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)

I attempted to insert the definition of genocide citing dictionaries and the Genocide Convention, but it has been removed on the grounds that it is a "controversial edit". I don't see how inserting the definition is controversial. I wished to insert the dictionary definitions from the Collins dictionary, from Miriam Webster and from the Cambridge dictionary. We should then include the full quote of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. If this is deemed "controversial" then negative inferences can be drawn about the integrity of the whole article, as it suggests we are commenting on a "genocide" without a clear and transparent discussion of what that is. The amount of discussion on this talk page suggests clear that there is no consensus. --Bacon Man (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a strong consensus against the POV you are attempting to insert into the article. At least eight experienced editors have very recently strongly objected to your POV being inserted into the article.  // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: I removed it because it's clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And, as I said in my edit summary, a PoV edit. — Czello 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: It’s clearly original research/synthesis that would incorporate a particular POV into wikivoice without backing from reliable sources. Czello has correctly pointed this out as not being permitted in articles per Wikipedia policies (namely WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources use any of those definitions to argue for or against the use of the word genocide? Vpab15 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dena.walemy: The section you seek to add does not appear to have been created with WP:DUEWEIGHT in mind. I was also thrown at first by your username and your signature not resembling each other, it makes it hard to understand whats connected to what. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is content fork and should not be here. That's why we have a separate page about genocide(s) in general. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Adrian zenz got his evidence literally from exiled ughur media Internet tv report at face value. How is that even reliable? Because western governments are claiming him to be? I think instead of just claiming him as an expert and hiding the evidence or lack of real evidence. Also Adrian zenz writes books on why Communism, homosexuality, gender equality is Satanism corrupting the world and yet he's the expert on xinjiang.

Wikipedia should at the minimum, mention exactly how Adrian based his million count. As anyone looking deeply can see that he's literally using an Internet TV report from a biased source aka Istiqal media to back his claims. And that really should be mentioned in better detail.

https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/ 49.180.226.13 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 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)

It has been stated here that Western media has misled the public and formulated opinions that do not reflect reality. What hypocrisy from those defending the Chinese Communist Party (or more likely, commenting here in their employ).

The title of this article is entirely justified, since anyone with common sense, an education, and the will to carry out their own research is able to determine that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang, just as conclusively as one can state that the Chinese Communist Party invaded Hong Kong, released COVID intentionally (while instructing the WHO to mislead the world), and has continued attacking the free nations in a multitude of ways since.

Throughout 2020, the world watched racism being handed out by those claiming to oppose it. We're now watching the Chinese Communist Party preparing a report on Human Rights abuses taking place in the US as it genocides an entire people in Xinjiang.

The stench of Chinese Communist Party hypocrisy is clear to all, and we'll not simply ignore it because a few of their minions are proficient in the English language and are able to attempt to use our own values and laws against us. Liubaobei (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to "Uyghur Genocide Allegations" and the entire article should be reworded in neutral language. There is a clear POV being pushed.Exhausted-Sinologist (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC) This user has been blocked for being an account created for the purpose of block evasion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pogrom, not a "genocide" - the Red Chinese are not trying to exterminate them - these actions are similar (if harsher) to those used by the Russian Empire against their Jews. If the Chinese gov't thought that the Uyghur had come "into line," the suppressions would end tomorrow.50.111.51.247 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persecution: ethnicity vs religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

I would suggest (oddly enough, since we're talking about a state here), that Mandy Rice-Davies partly applies. As you said, it shouldn't be too detailed. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)
• Option 2: Inappropriate use of living person's image. Not specifically tied to marriage. Appearance overrepresents and underrepresents certain Uyghur traits. Mayboleen (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Mayboleen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 2 - Challenging for me to understand how including images of random Uyghurs illustrates the topic of Uyghur genocide. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep the image of the woman with hijab as it is related to the section on clothing, but remove the image of the child since a direct relation between the image and the text (of any section) is in my view missing. The other images included in the article already give a good and relevant representation of the content. Removing the image of the child does not degrade the quality of the article, if anything, it probably enhances the presence and relevance of the other images. — D'Lemelo (talk) 17:30, 11 March 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation overkill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

@horse. By adding your comments here, you are making an argument. You propagate your views without evidence on these pages and on other articles to slander China and the Chinese people. What is stated here is well known knowledge, and perhaps your ignorance of these facts means you are very poorly educated, and have to rely on lies. Please show us some real evidence of genocide. I don't need to cite any sources because there is no genocide to cite. Of course it does not stop liars from saying that there is genocide, and then others cite the liars to spread the lies. As for "cultural" genocide, perhaps Donald Trump himself can claim that the Trumps and he himself are victims of American cultural genocide, because the Trumps are German, who now cannot speak or understand the German language. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:8503:5059:49CB:D161 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In which a case perhaps the original AP report reffed in the mainpage should be the source: https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

The graph there shows that as recently as 2015 Uighar birthrates were up to double the average Chinese birthrate. It follows that a 50% reduction would only result in a 'normal' Chinese birthrate being reached. I don't want to make any moral judgment about that - just to point out that the present wording is misleading since it implies a greater reduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Just to provide some final context, the results of the RfC at the noticeboard can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA). A short entry summarizing them is available at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Excerpt:

“ Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. ” — Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, entry on Radio Free Asia (RFA)

TucanHolmes (talk) 11:44, 5 April 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)

The United States don't particularly like Muslims or the Chinese, including its own citizens of Chinese ethnicity and its own Muslims, nor are they particularly concerned with their rights, but they are now claiming that somehow they like and are concerned for Chinese Muslims. Sounds like the US is very disingenuous and hypocritical. 86.173.159.198 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of US hybrid warfare efforts? Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson highlights the geopolitical strategy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBthA9OHpFo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine not in this article, unless we can find RS that somehow tie this sort of thing to the ongoing Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 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)

@horse. Can you give us proof that Chinese government sources have zero reliability to back up your claim? From the trump government sources over the past 4 years, it would appear that it is us government sources that have zero reliability. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF1:B601:F525:4AEC (talk) 01:28, 2 April 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)

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)

Correct. Mass murder is not the only component of genocide. In the course of events to say if a mass murder is genocide, destruction of culture is one thing scholars look for, along with typical features like the murder of children and laws against miscegenation, as well as whether the government is one that formally enforces ethnic distinction (yellow stars, etc). Scholars are still debating what Lemkin meant by "cultural genocide". Rather than discrete "types of genocide", for those interested there is a great explanation of the current details in The Oxford Handbook of Legal History [26].

Oranjelo's point about fertility has been covered by the Associated Press in detail [27] and falls under genocide. According to the article experts are using the term "demographic genocide". [28] Gators bayou (talk) 11:44, 2 March 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)

I’m not 100% on the rapes being “targeted” at Uyghurs per se, though there is certainly information out there indicating that the policies instituted by the government are leading to a systemic problem of Uyghurs being raped. I know it’s a fine line, but I am not sure that the government is actually instructing people to rape Uyghurs, even if it might be creating policies (such as the forcible quartering of Han Chinese men in the homes of Uyghur women and the defense of co-sleeping) that may be causing the widespread nature of cross-ethnic rapes in Xinjiang. I think the question of genocidal rape in Xinjiang might bridge into a debate akin to the Holocaust’s functionalism–intentionalism debate as time goes on (albeit with a meaningfully different factual basis). There is, however, clearly an intentional and ongoing campaign to sterilize Uyghurs against their will, and per our last move discussion we chose to move the page to its current spot as this sort of behavior had come increasingly to light. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is starting a war against China: if the Western countries call it genocide they are formally bound to start a war against China. Of course, it will be vetoed in the UN Security Council, but it still remains a very difficult political matter. It's like Let's declare war to China and hope that it gets canceled in the last moment before its start. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"if the Western countries call it genocide they are formally bound to start a war against China” thats not even a little bit true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No? There is a treaty against genocides: if you declare there is a genocide going on you have to send the troops to stop it. As simple as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The above about "having" to send troops is unsourced and the claim is simply not credible.  // Timothy :: talk  20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have made up that part of the Genocide Convention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

[29]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you read that source before posting? It says the issue was potential "moral pressure” as a result of the designation which could lead to public expectations/pressure to use military force not a legal or treaty obligation to use force. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is not just cultural, but pretty much physical. See this with the actual report here ("The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention"). My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sources (more every day) show this is clearly not just cultural genocide, but cultural and physical.  // Timothy :: talk  20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

US state department lawyers would contradict that term of genocide as there's insufficient evidence to claim that. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/

So far, the biggest and most cited expert seems to be Adrian zenz and his report is questionable https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/

Claiming genocide without actual hard full evidence is akin to propaganda like on Libya war https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181025-how-the-world-was-misled-into-the-libyan-war/amp/. I recall BBC promoting targeted viagra rape by Libyan soldiers based on just a single verbal account at face value. That was later debunked as false propaganda after the war was finished. It was presented as real despite it was just an allegation promoted as facts. Nowadays we also have targeted rape accounts in China based also on verbal accounts.

That's not proven to be facts but just allegations. Since when does wikipedia claim something as facts when it is still allegations based on insufficient evidence and even the US department lawyers had acknowledged lack of evidence?49.180.226.13 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is not Pompeo and not just Zenz. For example, here is very serious report by an independent organization (mentioned here and in other publications), and it say this is just a genocide per Geneva convention, affirmative. This is different even from something they did with Tibet or with other ethnic minorities [30]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, Zenz is listed in the report as an individual that either was a co-contributor or someone who the report consulted. He's also only one of 33 individuals listed in the report in that capacity. Those 33 individuals include a former Dean of Harvard Law School, the current UNESCO chair on Genocide Education at the University of Southern California, the founding president of Genocide Watch, the director of International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, and many more reputable academics and lawyers. I don't think that the criticism of the report provided by the IP is sound (especially given that their argument against Zenz's reliability and/or due-ness seems to be based off of a self-published blog), but I do want to point this out for posterity's sake. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree 'cultural genocide' is a better term to use here. If it is just called 'Uighur genocide' it tends to lead people to equate it with the mass murder of Jewish people in World War II or the 1994 Rwanda genocide, but the Chinese gov't isn't being accused of trying to exterminate by mass murder, rather it is being accused of using intense persecution in order to stop the Uighurs from following their culture any longer and making them assimilate into becoming like Han Chinese, which isn't really the same thing as a systematic campaign of mass murder. Yes, it may meet the UN definition of 'genocide', but we also need to consider what the popular understanding and connotations that people carry with the word 'genocide' as well.Reesorville (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is cultural genocide, then many countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia, of world will be guilty. White america has completely wiped out the African culture of the Black African-Americans. None of the descendants of the African slaves can speak an African language, unlike the Uyghurs in China whose modern Uyghur language has always flourished. Mind you, Donald Trump himself may claim he and his family are victims of cultural genocide in america too, as the Trumps are Germans and are now unable to speak or understand German. Biden himself can also claim to be a victim of cultural genocide, as he has stated he is Irish, and yet the Irish Biden cannot speak or understand the Celtic language, and can only understand the English language of his colonial masters. And by definition, have not the religions of Christianity and Islam completely wiped out the cultures of civilisations that pre-dated them, and thereby the worst culprits of cultural genocide? Maybe you people should demand to put the vatican on trial for cultural genocide. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF1:B601:F525:4AEC (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021: Number of countries supporting China has not declined

The article misleading states that the number of countries supporting China on Xinjiang "declined".

It has not. 60 countries offered support for China's position at the UN Security Council on Friday [31]

Whilst CGTN cannot be cited as a "reliable source"- The lead part about the decline in countries supporting China is false, was speculative and is designed to push a narrative- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Reuters is also reporting this recent development.

The part about the decline in the lead section was accurate at the time of writing, though I am wondering if anybody can find a full list of countries or a fuller version of the statement from an RS. We have pretty good details in the lead regarding the changes over time between the previous two statements, and (depending on the full text of the statement) we might need to modify the lead to incorporate it. I is not 100% clear from the Reuters report that the joint statement is a statement of affirmative support for Chinese policies in the region or if it is a statement telling the US and UK to buzz off as it pertains to China's domestic policies, so we should be careful in how we frame it and should seek a more detailed report. Reuters seems to use a few see the direct quotes without providing a real framing to the statement itself, so it's hard to see if we are in danger of comparing apples to oranges here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

After further review, it looks like we'd be comparing apples and oranges if we compare the numbers. Previous statements have been focused on affirmative support for China’s policies, while Reuters and Radio Free Asia appear to frame this more in a non-interference lens. Chinese state-owned Xinhua vaguely frames the statement as one in opposition to non-specific actors that promote "unfounded allegations against China out of political motivations". It appears to be significantly differently phrased and framed than those statements which RS have said explicitly provided affirmative support for China's policy regime in the region. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think we should have so much information about that in the lead, its a little two scoreboard like. I’d recommend cutting the whole thing down to a single line about opposing letters at the UN. I’d also cut the ICJ section down to one line, its just way too much specificity for the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That being said @Sunderland Renaissance: you’re going to need to provide a detailed explanation with diffs to support your assertion that it "was speculative and is designed to push a narrative” or retract it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Mikehawk and HEB that this doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead, and this also does not really contradict the earlier reported numbers.
  The new statements are suitable for the "Reactions at the UN" subsection in the body though (cited to Reuters and Axios, not CGTN). I also agree with HEB that the lead mentions of the UN & ICC can be shortened. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Mike, HEB, & Mark. mv to "Reactions at the UN" subsection in the body.  // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Add sentence to lead clarifying that this genocide does not include mass killings

I have read the debate about whether to call this a genocide, and I don't intend to re-open that can of worms. Consensus at the moment stands that this is a genocide.

