Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Biased article

We have deleted the deniers of the Uyghur genocide category. Nevertheless this article still falsely uses the word "deny", which causes Western bias regarding the events happening in China. Madame Necker (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How is use of the word deny "false"? — Czello 22:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czello I'm unable to understand your point. Madame Necker (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You said "this article still falsely uses the word "deny"" but the linked discussion doesn't establish that the use is false, thats why Czello is asking how you came to that conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back If it isn't wrong why was it deleted? Madame Necker (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it didn't fit how we use categories, it was a housekeeping call not a human rights call... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought we deleted the page because it used the word deny. Thanks for correcting me. :) Madame Necker (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It is false that there is this genocide. the title should be changed 113.254.69.211 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Estimates for the number of fatalities?

The article should provide it, and in the lead. There are some scattered information in the article, primarily about the deaths in the camps ("mass"... "5 to 10%"). This really needs systematizing and summarizing in the lead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In comparable situation we've only gotten good estimates on fatalities after the fact, until academics have a chance to go over the official records there most likely won't be anything usable. Not that every genocide needs to be compared to the Holocaust but there we didn't have good estimates for the number of fatalities there until the early 1950s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There simply is no straight-up estimate for the number of fatalities, because this isn't some Holocaust-style mass murder. Neither has there been a serious accusation that any Holocaust-style mass murder is happening in Xinjiang. Cycw (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no accusation that China is carrying out any mass killings, so the answer is zero. That's one of the reasons why the "genocide" label is so heavily disputed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Genocide denial"

The section "Denial", which links to "genocide denial" as the main article, strongly implies, in authoritative Wikivoice, that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. There was previously an RfC here that determined that we cannot call this event a "genocide" in Wikivoice. Not only that, but there was also a discussion over at genocide denial, in which a consensus formed that listing "denial" of the "Uyghur genocide" as an example of "genocide denial" would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

The term "genocide denial" refers to denial of widely acknowledged genocides. Someone who disputes that an event constitutes a genocide is only a "genocide denier" if there is a broad consensus that the event is, indeed, a genocide. As was established in the RfC, there simply is no such consensus in this case. The claim that there is a "Uyghur genocide" is heavily disputed, even by the US State Department's own legal advisors, who were tasked with evaluating the question.

Creating a section called "Denial" and linking it to "genocide denial" strongly implies that we are now, in our official, factual voice, labeling this a "genocide," and that anyone who disputes that label is a "genocide denier." We already went through this in the RfC here. We already went through it at genocide denial. Why are we going through this a third time?

