits in numerous other China-related topic areas as well, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]). Not to mention arguing constantly that Taiwan should not be called a country ([61], [62], [63]). Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again: you are not allowed to make baseless personal attacks. Please stay on topic and respond to the concerns outlined above, rather than simply attacking everyone else. You have now cast aspersions baselessly against two others ([64], [65]). Keep it up and I will seek administrator intervention. You have been warned multiple times now. Stop trying to derail the discussion. Citobun (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs and descriptions might be helpful for examining a broader pattern.
  @TimothyBlue: It may not have been intentional, but besides the two admins and PailSimon, you have only pinged editors here who have disagreed with PailSimon on this talk page or have been reverted by PailSimon (as opposed to the broader group of active editors here). Not that this thread is not in good-faith, but just noting that it can give the appearance of piling-on by editors who specifically disagree with PailSimon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC); revised 04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see now that this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PailSimon, so attention should be directed there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi MarkH21, I pinged to see if there was support for me if I took this to ANI, I assumed those that agreed with PS would not support going to ANI and would understand it was going to ANI if there was support. I did ping PailSimon and stated others should be pinged if their input might be useful, so they certainly could have pinged any involved editor to support them. My hope was that going to ANI would ultimately not be needed.  // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Understood, and thanks for the explanation! I think that makes sense, but (at least for the future) it can be helpful to gather the thoughts of a broader group of editors. It's clear that many editors have personal biases on contentious topics, e.g. this one, and sometimes the explanation of one perspective or one set of edits from another editor can go a long way. If a thread only contains several editors are making accusations against one editor, it can raise tensions and prevent all of the involved editors from finding a meaningful resolution. Plus, not every editor is on "one side" or the other (nor should we present any opportunity for disputes to be misunderstood in a WP:BATTLEGROUND way). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be cultural genocide

As of now, we don't know if there is really is a mass murder. That's why the title should be renamed. Cultural genocide refers to the destruction of an ethnicity, which is what is happening there. Tarekelijas (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been the subject of debate before, see here. Ultimately many of the sources we use label this as a genocide, and now we're even seeing political institutions do so too. — Czello 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass murder is not a necessary component of genocide, I would also note that cultural genocide is a type of genocide... The overriding descriptor would still be Uyghur genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

We do know that there is a campaign to cripple Uyghur fertility+targeted rapes. This falls under genocide. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeking affirmation to revert recent change

I have reverted this removal of content by PailSimon once [66]. I believe other editors have as well. There is not currently a 1RR restriction, but due to the nature of this page, I am seeking affirmation on the talk page that there is a consensus to revert it again and that this does not constitute edit warring.

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

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

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

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

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