However, it is worth noting that for most people, genocide brings to mind images of mass killings, as in the Armenian, Rwandan, or anti-Jewish genocides of the past. The definition of genocide used here (prevention of births, sterilization, mass internment, cultural suppression) is much less familiar to the vast majority of readers.

The current lead skirts around this, but importantly, does not clarify two things: 1) According to reliable sources, *this* genocide does not include mass killings 2) Nevertheless, the actions of the Chinese government are considered genocide. It describes those actions, but does not make a link to a definition of genocide that helps explain to the reader why this is genocide even though there are no mass killings. We should add a sentence that makes this clear. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Its the same definition of genocide... Mass killing has never been a necessary part of the definition. If people are uninformed about what the term “genocide” means thats not really our problem is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think as an encyclopedia it's our job to inform people in a way that avoids confusion. Genocide is an extremely important term and making sure readers understand the way it's being used in an article called 'Uyghur genocide' seems worthwhile. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If readers don’t know what this “extremely important” term means then I expect them to click on the linked genocide right in the beginning of the lead. If our readers are misinformed and don’t wish to alleviate their ignorance there isn’t really much we can do there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that at that least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass killings, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

[32]

Inclusion of "mass murder" in the lead infobox

I noticed that in a series of two edits (1 2), it appears that Oranjelo100 has added the term "mass murder" to the opening infobox. From my reading, (and correct me if I am wrong), it looks like this was added as a result of information contained in a report from Haaretz that stated that "[a] number of international researchers and human rights activists say the oppression of minorities in Xinjiang has only grown worse, and that some prisoners are being murdered and their organs harvested." I've noticed that the Newlines report includes the statement that, "[l]arge numbers of Uyghur detainees have died or been killed under police or camp custody" and references other reporting from RFA regarding at least one mass death incident and the construction of crematoria in Xinjiang. Haaretz is a perennial reliable source, so I am wondering if others find this to be sufficient coverage to warrant the inclusion of "mass murder" in the infobox. (I plan to leave the item in while this discussion is pending, though I want to hear if other editors believe that including "mass murder" in the infobox follows is proper. Update: removed by MarkH21 until consensus is achieved one way or the other per their reasoning below.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about mass murder yet except the recent addition to the infobox. Removal is an option. Gators bayou (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that at least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass murder, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the 25,000 includes Falun Gong and other citizens as according to unconfirmed reports. The Newsline report says 150 Uyghurs are confirmed killed, which compares with 226 black citizens killed by U.S. police in 2020. TFD (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The 150 number was for a single small camp, not the whole country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

25,000+ is for Xinjiang alone. Haaretz aritcle says China makes about 2.5 to 5 percent of healthy individuals in Uyghur camps disappear every year without trace. Presumably for lethal organ extractions or secret executions or both since they never show up again. Add to that crematoria built near camps, “health checks” that Uighurs undergo in Xinjiang, and on average, the disappeared being 28 – Beijing’s preferred age for organ harvesting. It's quite clear by now that Uyghur genocide includes both gradual cultural and physical extermination (at least in part, which is enough for definition of genocide). Oranjelo100 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The estimate is from Ethan Gutmann, a researcher from the notorious Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. He has for years written about the supposed murder of Falun Gong members for organ transplants. His claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages rather than respected sources such as Haaretz. The fact that a reporter in Haaretz cited his estimate does not make it true. Based on the source, I would rate it as probably not true, although anything is possible. TFD (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"His claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages rather than respected sources” that doesn't appear to be true, his claims seem to be reported on by most of our respected sources. I’d also lay off the editorializing, its hard to take you seriously when you refer to such a milquetoast organization as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as “notorious.” The only source I can find using that language is a Feb. 7 article from the People's Daily [33]. Are there any reliable sources which refer to this organization as notorious? Surely you aren’t repeating Chinese government propaganda points verbatim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There was consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that the Foundation was a biased and unreliable source. However, I will look through where his opinions have been published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased and unreliable does not mean notorious... Given that you’ve inserted it into a BLP sentence you either need to provide a WP:RS which supports that position or retract it. We take BLP very seriously here, even the worst person on earth (who almost certainly has a wikipedia page btw) gets full BLP protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was created by the US government as an explicitly anti-Communist organization. On Chinese issues, it should be regarded as highly biased and of questionable reliability. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Ethan Gutmann's prior work on organ harvesting in China, his work on the organ harvesting (as it pertains to Falun Gong) has been referenced by many reliable news sources before. This includes the New York Times, the Times of London, CNN, The Independent, the Irish Times, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and PBS, the Sydney Morning Herald as well as in opinion pieces in The Wall Street Journal and The Diplomat. Regarding his statements on organ harvesting of Uyghurs, sources include Fox News, Radio Free Asia (1 2), the Taipei Times, the New Zealand Herald, CNN, News.com.au, Sky News, the British Medical Journal, and other sources in addition to the Haaretz source provided before.

As a result, I don't think that the claim that "his claims are mostly reported in news sources that Wikipedia disparages" holds much water in terms of determining Gutmann's reliability about organ harvesting in either the general case or the specific case as it applies to Uyghurs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above, his 2014 book on the Chinese organ harvesting apparatus, The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to its Dissident Problem, has been cited in numerous works published in peer-reviewed journals, including the BMJ, BMC Medical Ethics (1 2 3), and the British Journal of Criminology. I don't think that we should write him off as being untrustworthy. If nothing else, he seems to be a subject-matter expert. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't about that but there is plenty of evidence about Falun Gong being killed for organs by China. Oranjelo100 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting.

[34]

Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I just clicked on the first four links you posted, and they all treat the claim of organ harvesting as an allegation made in a report, not as a fact. I see that some of your later links are from Radio Free Asia and taiwannews.com. Note that Radio Free Asia is US state media, and has a record of pushing extremely dubious claims about China (for example, it has reported credulously on claims that 150,000 people have died in Hubei province of CoVID-19 - these figures are not only orders of magnitude higher than those found by scientific studies, but are actually impossible with any reasonable assumptions). The website taiwannews.com has also pushed CoVID-19 conspiracy theories, and should be regarded as unreliable for any potentially contentious claims about mainland China. In general, allegations of organ harvesting are extremely controversial. Even the US Congressional Research Office has expressed serious doubts about the claims, pointing out the lack of evidence for them and the ties between the committee that created the report and Falun Gong: [35]. Given the sourcing, claims of organ harvesting should not be presented as fact. These claims should be clearly attributed (for example, in the case of Gutmann, to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, additionally noting that this is a US-government-create anti-Communist think tank), and countervailing claims (from the Chinese government, the US Congressional Research Office and others) should be presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that RS have reported on the allegations, with some of them (notably the Irish Times, the New Zealand Herald, the BMJ, BCM Medical Ethics, the British Journal of Criminology) presenting them as fact, rather than reporting on them as allegations (and none appear to explicitly report that the allegations are false or fabricated). This was more about whether including Gutmann's research is due, which I think that the massive amounts of coverage over many years establishes clearly.

On a separate note and as I've stated elsewhere, "there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option", even if it receives funding from the United States, and "attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government" is appropriate, each per the relevant RfC that was closed less than a week ago. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RFA has, over the past year, pushed misinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in China. This is one of the reasons why the RfC noted that attribution is sometimes necessary for RFA's claims, particularly in geopolitically-charged topics (which the allegations of genocide on Xinjiang certainly are). Claims of genocide are extraordinary claims, and they need very strong sourcing to be stated in Wikivoice. Reporting generally attributes these claims to Zenz and others who work for US government think tanks. Attribution is required for these claims. Moreover, the responses of the Chinese government to the allegations also have to be given, and views beyond the Anglosphere media more generally should be included. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Discussions about Gutmann and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation aside, is there any other RS that reports anything about the 25,000 mass murder figure? I only see the single article from Haaretz which says: Gutmann believes at least 25,000 people are murdered every year in Xinjiang and their organs harvested. If not, this may be a WP:WEIGHT issue. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the specific number, I found that the figure has been referenced in an opinion pieces published by the Toronto Star. Regarding the organ harvesting writ large, it has been reported as fact in a bunch of places—the sources I listed above in my response to TFD include a bunch. I can find more if you would like. I missed the National Catholic Register and the Religion News Service (re-published in America Magazine) in my initial assessment, and Haaretz seems to have doubled down on its initial reporting that organ harvesting is occurring. Radio Free Asia has reported similarly, and Reuters has reported on organ harvesting allegations before. I think the organ harvesting itself is sufficiently sourced and relevant enough to be due, though I am a bit more reserved regarding the specific 25,000 number. It’s definitely reported by an WP:RS, so it passes WP:V, though I wonder if a full quote is due when compared to a paraphrased portion of the author's claims. Gutmann is definitely an expert in the field and has been key in investigating organ harvesting in China in the past (receiving coverage from a large amount of RS), so it's most likely proper to include his work in the article in some form. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some coverage of the organ harvesting statements are due in the article. My previous comment was meant for the original topic of this section, whether mass murder is appropriate in the infobox. I don't think that one RS and one opinion article, both attributing the claim to a single person, are sufficient WP:WEIGHT for listing mass murders in the infobox (or lead). When there are more sources asserting that mass murders have occurred (with particular weight for sources that actually use the term), then it may be appropriate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass murder is a WP:REDFLAG claim, and it needs very strong sourcing in order to be put in Wikivoice. An opinion piece or a news article reporting on claims made by Falun Gong is not sufficient. Note that the above Reuters article does not claim that organ harvesting is going on. It merely reports that a lawyer for the "China Tribunal" (which is connected to Falun Gong) has demanded an investigation into alleged organ harvesting. That's not the same as Reuters claiming that organ harvesting is actually occurring. As for Radio Free Asia, it should only be used with extreme caution for possibly contentious claims about China, as it is US state media and has a history of pushing highly dubious claims about China (RFA's claims about the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China over the past year can only be described as misinformation, for example: [36][37]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Per the results of the recent RfC regarding the reliability of Radio Free Asia, there is "consensus that, in general, Radio Free Asia can be considered a reliable source, but particularly in geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate." Additionally, the closure states that "there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option" that would preclude its use in this context. In other words, RfA is generally reliable, though we should use in-text attribution on geopolitically charged issues, such as this one. I do not think that it would be a good use of our time to rehash that same discussion here, considering that there is now community consensus regarding the source's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "mass murder" is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. I guess the question that we are facing is if the forced organ harvesting described by RS constitutes "mass murder", and if this claim of "mass murder" has been subsequently reported as such by multiple reliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The RfC close noted concerns when Radio Free Asia writes on geopolitically-charged issues. Those concerns were based, in part, on misinformation that RFA has propagated over the past year about CoVID-19 mortality in China, but also on RFA's history as a US government propaganda outlet, and its explicit mission (stated in its charter) to advance US foreign policy interests. In this context, that means that claims made by RFA require attribution, and must be treated as claims - not facts.

I guess the question that we are facing is if the forced organ harvesting described by RS constitutes "mass murder". Which RS? The claims of organ harvesting are widely viewed as dubious and lacking evidence. As I said above, the first four sources you linked above described claims of organ harvesting as allegations, not as a fact. The groups making those allegations have close connections to Falun Gong, and as the US Congressional Research Office has noted, they have not provided any direct evidence for their claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: There are definitely plenty of RSes that describe what people have said about organ harvesting, that is for sure. It seems then that you are raising a separate question about when attributed descriptions / allegations / claims / whatever become sufficient for WP:WIKIVOICE statements, e.g. in the infobox. It is an interesting one that is probably more dependent on editor judgment and discussion (as most NPOV matters are), but might be better as a separate discussion since it is broader than just organ harvesting. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are many news article describing the allegations, but that is very different from news articles corroborating the allegations. In 2002-2003, if we had considered news articles reporting on allegations sufficient to make Wikivoice statements, we could have written an extensive article about all of Iraq's WMD programs. Allegations do not become truth through repetition. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: It is not for editors to decide whether organ harvesting constitutes mass murder (WP:SYNTH). If there are more RSes that say that mass murder of Uyghurs has occurred, then it has due weight and appropriate to include it outright in the infobox.