I attempted to rename the "Denial" section and remove the main-article link to genocide denial, but was immediately reverted by Horse Eye's Back: [1]. Horse Eye's Back took part in the discussions both at the RfC here, and over at genocide denial, so they are well aware of the consensus that we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice, and of the consensus that labeling criticism "genocide denial" is also POV. I think their instant reversion to reinstate content that of they know to be against this consensus is a behavioral problem that should be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Properly pinging Horse Eye's Back this time, since I misspelled their username before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Does it imply it or does it state it in authoritative wikivoice? It can only do one of those at a time, they are mutually exclusive after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You and I went through this over at genocide denial. There, you also tried this same argument, that "implying" something in Wikivoice that we cannot "state" in Wikivoice is fine. And over there, consensus went against you, as well it should. Circumventing an RfC by intentionally "implying" the thing you're not allowed to state is too cute by a little. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't imply anything in wikivoice either, thats not how see also works. See also means something is related, it doesn't mean they're the same thing. For example if the page for Bill Clinton has "See also:Barry Goldwater" that doesn't mean that we are implying that Bill Clinton is Barry Goldwater. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also if thats your memory I suggest you take a peak at, Talk:Genocide denial because its not really backed up by the page... Also note that Sunderland Renaissance has been indeffed by arbcon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see a consensus among several editors at genocide denial that the inclusion of the "China" section was inappropriate. I think you know that the Bill Clinton / Barry Goldwater example is not at all analogous. You have labeled "denial" of the existence of a genocide in Xinjiang "genocide denial". You've done this despite knowing that there's an RfC (that you took part in) that says we can't state that there's a genocide in Xinjiang. When I raise this, you say that it's fine, because you're only "implying" that there's a genocide in Xinjiang - which is the exact same argument you made at genocide denial, when the consensus went against you. When you tried this the first time, over at genocide denial, that was already questionable, because it was already clearly an attempt to strongly imply a POV in Wikivoice that you know you can't just put into the text. But to do this again, now at this page, is really pushing it. This sort of deliberate circumvention of an RfC in order to insert a POV that the RfC said could not be inserted is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The "see also" was already on the page when that discussion took place in February[2]. Your narrative is fiction.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that POV material was on the page before February doesn't make it better. Unless you're going to argue that we can call rejection of the "genocide" label "genocide denial", the section title has to change and the main article link to genocide denial has to go. It's as simple as that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You never established that it was POV material. That section is not for the rejection of the "genocide" label, we cover that elsewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Thucydides411, that linking to genocide denial is inherently implying that anyone who disagrees that the human rights violations in China fail to meet either the legal, or common definitions of genocide - or that the case remains as yet unproven - is engaging in an act of deception/self-deception, comparable to holocaust denial and the link's inclusion is therefore highly, inappropriately PoV. It also strongly implies that a genocide is a fact, contrary to the RfC. The section is mainly about the PRC, and a few apologists, claiming that nothing bad, or at least no serious HR abuses are occurring. If we were more specific in the section title about what was being denied and removed the genocide denial link, the matter would be solved imo. I myself removed the link long ago but it was restored on the - largely semantic grounds - that anyone who denies that this is genocide is engaging in genocide denial! Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this to the right section, if you're against it too I withdraw my support for the see also. Those are more or less completely at editorial discretion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Section renaming

Thucydides411 why do you want to rename the section to "Chinese government response"[3]? The section isn't about the Chinese government's response. The Grayzone etc are not part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you created the "Denial" section in November 2021 ([4]), and that the main article link to "genocide denial" was added shortly afterwards. You took part in the RfC, in which it was determined that we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice. You also took part in the discussion at genocide denial, in which there was a consensus that labeling rejection of the "genocide" label in this case "genocide denial" is POV, because the existence of a genocide is not established in the first place. As we discussed there, "genocide denial" refers to denial of firmly established genocides, not any and all statements that a certain event is not a genocide. Otherwise, people who correctly dispute the racist "white genocide" theory would be "genocide deniers" - something that would be obviously absurd.

By labeling the section "Denial" and linking to "genocide denial" as the main article, you are strongly implying, in Wikivoice, that people who don't believe there's a genocide in Xinjiang are "genocide deniers", that there's undisputedly a genocide that's going on.

I renamed the section and removed the POV main article link. My edit summary briefly explained what I've just stated above. As you've taken part in the relevant discussions, you must have understood what I was saying. You restored the section, knowing that this would be considered POV, based on previous discussions that you've taken part in. And then in this discussion, you start trying to make the same arguments about "implying" vs. "stating" that you made over at genocide denial, as if it's okay if we just deliberately "imply" an egregiously POV claim (but not "state" it, wink, wink). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The RfC (which was not about content on this page) occurred in February 2022 not February 2020, your timeline doesn't work. Also note that you're completely dodging the question... Why do you want to section to be called "Chinese government response"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be clear to you from the response that the objection was to calling the section "Denial" with a link to genocide denial. Wikipedia policy requires that articles clearly distinguish between facts and opinions. Incidentally, comparing everyone you don't like to Hitler is hackneyed. TFD (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is comparing anyone to Hitler? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The concept of genocide denial was created to describe the tactic of Nazis and neo-Nazis who claimed that the Holocaust had not occurred. Genocide was a term created to describe events such as the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a genocide carried out by Hitler's government. When you call people genocide deniers you are comparing them with Nazis. That's why some people use the term. However, writers in reliable sources do not question the facts, as Holocaust deniers do, but whether the facts meet the definition of genocide. Policy says that we should not use articles to present our personal opinions as facts (even if they are right) but should describe the range of opinions in accordance with their acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On the theory side the concept was actually first applied to the Armenian Genocide. Organized neo-Nazi and German nationalist denial of the Holocaust doesn't actually emerge until later and the end of war denials were limited and disparate arguments made by desperate men on trial for their life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. The reason for calling people who believe the human rights abuses to not meet the definition of genocide "deniers" is to compare them with Holocaust denial. Why else would you use the term and provide the link? This plausible deniability is more suited to polemics. Articles should not make implications but should state accusations explicitly, including who made them. TFD (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with @The Four Deuces. Better for us to focus on facts, specific allegations, and specific responses, as opposed to these rhetorically-weighted labels. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Would renaming to "Denial of abuse" clear up any remaining concerns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea from my perspective. I just adopted your suggestion and made the change. Personally, I favor a construction of denial of "abuses," rather than denial of "genocide" as use of the latter term is significantly more debatable than the former. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats what it was always for, it was never for genocide denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Denial of abuse(s) seems fine to me. TFD (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as this looks to be resolved by rough consensus, I've removed the NPOV tag. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad we could all come to a consensus. Thanks everyone! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