By the way, since it is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that was recently added and does not yet have consensus for inclusion, I'll remove it for the time being (WP:ONUS). We can add it back upon reaching a consensus for inclusion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately killing tens of thousands people for organs definitely does constitute "mass murder". There are many different soucs and organizations reporting organ harvesting in China. This is happening for many years, and Chinese doctors even admitted it so it isn't dubious. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021

@Mikehawk10: @MarkH21: "It is not for editors to decide whether organ harvesting constitutes mass murder".

The source literally says that they get killed to have their organs harvested and how many are killed. WP:COMMONSENSE Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I added killings to the infobox since there are multiple reliable sources that say China is actively killing Uyghurs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz

Adrian Zenz is not a credible source, and everything about this ultimately leads back to him. He is a religious right extremist, an anti-Semite, a women's rights opponent, and based all of his claims on a single report by Istiqlal TV. "Even more deranged, Zenz’s big genocide study claimed that women in Xinjiang receive 800 to 1600 IUD insertions per capita. That means every Uighur woman is surgically implanted with 4 to 8 IUDs every single day of the year." https://www.mintpressnews.com/china-uighur-genocide-behind-us-government-propaganda/276085/?fbclid=IwAR0bVpitL9_rklQJxqBCw8iKkCoPQ7dwjQGDQ2gt44cdXCcCMFYqtMXUg94 --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a real source? You appear to have linked to Mint Press News which does not meet the standards of our WP:BLP policy. A policy which I would note applies on talk pages as well, you might want to do some editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz is co-author of a book, Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation, where he argues that there will be two raptures. According to him, we are living in the end times and Jesus will return shortly. One third of Jews will be "refined in God's fiery furnace and will end up obtaining salvation," while the other two thirds will burn for eternity. While I respect your right to hold whatever views you do, even if they differ from mine, Zenz's views are not consistent with mainstream scholarship on astrophysics or social sciences. Anyway, I think that an argument about the rapture would be a distraction on this page, so if you want to argue that it has mainstream support in reliable sources, please take it to my talk page. TFD (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Theology as a field is not consistent with mainstream scholarship on astrophysics or social sciences, that is particularly true of eschatology. What does that have to do with out BLP policy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mintpress is a conspiracy theories promoting site. This isn't a reliable source. His religious believes are irrevelant to Uyghur genocide. Data is available showing massive drops in birth rates. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Religious views are relevant if he is interpreting current events to fit in to his theory that we are living in the end times when antichrists will persecute and kill "God's people." Also, he's a researcher with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Furthermore, the media is merely reporting his views, then are not endorsing them. TFD (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for those claims, without that it's wp:synth and wp:or. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously some degree of critical thinking is required in evaluating the reliability of sources. There are credibility issues for the reporting of current events by someone who interprets them as the end times struggle between Satan and God's people, foretold long ago in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Zenz said for example that the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank were required in order for Christ to return. TFD (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To borrow from the Christian Zionism article, Christian Zionism is an idea that has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecy. A 2017 LifeWay poll conducted in United States found that 80% of evangelical Christians believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about Christ's return and more than 50% of Evangelical Christians believed that they support Israel because it is important for fulfilling the prophecy. According to the Pew Research survey in 2003, more than 60% of the Evangelical Christians and about 50% of Blacks agreed that the existence of Israel fulfilled biblical prophecy. About 55% of poll respondents said that the Bible was the biggest influence for supporting Israel which is 11 times the people who said church was the biggest influence.

His religious beliefs don't seem to be disqualifying here in any narrowly tailored sense and they seem to be fairly common. Zenz has also seemed to have articulated some belief in Hell, which the author of the piece you've linked has bizarrely chosen to characterize as anti-semetic. The notion that we should be prejudiced against Zenz's work because of his religious faith doesn't seem to be due here, especially when boatloads of reliable sources have reported on it so heavily.

Also, are you arguing that Zenz believes that Muslims are God's people? I don't see any evidence for that except for the dubious Mint Press News link you have provided (the source has a history of reposting links from deprecated sources, such as RT and from Sputnik). On its face, I don't think the argument that has been presented has legs to stand on.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the definitions of God's people: "people who worship or believe in God." (Oxford)[38] That seems to be the meaning in p. 240, where under the "Antichrist's world dominion...[he] will implement the worst-ever persecution of God's people." Although Zenz does not define God's people, in context it appears he is using this definition rather than the narrower definition of God's people as Jews only. He mentions for example that the anti-Christ would persecute the church (p. 210).

Also, per Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, we don't give equal weight to views that have no acceptance in reliable sources, even if they are popular.

I notice you dislike conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of events based on the belief in an evil, all powerful and all knowing cabal, in this case directed by Satan and his lieutenants in the New World Order, which was created by the UK and U.S., France and the USSR, which is identified as the "Three Beasts." (p. 38) Do I have to explain why this is a less than credible explanation of post-WW2 history?

TFD (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

This is off-topic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also WP:FORUM. Oranjelo100 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Zenz has fringe views about the existence of the rapture is irrelevant to his reporting on Uyghurs. Just read Religious views of Isaac Newton, Isaac Newton's claim that the world would end sometime after 2060 doesn't detract from the foundational work he did in physics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We accept Newton's laws of physics because they have been tested and correctly don't accept anything else he wrote as authoritative. If someone determines the facts from biblical prophesy and sets out to prove them, then we are rightly sceptical. The same applies to Zenz' interpretation of Western countries today. For example, he believes that the enlightenment, modernism and post-modernism all contributed to the rise of the final antichrist through teaching moral relativism, mistrust of authority and atheism, and building global communication and transportation and modern technology. The scientific, rational approach is to base conclusions on evidence.

Oranjelo100, as I replied to you before, "WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously some degree of critical thinking is required in evaluating the reliability of sources. There are credibility issues for the reporting of current events by someone who interprets them as the end times struggle between Satan and God's people, foretold long ago in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Zenz said for example that the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank were required in order for Christ to return." [23:12, 16 March 2021][39]

TFD (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz does not appear to mix their eschatology with their work on human rights in China, WP:RS say he’s an expert and his work is accepted by other experts in that field... Do you have sources which say otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Zenz has said that his writings on China are part of a mission from God (in the WSJ, for example, though I think he's also said this elsewhere). More concerning is that he works for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is a US-government think tank created explicitly to convince the public of the evils of Communism (some might categorize this as propaganda). Claims made by Zenz should be clearly attributed, and the fact that he works for an anti-Communist US-government think tank should be mentioned. Looking through the article, this connection does not appear to be explained anywhere. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad you have no WP:RS which say he is unreliable. As for the new point I’ve never seen the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation described like that, do you have any sources which back up this extremely strong take? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When the VCMF was brought up at the RSN, the reception was overwhelmingly negative, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation. I agree that claims by Zenz should be attributed, but he's such a consistent presence in mainstream coverage of Uyghur issues that we can't avoid discussing his claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We all agree Zenz should be attributed, we already do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As for my description of the VCMF, I think it's fairly uncontroversial (look at the first sentence of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). As for attribution, while Zenz is mentioned a few times by name, the fact that he works for an anti-Communist US-government think tank is not. This is part of a broader problem in this article: various people and organizations are cited, but who those people are and what those organizations are is not explained. For example, Ethan Gutmann is simply described as an independent reseracher and expert on human rights abuses in China. The fact that he works for VCMF (and the nature of VCMF) is not described, though they are clearly relevant, given the claims he's making. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that its "a US-government think tank created explicitly to convince the public of the evils of Communism” I don’t see that on our page about the organization or in any of the linked sources. WP:RS treat them as experts and their claims as credible, it is not within our power to second guess them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm essentially paraphrasing their own self-description, which you can read here: [40]. Here's an extract:

To further this vision, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's mission is to educate future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism and to advocate for the freedom of those still held captive by communist regimes. Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.

This is quite explicitly a propaganda organization created by the US government. Their claims about China should be taken with extreme caution. If their claims are mentioned in an article, they must be attributed, and the attribution must describe the nature and purpose of the organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The discussion regarding the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is based upon the question, "Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?". This is not the question that we are attempting to answer here, which is about the credibility of Adrian Zenz, but instead is about the general reliability of the group as it is. Instead, to determine the credibility of Zenz more generally, let's examine what reliable sources say about Zenz's work. Perennial reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, have referred to Zenz's work as "groundbreaking, empirical work" in their news reporting (their editorial board also notes elsewhere that, Reuters "has independently corroborated the Zenz documents and evidence"). His work in the Journal of Political Risk has been cited to back up facts in a paper published in Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, editorials from The Washington Post (1 2 3 4), as well as other reports from reliable news organizations (including The Independent and the BBC). His other work has been explicitly cited or positively described countless times by a plethora of reliable news organizations, including The Washington Post (1 2 3 4 5 6), The New York Times (1 2 3), The Wall Street Journal (1 2), Reuters (1 2 3 4 5 6), ABC News , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), the Associated Press (1 2 3 4 5 ), the CBC, Axios, Fox News (1 2 3), NBC News, NPR (1 2), and many others. If widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that Zenz is not a credible source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz does not meet the standard of expert in Wikipedia which normally requires academic training in the area, a university appointment and most importantly a body of relevant literature in peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic publishers. This issue comes up frequently at RSN where journalists, members of think tanks and writers of popular books are discussed. Being called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting.

I didn't click all the links but Cate Cadell at Reuters describes him as "an independent Tibet and Xinjiang researcher" whose findings on Tibet were published by the Jamestown Foundation. She further says that Reuters corroborated his findings and reported China's response. That's how we maintain accuracy and neutrality in articles: we attribute in text every claim, we tell readers in text who the claimant is and where the claim was made, and we comment on the degree of acceptance of the claim and what the accused person says. We shouldn't treat Zenz like a latter day prophet whose words are gospel and should be reported as fact.

TFD (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you feel that news organizations, such as the Associated Press, are not competent at doing research for investigative reporting? It seems like news organizations might have quite a bit of competence in performing research during investigations to uncover malfeasance by state and non-state actors alike. I agree that we shouldn't trust any single person as a latter-day prophet who can never err when self-publishing, especially for exceptional claims. But, when multiple independent reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journal articles) confirm Zenz's research or report them as facts without comment, we should have no special hesitation to include them in the article as such simply because Zenz is the one doing the legwork to produce the research in question. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You would save everyone a lot of time if you read other editors posts before replying to them. Please read my post again before making strawman arguments against it. TFD (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

David Cohen, who was featured yesterday by Lee Camp, notes that many of the other sources, include a great deal of news articles, ultimately trace back to Zenz.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that most of the original research is coming from Gutman and Zenz, both researchers for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. While the information they provided wouldn't surprise me, I cannot accept two researchers for an organization we have determined to be unreliable. So, as I said and was misrepresented by Mikehawk10, we should not consider Zenz to be a modern day prophet, but report his opinions in the same way that reliable sources do. That is, "we attribute in text every claim, we tell readers in text who the claimant is and where the claim was made, and we comment on the degree of acceptance of the claim and what the accused person says."[23:01, 17 March 2021] Why should we report their statements as facts when mainstream media doesn't? TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent you? I'm offering a counterpoint regarding the ability of news organizations to conduct investigations more generally, which might play a role in determining the credibility behind describing Zenz as an expert/credible investigative researcher. My other point was that we shouldn't have a special hesitation to include Zenz's research when multiple independent sources cite Zenz. I think we're in agreement that we need to follow the WP:RS guideline, and I think that WP:USEBYOTHERS plays a key role here regarding Zenz's work on Xinjiang in particular. The RfC on VoCMF concluded that we can't cite VoCMF for its information on its website in a very specific case—estimates for mass murder in a specific article—with many editors citing its role as an advocacy organization and arguing that it's a self-published source. And, to be fair, the article in question in the RfC was certainly a self-published source. That's significantly different than the case of looking at Zenz's work that has been corroborated by news agencies and used as a source for facts in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. I don't think that we should have a special level of skepticism on the media sources simply because many of them have used Zenz's work (or even, like perennial reliable source Reuters, explicitly corroborated Zenz's work), absent a similar number of similar quality reliable sources reporting that Zenz's work is not credible. If you can find such RS, I'd be happy to reconsider, but until then I don't see any reason why we can't use Zenz's work in the article (provided that such work has been used for facts by sources the community finds to be generally reliable) since I have been unable to find any (and, to the best of my knowledge, other editors have not presented them).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You asked me, "Do you feel that news organizations, such as the Associated Press, are not competent at doing research for investigative reporting?" That's after I said that we should report Zenz' statements in the same way that Reuters did. That's called a strawman argument. Instead of addressing what I said, you falsify my statements and attack them. I have better things to do with my time than to argue with dishonest criticisms. I don't want to argue with people who pretend to be stupid. Why do you want to use that approach to arguments? Can't you come up with rational arguments to support your beliefs? TFD (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

First off, I presented an alternative framing to push back against the notion that "[b]eing called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting" in this particular case. It's an argument (albeit not phrased super clearly; my bad) that he's considered to be an expert investigative researcher by people who also work in the field of investigative reporting and might be qualified to give a professional judgement on this count, since the two oftentimes perform similar sorts of work in bringing malfeasance to light.

Second off, regarding Reuters: reporting it the same way would be to affirm the veracity of Zenz's claims. I'm more than fine doing that, but I don't understand why we would even need to attribute the work to Zenz if we have high-quality reliable sources saying that Zenz is correct, rather than simply stating it in wikivoice in this specific case. I agree that generally Zenz's statements should be attributed, but also that when multiple high-quality RS are reporting the same thing as Zenz (or are reporting that Zenz is correct) that we might just want to state it in Wikivoice.

Finally, I respectfully ask you to strike your statements alleging that I am being dishonest in my criticisms and that I am pretending to be stupid. I don't believe that this is civil and it's rather insulting to read these, since alleging that I am pretending to be stupid comes across as a personal attack. While I understand that this is a serious and meaningful topic that it appears we are each relatively passionate about, I don't believe that I've falsely attributed views to you in my comments or that I have pretended to be unintelligent in my comments.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Reuters article in question only claims that Reuters has corroborated one very specific claim by Zenz: that China has expanded a job-training program in Tibet meant to shift people from a nomadic lifestyle to modern industrial jobs (note that this has nothing to do with genocide, and is moreover a Tibetan program, and is therefore irrelevant to this article). Zenz has made many wide-ranging allegations about China, which go far beyond this particular claim. More generally, in this article, we have to differentiate between established facts and claims made by organizations like VCMF (including Zenz and Gutmann) and ASPI, which are linked to the US government (and in the case of ASPI, a number of governments allied to the US, as well as US weapons manufacturers). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not much to add here. Zenz is reliable according to multiple rses. Also here, Adrian Zenz is called a leading China scholar. [41] ​Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that he has no identifiable expertise on China, I wouldn't give too much weight to a throwaway line in a Vox piece. Zenz works for VCMF, which is a US government think tank and which looks an awful lot like a propaganda outlet, even from its own "About" page (Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.). We really have to attribute his claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times has published Zenz's opinion pieces with the tagline that he is a "expert on China's ethnic politics," as of 2016. He's got a Ph.D. in social anthropology from Cambridge, where his doctoral thesis focused on youth educational opportunities, career opportunities, and ethnic identity in Tibet (The German source says that "Er schrieb seine Doktorarbeit in der Sozialanthropologie über Minderheitenausbildung, Berufschancen und die ethnische Identität junger Tibeter in Westchina", if you would like to be really specific). He has also written a book, published by Brill Publishers, regarding Chinese policies in Tibet, and is the author of an academic journal article published in Central Asian Survey, which is a publication of Taylor & Francis. He's also written in the Journal of Political Risk quite a few times. The notion that he somehow has no identifiable expertise on China does not appear to be true, and the information I've included her about books and journal articles of his can also be found on his wikipedia page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Does he speak Chinese or the Uyhgur language? Has he been to Xinjiang? In this article, we're relying extremely heavily on unsubstantiated claims by a very small number of people who work for US government think tanks. That's concerning. We have to attribute these claims, with a full explanation of where they come from, and we have to explain the responses and criticisms of those claims, including in Chinese media. This is really the minimum required by WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly a good point. However, we also need to keep WP:FALSEBALANCE in mind. Some of these so-called "responses and criticisms" are flat-out (obvious) lies.

Additionally, I've seen the goalposts move woefully often in this discussion, which is another thing that we need to keep in mind (despite WP:EXTRAORDINARY). TucanHolmes (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Problems

It is unreasonable to switfly remove any and all problem tags added to the article when in consideration of the contents of this talkpage, the content of the article is quite questionable to put it mildly. Until all concerns are addressed, at the very least, it is reasonable to have a problem tag warning at the top of the page. After all, the article is heavily dependent on an German "researcher" with a very colorful reputation, cites RFA (which has a vested interest to give China negative media attention, truthful or not, considering it is dependent on funding of the US gov, which is quite at odds with China). Undue weight is given to narratives that suit the title, and anything that contradicts that anti-China frenzy is disregarded, unmentioned. (Like how an "eyewitness" invoked significantly changed her testimony from "I wasn't beaten or abused" in February 2020 to claiming to now claiming to have been gang-raped). I propose that the article have a multiple-issues tag until the following issues are resolved:

1. Uyghurs titular people of Xinjiang - if China wants to get rid of Uyghur identity like Western reports claim, why do they still have it? (When the USSR considered a people an "unwanted nation", their autonomous region was always dissolved into a regular oblast). If Uyghurs were hypothetically stripped of titular status in Xinjiang, then there MIGHT be enough reason to call it genocide - but articles about situations where such things happened (like the Surgun, Aardakh, and Operation Ulusy) don't have genocide in the title - even though those peoples endured far more than Uyghurs.
2. China sterilizing post-reproductive-age Uyghur women? Really? Even if the allegations from those women were true (which is doubtful) - that's gotta be the least effective way to genocide people in world history.
3. Thesis of the article dependent on sources with conflict of interest (ie, tied to official state enemies of China). If the allegations were coming from a BFF of China, they would certainly need to be taken seriously. But a lot of the sourcing is dependent on or tied to Western government cutout/offshoots with government funding.
4. Lack of chameleons. Traditionally, when a people gets genocided, discriminated against, or treated like shit, people try to hide from the repercussions - and pretend to not originate from the targeted group if feasible. Like getting into temporary "paper marriages" for the sole purpose of taking on a surname not associated with their ethnic group. Or telling little white lies-of-ommission to make people assume you're from a different ethnic group. Or lying about paternity (esp if the state considers ethnicity to be something solely inherited paternally). Or using a pseudonym that you pulled out of your ass (not a nickname/stage name) for most of your life. While interethnic marriage has been increasing, there have been no claims that such marriages are "on paper only" then intended for divorce ASAP for the sole purpose to gain a Han surname. The lack of Xinjiang "chameleons" indicates that there isn't reason for Uyghurs to pretend not be Uyghur - like a genocide!
5. Overall weak "evidence"/not unprecedented things that just ain't genocide. Banning a few certain Islamic baby names like "Jihad" while allowing most is hardly evidence of genocide. Lots of countries have laws specifying that you cannot give your child a name that would cause or could potentially cause undue emotional harm. Heck, Denmark even has a list a pre-approved baby names and you need official permission to use one not on the list. The baby name law does not apply solely to Uyghurs or people in Xinjiang, it applies to everyone in China, such as Hui people (who also give their children Islamic names).

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To briefly respond:

1. We base our articles of what is being reported by reliable sources. If you think that the title of a region (broadly construed) precludes the possibility of genocide, I don't see a convincing reason that this is true or reflected in history. This sort of logic would preclude The Holocaust from affecting Jews in Warsaw because there was a specifically named Jewish Residential District in Warsaw that was provided titular autonomy from the city as a whole and had a Jewish Council that was nominally responsible for overseeing the ghetto. Of course, we know now that the Warsaw Judenrat was obviously not granted any real power in stopping the oncoming genocide and no mainstream scholars today would even so much as attempt to assert otherwise.
2. What reliable sources are you referencing to determine that China was sterilizing exclusively post-menopausal women? Reliable sources, such as the Associated Press, have reported that China has been slashing Uyghur birth rates through the installation of IUDs and that birth rates have dropped. And, Chinese officials have confirmed the drop in birth rates, though they attribute it to voluntary family planning (and this is noted in the article).
3. We use reliable sources to build articles. I would hardly call the BMJ or Reuters an agent of an official state enemy of China. The same goes for the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the vast majority of other sources used in the article that are listed as generally reliable over at WP:RSP.
4. There are well-documented reports of people fleeing Xinjiang in response to the treatment there (1 2 3). And, not for nothing, but China has a brutally effective way to track Uyghurs and has been collecting DNA en masse in Xinjiang, so becoming a "chameleon" might very well be obstructed by difficulties not before seen in the realm of genocide.
5. We've had a lengthy move discussion on the name of the page and the result of the relevant move request was to move the page to its current title. Not every single item on the page is about a description of genocidal actions, but much like the Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL pages it also contains content related to persecution more broadly construed.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lotta mental gymnastics. To respond briefly:

1. Way to trivialize the Holocaust dude. Warsaw ghetto was called Jewish because it was a ghetto for Jews made by Nazis, not people because Jewish people felt a strong emotional connection to the area as their national homeland.
2. The "witnesses" listed in the article that claim they were forcibly sterilized permanently are hardly of reproductive age, yet their word is treated like gospel. As for IUDs - those are TEMPORARY and REVERSIBLE. China's promotion of birth control isn't limited to Xinjiang, and promoting it (like the free condoms project), offering reliable methods like IUDs for free in areas where it was previously inaccessable (like rural Xinjiang) so that the region isn't "left behind" in services widely available in other regions ain't genocide. The 80% claim that was the result of shoddy math on Zenz's part has been debunked repeatedly.
3. It isn't remotely unusual for "independent" sources to cite, recycle, or be dependent on a plethora of questionable/COI sources. Heck, citing Zenz, RFA, VOA, World Uyghur Congress, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, etc is a standard operating procedure for these guys. And don't even get me started on the RFA article dependent on claims from "anonymous" sources. Lots of independent sources not deprecated also reported the Nayirah testimony as gospel.
4. A few anecdotes of nationalists is hardly a mass exodus. If the current rate of emmigration qualifies as evidence of genocide, we would have to have articles like "Second Crimean Tatar Genocide (2014)" "Second Chechen Genocide" in the spirit of consistency. And while DNA tracking might make it mildly harder to be a chameloen, given genetic diversity, it still wouldn't be impossible by any stretch of the imagination for a Uyghur to pass as Kazakh, Uzbek, etc if in a dire situation. But we haven't seen that happen.
5. And many other users still feel that the wrong decision was made and that renaming is appropriate. I think something along the lines of "Allegations of genocide in Xinjiang" is more appropriate. Calling Xinjiang "genocide" is insulting to everyone that experienced real genocide.

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be making a lot of extraordinary claims (including those covered by WP:BLP) yet providing zero WP:RS, thats a situation you need to remedy. You’re also far outside the bounds of civility, reign it back in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: A lot of what you're saying really comes down to WP:OR. It's not on us to debate whether or not it's genocide, it's just up to us to reflect what the WP:RSs say. — Czello 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the reliable sourcing for calling it a genocide? From my reading of the news, the term "genocide" is extremely contentious in this case. The title and lede of the article should make it clear that these are allegations, rather than stating a rather extreme POV in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, this is simply a lot of WP:OR by PlanespotterA320, like "if China wants to get rid of Uyghur identity like Western reports claim, why do they still have it?". Remember Chekhov "why are there spots on the sun if one can do without them"? My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Reactions by country/region

@MarkH21: I think you misunderstand, "Reactions by country/region” is all reactions not by NGOs sorted by country/region not a section just for the reactions of governments of countries/regions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is that the "International reactions" sections for events are generally reserved for supranational and governmental reactions, although often with other reactions (with due weight) listed separately (e.g. how NGOs are currently split off here). For example: Rohingya genocide#International reactions, International reactions to the Rohingya genocide, Reactions to the George Floyd protests#International.

One possibility is to make the current NGO section more general (e.g. NGOs, diaspora groups, protests, etc.), and I think that this should be done to some degree anyways (the Olympics boycott is broader than just an NGO reaction). We should still take care to only include reaction of due WP:WEIGHT though. For example, I don't think that the two specific reactions that I had removed have due weight: the letter from 16 rabbis and 1 cantor and the existence of a community awareness group. There are thousands of rabbis in the US, and 16 of them (+ 1 cantor) writing a letter to one of the 435 representatives is relatively very minor compared to the rest of this article. The existence of a community group in Norway is even less due. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the section in this article, the only other reactions that are not from supranational organizations, government officials, or NGOs appears to be: the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, the 12 Japanese companies, and the protests at the Chinese Consulate in Almaty. All of the other reactions are from supranational organizations, governments, or NGOs. It would make sense to group these non-governmental reactions together (with the NGO reactions since they are non-governmental by definition) into a separate section or subsection. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We can do that, but we will need to rename the section. If we’re talking about governments then “regions” is no longer relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any formal reservation btw, we cover what WP:RS cover... If they choose to cover reactions other than those by supranational and governmental reactions then so will we. There also becomes the problem that many of these statements were made by individual politicians in democracies and as such are not government responses per say. I think we should just go back to the way it was meant to be plus a few of your smaller changes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, "Reactions by country" instead of "Reactions by country/region" is fine. The EU can probably also be grouped with the UN as a supranational organization. There is no formal rule to say that "Reactions" have to be organized by supranational reactions, governmental reactions, non-governmental reactions, etc. but it's a common and logical organization.