New Washington Post article

There's a new Washington Post article that says the crackdown is easing. Should it be added to this article and if it is, how so? The Account 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it could be used, although the reporting seems a bit thin to me; no serious figures and no non-CCP data to back the author's impressions. More of a travel story than a serious piece of investigative journalism. Doanri (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that this isn't the first article claiming this: AP wrote a similar article last year too. Here's Xinjiang Victims Database also saying that there's some limited easing, but that many many people remain detained. From my following of China experts, the primary problem right now about Xinjiang seems to be most camp detainees being transferred from camps to prisons and the remaining forced labor program. The problem is that Xinjiang doesn't seem to be a big topic right now (very much overshadowed by many other events inside and outside China) so we don't have anyone affirming or challenging these claims. The Account 2 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's worth adding but not overemphasizing given that it is, as @DoanriDoanri correctly points out, thin on the hard facts. I added a few sentences under "Regulations since 2017" following the VETC paragraphs, see if you are in agreement that this strikes the right balance. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree this would be the way to do it.

Extremely biased article

I should start by saying that I believe that there is a genocide. I am not a denier. But this article has been written (rewritten, I should say) from an incredibly one-sided point of view. The denial section doesn’t even leave open the possibility for legitimate claims against the “genocide” terminology or legitimacy of claims on the operation. Instead, it seems to imply that all people denying the genocide are directly involved with the Chinese government or are otherwise malicious actors. This is not a widely accepted thing. Many countries, including Islamic ones, have not joined the US and allies in calling it a genocide and some have outright rejected it. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to push an agenda, no matter how moral that agenda may be. Wikipedia’s job is to provide unbiased, objective information. And this article has failed at doing that. A. Rosenberg (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Although I sympathetic to a concern about too much weight being given to Western perspectives and sources, actionable feedback like "change X in section Y to read as: "Z" citing Source1" is more helpful. If you have the opportunity, feel free to suggest specific changes or sources to consider. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that we actually make use of sources from Muslim majority countries, for example we have something like two dozen citations to Al Jazeera. Do you have any reliable sources we aren't currently using in mind? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

So far the U.S. is the only country to describe the human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide. The other Western countries do not deny that abuses are occurring but do not think there is sufficient evidence that it meets the criteria for genocide.

While we should note that more countries publicly support China's policies than oppose them, in presenting the facts, we must be guided by what reliable sources say, being careful to distinguish between when rs say something is a fact and when they say it is an allegation.

As editors, we shouldn't be concerned with whether the descriptions are accurate, just that they are what rs say. Similarly, we shouldn't elevate allegations reported as such to facts, even if we know them to be true. TFD (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Legislatures in several countries have since passed non-binding motions describing China's actions as genocide, including the House of Commons of Canada,[39] the Dutch parliament,[40] the House of Commons of the United Kingdom,[41] the Seimas of Lithuania,[42] and the French National Assembly.[43]" The UK parliamentary motion, which is the only one I am familiar with, is actually very weak 'recognition', but it is false to say that the U.S. is the only country to describe the human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop irresponsibly giving precedence to an marginal extremist fringe claim that there was no genocide while 5 countries out of 193 in the UN says otherwise to create an undue weight to a heavily discredited opinion. Madame Necker (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)