What we cover must be covered by RSes, but not everything that is reported by RSes should be included (WP:VNOT and WP:BALASP). There definitely are some that should go in the article. Regarding individual politicians and government officials, their reactions may or may not be due based on their level of coverage and significance; that's something for a case-by-case basis (e.g. a widely covered statement by a foreign minister vs a locally covered statement by a town mayor are quite different).

Regarding we should just go back to the way it was meant to be, the three aforementioned non-governmental reactions were only added in the last three months (not that what came first really matters). — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just edited the reactions sections to show what I mean by the supranational/governmental/non-governmental organization. Of course, we can keep discussing and tweaking/adding/removing the section. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have worries about salami slicing it but its probably gonna need to be broken off into its own section anyway if this page gets significantly bigger so lets just go for it. I am going to restore the letter from 16 rabbis and 1 cantor under "Reactions by religious groups” because it fits well there and was reported in a feature piece from a global WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Speculation, not proven, remove: rape (including gang rape), forced labor, torture, internment, brainwashing, organ harvesting, killings

Add, motive: counter-terrorism efforts 84.202.30.99 (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, goes against the sources we have in the article. — Czello 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

About this page

Please protect this page against vandals. They are everywere. My name has eaten (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given the fact that the Chinese government is apparently calling foreign expat activists now to threaten their families, I would be very surprised if there weren't a combination of both low- and high-skilled attempts to manipulate the page content here sponsored by the state, including vandalism. (And I also notice a couple of accounts taking different angles on so-called "reasonable concerns" about the article that have only become active in the past few months and ony edit content relating to China and its genocidal campaign). BlackholeWA (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The page is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. I don’t think it’s typical to raise the protection level of a page beyond that until we see autoconfirmed editors engaging in edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing. If you believe that this is occurring, you could take it to WP:RPP, though I personally don’t see evidence of an ongoing edit war or disruptive editing series that would justify a higher level of protection at this time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that there’s substantial evidence of American pro-war think tank and organizational interference with Wikipedia for years, your fear of editors being “sponsored by the state” is a super funny and hypocritical accusation to make. 47.218.105.234 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@anonymous editor: if you have evidence that certain edits or sources push a POV in some areas of Wikipedia, please raise it on the talk page of the relevant article. Vague mentions of alleged POV-pushing don't give us anything of value as they remain unactionable. Morgengave (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2021

Uyghur genocide → Uyghur cultural genocide – The title should reflect the common viewpoint -- the full genocide declaration is controversial as it is unclear whether mass killings/mass sterilizations have occurred on a systemic scale. Dazaif (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Requested move 1 April 2021

• Oppose The arguments from the previous move discussion in support of the title of "Uyghur Genocide" have only become more salient as additional coverage from reliable sources has been published. I will recapitulate them below, with credit to the editors who published them in the original move discussion.

1. The individual who opened the previous move discussion, Steel1943, wrote that "The UN definition of genocide specifically refers to "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". We now know that China is forcing many Uyghur women to get IUDs (with no string for self-removal) after they have 1 child, whereas Han women are entitled to 2 children, sometimes more. It's also clear that China's birth restriction policies are being intentionally far more vigorously enforced in Uyghur areas than anywhere else, with sterilization as a primary tactic. Additionally, there are credible reports of systemic coerced marriages of Uyghur women to Han men. This stuff constitutes clear "intent to destroy" "in part" the Uyghurs by "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", so this is a genocide per the UN definition. With the intent to destroy established, the clause "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" is also apparently engaged. The writer cited statements from an expert source contained in coverage from an article which was written by a wire service and republished in the Japan Times. (From the best I can tell, the wire story was an AP story, but I am unsure given that the link was not archived before the newspaper's permissions to republish the wire story had expired.)
2. While initially supporting the page to be located at "Uyghur Cultural Genocide" during the previous move discussion, Buidhe changed their mind, writing that there were many sources calling it genocide, for instance [42][43][44][45] German sources:[46][47].
3. Zekelayla noted additional reliable sources that used the term "genocide" or "demographic genocide", which included Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek (NOTE: Newsweek has an "additional considerations apply" rating at WP:RSP and its articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis), and the Associated Press.
4. Nutez noted that "genocide is not limited to the cultural realm", citing an article in the National Review.
5. Many users at the time noted that an article written in The Guardian by Georgetown Professor James Milward held that there was a "genocide" underway in Xinjiang.
6. TheBlueCanoe, who initially opposed naming the page "Uyghur Genocide," changed their mind after "consensus in reliable sources" changed quickly and there existed "sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide".

The above list, of course, is not an extensive listing of arguments in support of the page name from the previous move discussion, but I believe that it serves as a decent survey thereof. Reliable sources, such as [Vox], have reported that the consensus on the question of whether there is a genocide in Xinjiang has changed since 2018. The article states that "when journalists like myself started reporting that China was putting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in internment camps, experts said we shouldn’t call it genocide — yet. ... That's changed." The article proceeds to describe the various human rights abuses that have been taken against the Uyghurs, as well as confirming that RS have shifted from hesitating on describing this as a genocide. The article also affirmatively states that there is evidence that China is in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide and that such evidence "has come in recent months from Uyghur testimonies as well as the Chinese government’s own statistics about Xinjiang, the northwestern region where Uyghurs are concentrated." The piece goes on to say that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials" of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

It's not just Vox that's reporting this in its straight news pieces; The Globe and Mail has reported that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." Axios has reported that the actions in Xinjiang go beyond only being cultural genocide, noting the existence of "China's campaign of cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang" and has also simply referred to the abuses as the "Uyghur genocide" in its straight news reporting. As I've noted in above discussions on this page, the editorial board of The Washington Post has repeatedly referred to the ongoing situation as a "genocide." I could continue to go on and on with sources, though it should be clear by now that reporting in RS indicates that "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the article's topic. And, in light of reporting from the RS I have listed and other reliable sources, I think that we very well might actually have a consensus among RS that actions taken by the government of China against the Uyghur people are in violation of at least one portion of the UN genocide convention. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick comment on (3): Newsweek is no longer a generally reliable source, per WP:RSP. Not taking a position on the rest of Mikehawk's summary as I haven't had a chance to look into this question but wanted to flag. Harland1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I've made a note in my summary above to reflect this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of the AP piece [48], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [49], or the source is an editorial/blog, [50][51][52][53], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [54][55]. -Darouet (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your assertion is plainly false. See my response under your !vote below for how Vox, Axios, The Globe and Mail, and ABC News describe the situation in their straight news reporting. These are reliable sources; Vox and Axios are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, while The Globe and Mail and ABC News are, at a minimum, generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's accurate that most of the links you've provided above are to opinion pieces or lower quality sources. I did miss a few of your links in my post above. As I demonstrate below, most international, high quality papers regularly attribute the claim of genocide to US government officials, or other political actors. Finding a few opinion columns or articles that fail to do so is plainly not enough to move Wikipedia to drop the attribution used by all other high quality sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've provided a further response at your comment below. I don't quite understand the line of thought here, since this is a discussion over whether to move the article's title rather than a discussion on the use of in-text attribution regarding specific abuse claims and/or analysis regarding whether or not such claims constitute a (demographic/cultural/outright) genocide, but I've provided several more sources there for you to examine.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Mikehawk10 said, with more and more information having come out of Xinjiang, the term genocide has become the common/established/predominant descriptor in reliable media. Morgengave (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As an interesting fact, useful for context, not an argument on its own: (having used Google Translate) most non-English Wikipedias call it the "Uyghur genocide" (Greek, Persian, Korean, Indonesian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin). Only three languages opted for "Uyghur cultural genocide" (French, Italian, Sardinian). The Cantonese Wikipedia calls it the "Great Purge of Uyghurs". While this needs to be interpreted with some caution, it seems that the consensus across a culturally diverse set of Wikipedias is for "Uyghur genocide". Morgengave (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not clear what has changed since the last discussion to warrant this move, if anything there is even more evidence and coverage to justify leaving the 'cultural' out—blindlynx (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Nothing has changed and OP doesn't raise a point that hasn't been raised before. — Czello 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 'Cultural Genocide' is also a widely used term in many sources and I think it gives people unfamiliar with the topic a more accurate understanding so that they are not misled into thinking that China is being alleged that it is conducting a systematic mass extermination, which is how people unfamiliar with the topic may be led into thinking by just writing the word 'genocide' as the title on its own and which is certainly not what is being alleged to occur even by those who are strongly critical of China. This same criticism I would put against the mass media's adoption of this term like this too, but this board here is not about discussing that - we don't need to make the same mistake that the media is making on wiki; we can strive for accuracy and clarity. Reesorville (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The article's subject is about more than cultural genocide and incorporates topics such as forced sterilizations. Many sources are also using genocide rather than cultural genocide. Jancarcu (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mass incarceration of people based on their ethnicity, rape and allegedly forced sterilization is not just a cultural genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of things called cultural genocides: in Australia the Stolen_Generations, where Australian aboriginal and Torres strait children were forcibly removed from their communities and the government tried to breed out their heritage, or in Canada where the Canadian Indian residential school system forced Indigenous children to be taken away from their communities and forced into schools that were designed to assimilate them; there is evidence cited that forced sterilization occurred in Canada's treatment of indigenous as well. These events are referred to as both 'cultural genocides' and 'genocides' in various sources. Both can be found in RS, however, I argue in favour of using 'cultural genocide' here, because the average person doesn't understand the nuances of the UN convention on genocides, and when the media uses the word genocide to describe something, it leads people to thinking that this is the same thing that happened in the Holocaust with the mass murder of everyone who belonged to a particular group, when really it is describing something very different.Reesorville (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Australian and Canadian topics, but the moment a genocide includes demographic elements such as forced mass sterilizations and forced mass abortions, it's impossible to justify that it is just a cultural genocide. A genocide does not need to be identical in method and impact to the Holocaust to be named a genocide. Most notable & reliable sources, such as the BBC, seem to agree. Morgengave (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The articles about Canadian and Australian aboriginals don't use genocide in their titles. Note too that mass sterilizations and abortions were not technologically impossible before the twentieth century. That does not mean that there were no genocides. TFD (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your reply, TFD. I have not said that these Australian and Canadian instances were not genocide. If they are indeed genocide (as supported by reliable sources), then the titles should reflect this, as it does here with the Uyghur genocide. Morgengave (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support No reliable sources call it a genocide. The findings of the independent Uighur Tribunal which was set up at the request of the World Uyghur Congress and is presided over by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, has yet to issue its report. One independent research institute, the Newlines Institute of Strategy and Policy has called it a genocide,[56] but given the obscurity and controversial nature of the university its attached to, it doesn't carry much weight. TFD (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Reesorville — Mainly 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support — With the exception of the AP piece [57], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [58], or the source is an editorial/blog, [59][60][61][62], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [63][64]. Also, I see in earlier talk sections that some editors who support the use of this term claim that it's not meant to be presented in Wikivoice. If we title this article "Uyghur genocide", we are plainly declaring that a genocide is occurring, full stop. One AP article making this claim and a pile of editorials aren't anywhere close enough to support this. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Darouet: you've claimed that excluding the Associated Press (which I might add is WP:GREL), literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim"... the source is an editorial/blog, or that the source is highly dubious. This is plainly false. I have explicitly enumerated many news pieces in my !vote above that plainly state what is going on in their own voice and are reputable. Axios uses the term "Uyghur genocide" as a matter-of-fact statement describing the ongoing situation. The Globe and Mail reported that that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." The Vox piece reports, without any sort of hedging, that "China transfers many of the detainees to factories across the country to perform forced labor. There’s evidence that this forced labor has leached into the global supply chain for products we all use, from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon." The same Vox piece reported that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials. They show that as the network of camps grew, women were threatened with internment if they violated the birth control policies for rural Uyghurs (maximum three kids per family)" and that the ongoing situation "looms as one of the most horrifying humanitarian crises in the world today." Vox and Axios are WP:GREL, The Globe and Mail is a highly reputable WP:NEWSORG that is Canada's most widely read newspaper on every day but Sunday, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reputable news organization that is editorially independent and is so reliable that Reuters considers has them as a news partner. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to readWP:RSP—blindlynx (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Mikehawk10:, and I see that I missed a few of your links. If we go to high quality national and international newspapers, we see that they almost universally attribute the claim of "genocide" to others. For example:

• The New York Times writes [65] — The State Department declared on Tuesday that the Chinese government is committing genocide... The Chinese government has rejected any accusations of genocide.
• Associated Press writes [66] — The U.S. secretary of state’s accusation of genocide against China touches on a hot-button human rights issue between China and the West... China strongly defends its human rights record and policies in Xinjiang, saying its constitution and laws treat all citizens equally.
• The Financial Times writes [67] — The Trump administration has characterised the repression of Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province ... Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said: "Pompeo‘s comment on Xinjiang is just another one of his ridiculous lies..."
• The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists writes [68] — According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these actions constitute genocide... Uighur activist groups have also formally alleged that genocide is taking place... China has long denied accusations of human rights abuses against Uighurs.
• Radio France Internationale writes [69] — The last official act of out-going US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was to accuse China of perpetrating "genocide" against its Uyghur population.
• Deutsche Welle writes [70] — A US congressional commission said that China may have committed genocide in its Xinjiang region.
• The Japan Times writes [71] — The Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghur has violated “each and every act” prohibited by the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, a report by dozens of international experts alleged Tuesday. The report from Washington-based think tank Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy offers an independent analysis of what legal responsibility Beijing could bear over its actions in the northwestern Xinjiang region.
• Reuters writes [72] — Blinken said in January that he agreed with a determination by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, that China was committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, which China denies.

Even American thinktanks are attributing this claim to the US government:

• The Brookings Institute writes [73] — The United States government already has characterized China’s conduct in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
• The Council on Foreign Relations writes [74] — Human rights organizations, UN officials, and many foreign governments are urging China to stop the abuses, which the United States has described as genocide. But Chinese officials maintain that what they call vocational training centers do not infringe on Uyghurs’ human rights... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that China is committing crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs.

Readers should be informed of all this. But if most major papers are regularly attributing this claim to the US government (or to American DC-based think tanks, or to officials from other governments), Wikipedia should too. Finding a small minority of newspaper links, most of them either derived from lower quality sources or from editorials, can't be sufficient to drop the attribution used by most of the journalistic world. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Darouet. I'd like to point out that it can simultaneously be the case that sources can accurately report both that the United States is accusing China of human rights abuses, as well as reporting that human rights abuses are occurring without qualification. There are no reliable sources that are actively denying that a genocide is occurring in their news coverage, nor denying that crimes against humanity are occurring in Xinjiang. If your claim is that we should portray China's view on the same view as those organizations accusing it of malfeasance, moving the page to "Uyghur cultural genocide" would no better in this respect than keeping it at its current title, since China denies that any human rights abuses have occurred in Xinjiang. The vast majority of RS, however, indicate that the Chinese Government has engaged in a continuous path of lies regarding Xinjiang, whether it be at first denying the existence of the reeducation camps, denying the use of forced abortion and forced sterilization, or brazenly denying outright that China did anything wrong. None of these sources use "cultural genocide" in a different way than they use "genocide".

• The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is probably one of the best sources, if not the best source, that Australia has to offer. In 2020, it reported that use of forced abortions, IUDs and sterilisation has seen birth rates in Uyghur-dominated areas drop rapidly and that the Chinese governmentregularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on hundreds of thousands. The piece also contains a quote by Joanne Smith Finley, who the ABC describes as an expert on Xinjiang from Newcastle University in the UK. In the piece, she says "It's genocide, full stop. It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot-type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide.".
• The Associated Press has likewise reported on the use of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and other human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It has been unequivocal on the fact that China has taken draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children. The report noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide" to refer to what is going on.
• Public Radio International has reported, unequivocally, that data show authorities have regularly forced pregnancy tests, birth control, sterilization and abortion on hundreds of thousands of Uighur women to suppress the population, among other repressions. The piece also noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide".
• CNN has likewise reported that some Uyghur women were forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang. There are also a few sources I have found (1 2) that have republished a wire story from CNN that states that China is often accused of a lack of transparency, as well as grave human rights abuses like the Uyghur genocide happening currently.
• The BBC has reported on the widespread systematic rape of Uyghurs in camps, also noting that the birth rate in Xinjiang has plummeted in the past few years, according to independent research - an effect analysts have described as "demographic genocide".
• Another Axios source reports unequivocally that China regularly conducts pregnancy checks, forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on some of the Xinjiang region's minority women. The source notes that the draconian effort, which has been carried out in the western region of Xinjiang over the past four years, has been described by some experts as "demographic genocide." It coincides with years of restrictions and human rights abuses against Uighurs and other majority-Muslim ethnic groups in China under the authoritarian leadership of Xi Jinping. The source also, citing their own reporter, states that China's policies in Xinjiang have been considered cultural genocide; a policy of forced sterilization and abortion imposed on minority populations would bring their policies closer to the textbook definition of actual genocide. Later reporting from Axios described a cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang in July, August, and September 2020. Even later, in February 2021, Axios began using the term "Uyghur genocide" without any sort of qualifier.
• USA Today has reported that media reports and independent research shows that in the internment camps, Uyghurs are indoctrinated on the “backwardness” of their identity and subjected to a wide range of mental, physical and sexual abuses. They are forced to recite Chinese Communist Party propaganda and renounce Muslim religious practices and that [a]ccording to media reports and independent researchers, Chinese officials have engaged in a forced sterilization effort targeting Uyghur women living in certain regions.

I think that none of this makes it preferable to use the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" rather than "Uyghur genocide". It's clear that the common name for the topic, regardless of our disagreement on whether RS coverage indicates that these events actually constitute a genocide, is the "Uyghur genocide." Even if the title is non-neutral, the naming guidelines say that Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

"Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME, so the article should remain where it is. A change to "Uyghur cultural genocide" would require that title to be the common name, which isn't the case at this point. And, it appears that when “cultural genocide” is affirmatively used by media organization, it's very often paired with “demographic genocide." I don’t think there’s strong reason to believe that the change to “Uyghur cultural genocide” would be properly tailored to the topic’s breadth, nor that it would solve the issues that people are bringing up regarding the common naming concern. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet, news sources indeed report official statements and declarations as "official statements and declarations". It would be bizarre if they wouldn't do so. This is also the case for the Rohingya genocide. That however doesn't mean that they don't report on the events themselves as genocide. Genocide is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME. Morgengave (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is Uyghur genocide and reliable sources make it clear that this genocide is also physical, and involves large scale state organized killings along with crippling reproduction, and genocidal rape. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oranjelo100: Mind linking me to the evidence of these "large scale" organized killings and genocidal rape? As far as I know, there is a clear lack of evidence pointing to the assertion that this is occurring on a systematic scale. Strong accusations require strong evidence. Dazaif (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if this is butting in between you two, but there is widespread reporting on systematic rape within the camps. The BBC has reported that Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The many reliable sources (ABC, The Times of London,Fox News, The Guardian, Reuters, China Digital Times, Catholic News Agency, Council on Foreign Relations, USA Today) have generally republished the information without comment, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS is evidence of the source's reliability. There are also reports of mass rape aside from the BBC's investigation that have gotten a large amount of coverage from reliable sources as well (New Zealand Herald, The Independent).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like these are "only sporadic cases based on unconfirmed personal testimonies and accounts," as I stated above. This is not the BBC acknowledging that systematic rape is occurring, it is the BBC stating that there exists defectors who claim so. However, much like we learned in the Nayirah testimony, unconfirmed personal accounts can be extremely misleading, and therefore we should be wary of making such strong claims until they are independently and absolutely verified. Dazaif (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you conclude that from Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.? The BBC is pretty clear that there is systematic rape, sexual abuse, and torture. Are you saying that the BBC, whose reporting on this specific issue has been widely cited by reliable sources, is not reliable here for statements of fact? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Oranjelo100 and Mikehawk10. Since this issue will probably resurface in no time, perhaps it's time for a FAQ at the top of the talk page? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the FAQ proposal; that's a great idea. Also to avoid a perpetually recurring request-to-move. Morgengave (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the FAQ proposal. There is already a collection of move discussions, so it might be the case that we also want to include Template:Round in circles, akin to what the Taiwan talk page has, to be extremely explicit regarding the title. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Oranjelo100 and Mikeawk10. I like the FAQ idea, but I've also proposed a 1 year moratorium on future moves below. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neither - Nothing in the article is exclusive to Uyghurs in the first place, even though Uyghurs get most attention as largest group in Xinjiang and holder of titular status. Calling this any kind of genocide against Uyghurs or any other people is shoddy, ill-informed, and very premature. Sinicization of Xinjiang or Sinicization in Xinjiang are appropriate titles for the situation.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a partial point: the genocide indeed affects all Turkic groups in Xinjiang, not only the Uyghurs (which are by far the largest Turkic ethnic group in Xinjiang though; about 85%-90% of the Turkic population in Xinjiang). The term Uyghur genocide however is the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable media. Sinicization is a senseless name: no reliable media are using the term, and on top, it's a misnomer. Morgengave (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sinicization of Xinjiang feels too euphemistic to me and fails to include the forced sterilizations and mass imprisonment that are part of this article's scope. If you want to include other groups persecuted in Xinjiang, you could instead consider something like Genocide of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, though I personally don't support changing it away from the WP:COMMONNAME of "Uyghur genocide". Jancarcu (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — This is a close one. I'm not fully convinced that "Uyghur genocide" is used sufficiently commonly in reliable sources to count as the WP:COMMONNAME. As catalogued by Mikehawk10, several experts have labelled it a genocide, but as others have pointed out, most news articles attribute the label to an outside expert or institution, rather than adopting it themselves. I find the State Department's 2021 human rights report designating China's actions as genocide convincing, but that's just my view, not enough for Wikipedia by itself. However, since there's no evidence that "cultural genocide" is a better or more commonly used term, and "genocide" is at least moderately commonly used, we should stick with that. Harland1 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This New Yorker article, along with the discussion in this section, particularly the arguments that we're using Uyghur genocide not as the WP:COMMONNAME but based on the Wikipedia naming WP:CRITERIA, convinced me that this isn't a close call. Harland1 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Support as proposer. There is has been little to no evidence of systematic mass killings or rape occurring inside of the prisons, only sporadic cases based on unconfirmed personal testimonies and accounts. A better term for now would be "cultural genocide," much like the case with Australian and Canadian aboriginals. Dazaif (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dazaif, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It doesn't need to entail mass killings. Genocide is legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Morgengave (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Per its usual definition in the English language, "genocide" entails mass killing. That's why it has the "-cide" suffix in the first place ("homocide", "suicide", "regicide" and countless other "-cide" words all denote killing). As for the definition laid out in the Genocide Convention, you're not accurately representing it. The convention states that genocide requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. "Criterion (d)", as you're calling it, is only "genocide" if it is part of a deliberate policy to wipe out the entire group. Based on your interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the One Child Policy, which dramatically reduced the birth rate among majority ethnic group in China, the Han, would have been a "genocide" against the Han people. Yet everyone recognizes that that wasn't a "genocide". But most importantly, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when they believe a genocide is occurring - reliable sources do not call this a genocide, so Wikipedia cannot either. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides, as said before: reliable media and investigative reports use the UN definition as a framework/reference, not the dictionary. Trying to alter/dispute what these media mean with genocide, using a dictionary definition, is both POV and OR. Morgengave (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're advancing your own interpretation of the Genocide Convention, according to which the legal definition of "genocide" supposedly diverges wildly from its meaning in the English language. That's actually a red flag that perhaps your interpretation of the convention is incorrect. You have yet to establish that reliable sources call what's occurring in Xinjiang a "genocide". In fact, the sources you've listed in this discussion consistently attribute claims of "genocide" to the people/organizations making those claims, and also describe objections to those claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's false. I have been saying the opposite, namely that we should avoid our own interpretations, and directly use the terminology the sources use (and yes, these mostly use the UN genocide definition, but that's beside the point). You are openly pushing your dictionary definition and your interpretation of that definition to alter or dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say. That's not right... Anyway, we are going in infinite circles here, as does frankly almost everyone else in this conversation. I won't be able to change your mind and I rather focus on driving content improvements elsewhere, so I am leaving this conversation. Morgengave (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not clear to me where this assertion that "Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are basically no RSes that use that exact term. I found only a handful of RSes (e.g. the 2020 Finley article), some opinion articles, some non-RSes, and usage in quotation marks (e.g. this Politico article). My understanding is that "Uyghur genocide" was applied here as a descriptive article title for the five naming WP:CRITERIA rather than as the actual term used by most RSes (which might not exist).
  When a specific term is used by RSes, it seems to more frequently be: "Xinjiang genocide allegations" (CNN), "Cultural genocide in Xinjiang" (Foreign Affairs), "persecution of the Uyghurs" (The Economist), "repression of Uyghurs" (The New York Times), and other similar terms.
  I'm not sure if there are more recent academic analyses of consensus, but the 2020 Finley article in the Journal of Genocide Research said that the state in July 2020 was that it had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide". It noted an increasing trend towards being unqualified by the modifier "cultural" (also mentioned in the Quartz article paraphrasing Finley), but did not state that it was more prevalent yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support No credible evidence of mass killings or mass rape. Not even a cultural genocide. Adding the article as part of a 'counter-insurgency operations in Xinjiang' would be more appropriate Huaxia (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Huaxia, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It doesn't need to entail mass killings. Genocide is legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Morgengave (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the argument presented by Mikehawk10 and others. Citobun (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support The fact that the US government (aka the State Department) in February 2021 stated there was insufficient evidence to state China was committing genocide, to me, shows that the status of genocide has not reached consensus. [75] The fact that more than 54 countries (including China) have stated that it is NOT a genocide, shows to me that it is not concensus that China is committing a genocide against the Uyghur population. The fact that according to this article there has been a genocide that has been going on China since 2014, but the Wikipedia article for "Uyghur genocide" was only created in 2020. Which suggests to me that this much of this article has to do with politics and not necessary fact-seeking. Seven years of genocide, and the Uyghur population has been increasing. --Existenţă (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Chinese government gave explicit orders to "eradicate tumours", "wipe them out completely", "destroy them root and branch", “round up everyone", and "show absolutely no mercy", in regards to Uyghurs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• That report was written by Fairfax University, which is a university not without its controversy. It got threatened to have its accreditation revoked by Virginia for grade inflation. Also, I believe that Fairfax report was referencing the New York Times paper "leak", in which case, the statements that Xi made were not in reference to Uyghur people. But in reference to terrorism. --Existenţă (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Al Jazeera article you're citing scrupulously attributes every claim to a US think tank (the "Newlines Institute"). For example, the article opens, A US think-tank has accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. Al Jazeera only says that the think tank claims the Chinese government used the phrases you're quoting, and the article does not say what those quotes refer to. The key point here is that Al Jazeera, like other reliable sources, does not treat these allegations as facts, but rather attributes them. Wikipedia cannot state, as a matter of fact, that there is a genocide in Xinjiang, when reliable sources treat this as a contested claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Camp guards reportedly follow orders to uphold the system in place until ‘Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and other Muslim nationalities, would disappear...until all Muslim nationalities would be extinct’.” Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Do you not understand that the Hindustan Times report that you just cited is literally referencing the paper written by Fairfax University which I mentioned was problematic? You can't use the same two sources and pretend they are two separate things when they literally reference the exact same report. --Existenţă (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support: I feel like I've landed in an alternative universe in which words have no meaning any more. Just to remind everyone what "genocide" actually means, Oxford Dictionaries defines it as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The word is formed using the suffix "-cide", which is used to form nouns that mean the killing of the initial element of the word, which in this case is "genus", meaning "race". It therefore refers to the killing of a race of people. Similar constructions are "regicide" (the killing of a "rex", meaning king), "fratricide" (the killing of a "frater", meaning brother), "parricide" (the killing of a "pater", meaning father) and "suicide" (the killing of "sui", meaning oneself). There is no evidence of mass killing or any attempt to exterminate the Uyghurs, so the word "genocide" simply does not apply here.

Above, Mikehawk10 elaborates their own WP:OR argument as to why Chinese policy in Xinjiang should be called "genocide". First off, such a serious accusation should not be based on original research by a Wikipedia editor. But beyond that, MikeHawk10 claims that the UN defines "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" as "genocide" (the UN does not do this - this is given as a possible element of a larger policy of genocide). Taking this argument at face value, that means that the Chinese government waged a 30-year campaign of "genocide" against the majority ethnic group in China, the Han. After all, the One Child Policy was a draconian birth control policy that specifically targeted the Han, and which specifically exempted ethnic minorities (including the Uyghurs). Of course, everyone recognizes how ridiculous it would be to label the One Child Policy the "Han genocide". Yet we are being asked now to label, in Wikivoice, the new policy of two-to-three children (for urban and rural families, respectively) as "genocide", based on the original research of a Wikipedia editor.

As Darouet has shown above, reliable sources regularly attribute accusations of "genocide" in Xinjiang, indicating that they do not treat these accusations as fact. Wikipedia should not treat these accusations as fact either.

Finally, the title "Uyghur cultural genocide" is also highly POV, but it is less egregious than the current title. The article really should have a completely neutral title, such as "Accusations of cultural genocide in Xinjiang" or "Human rights in Xinjiang". -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It's legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Considering the UN definition, the term "genocide" is not controversial, which also explains why it's used in reliable media. Morgengave (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: I cited the definition of "genocide" above, and I even gave the etymology of it (the "-cide" suffix denotes killing, as in "homicide", "suicide", "regicide" and "fratricide", "insecticide", "matricide" and countless other examples). The specific interpretation of the Genocide Convention that you're arguing for is not generally accepted, and it would widen the definition of "genocide" far beyond its usual definition in the English language (which I cited above). The convention specifically requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It includes five possible methods by which perpetrators may try to achieve that goal, but without "intent to destroy" the group, there is no genocide. In the case we're talking about, there is no evidence of mass killing, and in fact, the Uyghur population continues to grow. You are arguing that China's birth control policy (limiting urban families to two children, and rural families to three children) constitutes "genocide", an argument that would also mean that China has been perpetrating "genocide" against the majority Han population since 1979. Your argument is original research, and does not reflect any sort of consensus view of the international community. In fact, 64 UN member states have disputed allegations of genocide made by the US (Reuters). Even the US State Department's accusations go against the findings of its own Office of the Legal Advisor (Foreign Policy).

"Genocide" is an extremely serious accusation. Wikipedia cannot state definitively that there is a genocide based solely on accusations by the US and a few of its allies, or based on Op-Eds. Most countries in the world that have made any statement on the matter dispute the US' allegations, and reliable sources scrupulously attribute these allegations. Wikipedia should do the same, attributing the claims and not presenting them as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The UN definition is the most relevant definition. The reason for this is that news media and investigative reports often (or even consistently) refer to it as the frame for the description of genocide. This is also not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It's a serious description, and seen what's happening, a justified one. Your point on the Chinese one-child policy is POV/OR, as no sources afaik make this comparison. My answer, if it would depend on me, is that the targeted combined nature reveals the genocidal intent (i.e. the Han-dominated state specifically targeting Turkic ethnic groups + that it is happening in combination with many other measures such as child transfers to state-run institutions, the use of internment camps, the widespread use of torture and rape, etc.). Morgengave (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the definition of the word in English and the Genocide Convention matter. The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't mean that we ignore the meaning of words in English. "Genocide" has a meaning, and we can't go inventing new meanings for it, based on our personal opinions. As for the UN definition (from the Genocide Convention), it specifically requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. You're arguing that there's intent, and then arguing that birth control policies amount to genocide. You can argue that (and there are others who will argue that you're completely wrong), but it's your argument, not something that we can put in Wikivoice. Regardless of how you, I or even the US government may view this issue, we have to acknowledge that the allegations of "genocide" are just that - allegations. They have been rejected by 64 countries, and even by the US Department of State's own Office of the Legal Advisor. We can present those allegations, but presenting them in Wikivoice is a massive breach of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You misconstrue what I said. I am saying we should use the definition used by reliable media, which do often (or even consistently) use the UN definition as a frame. Bringing the dictionary definition to the fore to dispute or alter what these media say, is OR and POV. What you/I think or what these 64 UN states say is irrelevant to the naming of the article. Morgengave (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course the definition of the word in the English language matters. We're writing an English-language article. The UN definition also matters. What does not matter is OR arguments about the UN definition, which have been used above to argue that we should ignore reliable sources (which do not treat the claims of genocide as fact), because some Wikipedia editors believe the situation in Xinjiang meets the UN definition. What 64 UN member states say certainly is relevant to the naming of the article, because it shows that claims of genocide in Xinjiang are widely disputed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't live in an alternative universe. On Wikipedia, we should base article names on what reliable media say, and we shouldn't use specific dictionary definitions to alter or dispute what these media say. We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say. The article can of course mention that certain actors dispute that it's a genocide (as it does now btw). But ultimately facts matter, not opinions. That the Earth is a globe is also widely disputed; that doesn't give that claim any validity. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we go by what reliable sources say, which is precisely why we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice. You haven't shown any reliable sources that call this a "genocide" in their own voice. In fact, the reliable sources you've listed consistently attribute claims of "genocide". That means that we also have to attribute these claims, and that we cannot treat them as established facts. In your initial post above, you argued, based on your own personal interpretation (which I think is incorrect) of the Genocide Convention, that what's going on in Xinjiang is "genocide". You're additionally arguing here that we should ignore the actual definition of the word "genocide" in English, because you believe the Genocide Convention encodes a different definition (again, you're very likely wrong in your interpretation, and it would be extremely surprising if the Genocide Convention's definition of "genocide" differed so radically from the meaning of the word "genocide" in English).

We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say. So the claims of the obscure "Newlines Institute" (which is apparently an appendage of the equally obscure "Fairfax University", a "university" with a few dozen students that nearly had its accreditation stripped two years ago - according to the Washington Post, Another council-accredited school, Fairfax University of America, formerly known as Virginia International University, was nearly forced to close in 2019 after a state audit blasted the quality and rigor of its online education program. Even the board that accredited Fairfax University is extremely controversial, as described by the Washington Post.) should be treated as fact, but a declaration by 64 UN member states doesn't matter? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading this talk page overall has felt like a great headache. Clearly most of the cited sources are not directly condoning or confirming the claims, they are merely reporting on the fact that they exist. This back and forth between several users doesn't change this fact. Deku link (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We really shouldn't give too much weight to the 64 countries rejecting these allegations. For one, we don't even know which countries they are (at least I was unable to find a list of them). I managed to track down a recording of the statement this is referring to (here), along with a transcript, and found a separate transcript here. None of them mention which countries are backing this, and China has a long habit of simply buying world influence through investments (e.g. [76]). TucanHolmes (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed. We can't just ignore those objections, ignore the fact that reliable sources scrupulously attribute claims of "genocide", and decide - based on one or another Wikipedia editor's (likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention - that we know the truth. Wikipedia cannot express more certainty than reliable sources, especially with such serious allegations as "genocide". As for which countries backed of the statement in the UNHRC, I haven't found a list, but this article has a list of 45 countries that made a similar declaration last year. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will consider your arguments regarding the opinions/reports in reliable sources, but this is clearly a joke. The countries in question are: Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Laos, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, the UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

None of them have a good record when it comes to human rights either, most of them are dictatorial or authoritarian regimes, and many of them profit hugely from Chinese investments in their region, i.e. need/want to be on favourable terms with China. If they were a source, Wikipedia would consider it unreliable and biased.

As for your opening sentence, The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed.—no, it doesn't; it simply shows how much support China can drum up on this issue internationally, and nothing more. I would agree with you if this list would include countries not so heavily associated with China, countries more directly involved (e.g. China's Central Asian neighbours), or countries with a better human rights record. That would indicate an actual dispute, but this simply doesn't. Remember, whole countries can happily deny all accusations of genocide, no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

On a different note, I don't get why "Uyghur cultural genocide" would be POV, too... Is forced Sinicization not cultural genocide? TucanHolmes (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be POV because it's an allegation that's being made, not an established fact. We should have a more neutral title, which does not assume the correctness of the allegations beforehand. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The notion that I am somehow creating the designation of genocide based solely upon on my own original research is wholly not reasonable, especially in line with the fact that global experts on human rights and researchers have concluded this very same fact, which has been included directly in many the sources that I have cited throughout this discussion. The Newslines Institute report alone has been treated as generally credible by reliable sources, who have explicitly noted the qualifications of those who have written the report. In addition to the large numbers of sources provided above in this discussion, the following sources lend support to the credibility of the report:

• United Press International stated that China's treatment of its Uighur population violates every provision of the United Nations' genocide convention, according to a damning new report published Tuesday by dozens of experts on international law, genocide and Chinese ethnic policies. (emphasis added)
• USA Today has stated that the publication is a sweeping report and that independent researchers say China is now engaged in "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and other minorities, including Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks. The paper has separately called the document an extensive report that was based on interviews with former detainees and other evidence.
• The South China Morning Post(!) states that Chinese authorities’ treatment of Uygurs in China’s northwest meets every criteria of genocide under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, said a group of experts in international law, war crimes and the Xinjiang region in a new analysis. (emphasis added)
• France 24 has noted that the report is based upon documents about mass deaths, selective death sentence, and prolonged imprisonment of elders, in addition to other series of abuses that authorities commit against the Uyghur people (original source in spanish). And, the same source says that more than 50 global experts on human rights, war crimes, and international law. The same source says that the group of expertsexamined a series of free and verifiable evidence, including state communications and testimonies of witnesses.(translations my own)

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. We're seeing just that with the Newlines Report. It ain't original research to cite reliable sources. WP:USEBYOTHERS also states that widespread doubts about reliability weigh against use of a source. Since you would seem to believe that the particular report is unreliable, in light of the widespread citation without comment for facts, I would kindly ask that you provide sources to back up your doubts on the reliability on the specific report.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: All of the sources you list specifically attribute these allegations by the Newlines Institute. You're arguing that we should do something that those sources do not do - treat the Newlines Institute's claims as true. This is a very basic issue of how we deal with sources on Wikipedia. If the claim of genocide were widely accepted as fact, then reliable sources would generally state, in their own voice, that there is a genocide. They do not do so, as both you and Darouet have shown. And as I have said, 64 countries have pushed back against these allegations (Reuters), and even the US State Department's own legal experts found that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations ([77]). We should note the Newlines Institute's claims with attribution (just as reliable sources do), and also note the responses to those claims. We cannot, however, put those claims in Wikivoice, or name a Wikipedia article "Uyghur genocide" based on them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources are either using the source without comment for facts, or they are explicitly providing credence to the report and saying that relevant experts find that what is going on genocide. We don't need the article to have a WP:FALSEBALANCE; international experts that have been widely cited as such form a good basis for the title, while Chinese government denials have thus far been treated as wholly non-credible by reliable sources (whether it be falsely denying the camps exist, lying about the true purpose of the camps, or falsely denying the existence of any abuses against Uyghurs) and constitute undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

When newspapers report on the existence of the "Newlines Institute" report, that does not mean that they consider its claims to be correct. A little-known "institute" in the DC suburbs publishes a report that makes extreme claims, a few newspapers write articles discussing the report, without treating it as true or false, and you now argue that we therefore have to treat the claims of the report as true. This is simply not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Reliable sources attribute these claims, and so do we. There's nothing remotely approaching consensus that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. These are claims made by the US government (in contradiction to the US government's own legal advisors: [78]) and some of its allies, which are rejected by most UN member states that have taken any position on the matter, and which are not treated as true by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: Killing tens of thousands a year for organs is mass killings so it's not only mass rapes and sterilizations and there are other sources mentioning killings and mass deaths in camps. Not to mention camp guards received instuctions to make Muslim ethnic groups extinct. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of "citation needed" on the above statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the argument several others have made that the Genocide Convention defines mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group as a genocide, which China is definitely doing to the Uyghurs according to reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: That is not how the Genocide Convention defines "genocide". The convention specifically states that genocide is only present when acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But it really doesn't matter how any editor here interprets the Genocide Convention. What matters is whether reliable sources treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang. As has been shown above, they attribute such claims, and also note opposing views (such as those of the US State Department's legal advisors, and those of 64 member states of the UN). We simply cannot state in Wikivoice, based on Wikipedia editors' own personal (and very likely incorrect) interpretations of UN conventions, that there is a genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As noted by Darouet, the claim that this is a genocide is not the consensus of reliable sources. Some users above have said that "Uyghur genocide" is the COMMONNAME, but that's not correct, as there aren't many sources that use that phrase. "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not an ideal title either, so no prejudice to a future move to some other title if someone can think of a better one, but the current title is severely non-neutral.

I'm concerned about the amount of WP:OR in this discussion. Our decision on the page title should not be based on our own analysis of what constitutes genocide, but rather based on what reliable sources say. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested in something that been published very recently, The New Yorker published a long-form article on April 5 heavily detailing an individual's experience within the camps and attempting to exit China. The article is absolutely unequivocal in its description on the events as a genocide, as it states In 1944, as Lemkin, a Jew, witnessed the horrors of Nazism, it occurred to him that the vocabulary of modern law was missing a word, so he coined one: "genocide." Over the years, the term has taken on a specific legal definition, but Lemkin had a broad understanding of it. "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings," he noted. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups." Such a plan is unfolding now in Xinjiang. As in the cases that inspired Lemkin, it is happening under a shield of state sovereignty. The New Yorker is also listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, with editors noting its robust fact-checking process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems relevant to this discussion. "If the world’s only response to genocide is to engage in endless debate of the term, then “never again” is truly an empty promise". Oranjelo100 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And I would retort with: "If the world's only response to allegations of crimes againist humanity is to believe them full sale, then nobody learned anything from Iraq" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deku link (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nayirah was just one person. Here we have multiple victims, witnesses, researchers, and studies. China isn't a viable military target and sanctioning it hurts the West so nothing to gain. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Calling it "cultural genocide" would be unnecessary downplaying of the intent and effect. Even if you include only the most optimistic interpretation of what it occurring, it fits the definition of genocide without the need for adding "cultural" as a minimizing adjective. A lot of other pages don't have "genocide" in the title, but only because the events are widely known by another specific name such as The Stolen Generations or The Holocaust. There's no other name for this page that would be more widely recognised than the current title, and there's no need to downplay the current title. Irtapil (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References:

Discussion: Requested move 1 April 2021

To provide a bit of context: the previous move discussion, which was closed in August of 2020, resulted in the page being moved from Uyghur cultural genocide to Uyghur genocide. At the time, a rough consensus had been established for the move. The closer, OhKayeSierra, noted that over the time period during which the close occurred, many editors moved from supporting the page title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" to Uyghur genocide. In particular, the closer noted that editors who initially supported the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" had changed their !vote on the issue based upon the coverage of the topic provided by reliable sources that were published during the time of the move discussion. I've provided a more detailed summary of the arguments in favor of the move at that time in my !vote in the survey section above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking over that move discussion, the proposal was highly contentious, and the rationale was based heavily on original research and a few opinion articles. Reliable sources attribute the accusations of genocide, as has been shown above. Eight months later, it's time to revisit what was an extremely poorly grounded (and from a WP:NPOV perspective, absolutely outrageous) decision. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I believed then (as I still do now) that there was a marginal consensus in favor of moving the article to its current title. Or would you have preferred me to ignore consensus and cast what would've amounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE in my close? I fail to see what's so "outrageous" about respecting the consensus of the editing community as an RM closer. At any rate, this isn't a move review for an 8 month old RM, so I don't really see what there is to be gained from rehashing an old RM when this current one is still active. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Also these sources. Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[79] [80]

Study released by the Essex Court Chambers concluded that there is "a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uighur people in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and describes how the minority group has been subject to "enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilisation and persecution." Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[81]

Proposal: 1 year move moratorium on Uyghur genocide

I am proposing that a 1 year move moratorium be enacted on the page, regardless of the outcome of this RM. I see no indication that consensus has changed since the initial RM. If anything, per Mikehawk10's rationale, it seems that the majority of reliable sources have been increasingly referring to it as a genocide. I don't think there's much to be gained from multiple RM's being churned out for the same topic in less than a year's time, especially for one as controversial as this. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an on-going news event and we cannot predict what it will be called in the future. TFD (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe so, but there should be some semblance of stability in the RM process, based on my understanding of the intent of WP:TITLECHANGES. While we can't predict what it will be called in the future, what we can do is wait a year after this RM concludes (or less if there's a sufficient consensus to lower the moratorium, which I'm not opposed to) and revisit it if there's a need to do so and if the RS coverage about Xinjiang warrants it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  We have already predicted that it will be called the Uyhgur genocide in the future. If we used the terminology in reliable sources, as recommended, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. TFD (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Huh? Just from a cursory glance at the article, the WP:THREE best sources that I could find explicitly refer to it as a genocide. At any rate, whether or not it should be called a genocide or cultural genocide is immaterial, as far as this proposal is concerned. The purpose of this proposal is to limit disruption from multiple consecutive RM's in such a short span of time. If you're still opposed to that, I don't think there's anything more that I can say to convince you otherwise. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  In fact they don't. The sources quote people who call it a genocide. There is dispute among experts whether the alleged events, if true, would constitute genocide, which is why reliable sources always attribute the claim of genocide. While it may be a subtle distinction, it is the difference between partisan and neutral writing. TFD (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have anything more to add beyond what I've already said. OhKayeSierra (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe the right way forward is a conditional moratorium: a moratorium on any new move requests unless significant new information arises. The problem with the current move request is that it came without any new information, making it identical to the previous move request. It wouldn't make any sense to have a third such request. Morgengave (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. Of course, requesters will claim there is significant new information and we'll end up arguing over that, but it would probably save everyone time by enabling frivolous move requests to be closed speedily. Harland1 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant to comment here earlier, but I'd like to add that I'm not opposed to modifying the proposal with this suggestion. I think lessening the time from a year to 6 months might be easier and less likely to get gamed, but by this proposal, if there would be sufficient consensus to remove the moratorium if new sources came out that would warrant a new RM, I'd be for making it conditional. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion. There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars. Dazaif (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dazaif: This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion. That's simply not true. Moratoriums are used to limit disruption (both unintentional and otherwise) that stem from multiple consecutive RM's. Kyiv and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are two of the most recent examples that come to mind, though I'm sure there are many other articles that have required RM moratoriums and benefitted from it. For example, I remember closing the second most recent RM with Kiev as not moved with a strong consensus against moving to Kyiv with the moratorium taking effect shortly thereafter. After the moratorium lapsed, there were enough reliable sources to justify moving it from Kiev to Kyiv, so consensus naturally swayed towards moving it. So my suggestion that this could benefit from a moratorium is hardly unprecedented, and the article would actually benefit from having it in place. Additionally, when you say There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars., you haven't shown that in your RM request at all. As the requester, the onus would be on you to prove that moving it is necessary. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per OP. It's getting a bit annoying now. — Czello 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support The current move request hasn't put forward any evidence that reliable sources have changed their positions since the last move request—blindlynx (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support conditional move moratorium per Morgengave. Jancarcu (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, it's not like it's going to stop being a genocide in the next year. Even if China stops it still will have been a genocide. Loki (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as no substantive evidence has changed since the last move discussion. - Amigao (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an ongoing, changing situation, and I don't think a COMMONNAME has yet been established in reliable sources. Moreover, neither the current title nor the proposed title is ideal, so it's important to leave the possibility open for a proposal to move to a better title. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as other, less drastic measures should probably do the trick, namely (as already proposed in the survey) a FAQ notice at the top of the talk page, along with Template:Round in circles. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think there's anything to gain from gridlocking a current event's name based on dubious sources when a significant amount could change regarding the narratives and evidence of genocide in the months to come. This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title. I think people forget how influential a title can be in a situation where the evidence and claims are far far murkier than people give it credit for. Deku link (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title. That's simply not true, and my rationale for why I think this is beneficial for the article has been detailed multiple times above. My reply to Dazaif may be of interest to you. WP:AGF, please. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  You're right, and I apologize. I'm still opposed to the motion, but I was assuming your intent in a malignant way, and that was in error. That being said, even if your rational lies in another place, I still think the end result will be similar and will be a mistake. Deku link (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - moves should need discussion, but don't set a time, the events could end up acquiring a widely known name in less than a year (like The Stolen Generations or The Holocaust), and if so a new page title might be appropriate then. Irtapil (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Of course not. This article covers a current events story and given that alone, it is ludicrous to ask that editors cannot change the title. More importantly, it's become obvious from the discussion above that the title reproduces allegations in Wikivoice when the vast majority of reliable sources do not do so. In all likelihood a title like Human rights in Xinjiang will be necessary to document human rights violations, without declaring a "genocide" in Wikivoice using mostly opinion columns as support. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. RM already in progress above. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

---

The proposed title speaks for itself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and calling current situation genocide comes with a plethora of problems and is incredibly controversial (not to mention that it will inevitably have to be renamed sooner or later when the Uyghur population never decreases). The proposed title Sinicization of Xinjiang is a far better title overall - the article itself describes many things in Xinjiang that are not exclusive to Uyghurs but are part of general Sinicization. For those that are hell-bent on calling the article Uyghur genocide despite a mountain of contradictory evidence, at the very least, the article should not detail claims by non-Uyghurs. Due to the current broad scope of the article and the fact that the genocide claims are in question, it is advisable to take a less aggressive approach on this matter and give the article a more fitting title - Sinicization of Xinjiang (or alternatively, Sinicization in Xinjiang).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.