Talk:Xinjiang internment camps

"re-education camps" is the common name, not "concentration camps"

Whilst obviously euphemistic, "re-education camps" is the common name for these camps and is the name that should be used here per WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence for this can be see in:

- Google News search results, which presently return 213 results for "Xinjiang re-education camps" compared to 24 results for "Xinjiang concentration camps"

Using Google News search results as a indicator of whether these camps are 're-education' or 'concentration' camps is beyond ridiculous. This argument holds absolutely no water what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnsceneBoos (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

- Scholarly opinion, e.g., Adrian Zenz says he believes the term "concentration camps" to be not entirely inaccurate but basically unhelpful, and that the terms "re-education camps" is more accurate ("calling these facilities “concentration camps” is technically correct but conceptually not particularly illuminating. Calling them “re-education camps” has the significant advantage of denoting their ultimate purpose").

At the same time I think it might be useful to have a section on the page regarding the page and to mention the "concentration camps" name in the lede. This is because there are actually many different names for these things, most fairly obfuscatory and designed to disguise what they really are, but also names like "concentration camps" that others have given to them which aren't totally inaccurate but ultimately aren't the best way of descirbing them. As there is no "re-education camp" Infobox template, I recommend using the concentration-camp one as it is the closest to what we are describing. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The term "re-education" is in this case appropriate. It has to be remembered that the ancestors of the present day population were forced into the muslim religion on the pain of death and total destruction. The present day population has not had a proper education, and so it is correct to give them a re-education. People undergoing reeducation are not killed, as would the ancestors of these people had they turned down the offer to convert to the religion. Indeed, the truth and genuine history of religions have to be calmly reevaluated with cool heads by objective people and scholars, and not be left to people such as mullahs and priests, who simple pass on fake history. 86.137.73.187 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

As can be seen in the recent London Bridge terror attack, western countries such as the UK also have their own re-education programmes. Unfortunately, some of these programmes forgot that their "clients" could be very dangerous, and forgot to provide security for their staff. When China run these programmes, and provide the security, she comes up for criticism from people and media in the west; and by the way, it is perfectly good for the UK police to shoot dead such a bad person, but should China carry out such actions, she is demonised. What hypocrisy!!!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7744689/London-Bridge-terrorist-Usman-Khan-radicalised-teenager-seen-laughing-9-11-videos.html

2A00:23C5:C105:7B00:795C:67C8:54E1:C76A (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term "concentration camps"

The first adjective to describe the facilities is the term "concentration camp" which I believe is inadequate. Not only does that term imply that people are sent there even if not convicted of a crime, but it also suggests that there is no set release date. Evidence suggests that both of the previous statements are actually true about the camps. It has been asserted by the PRC that only those convicted of terrorist related or separatist crimes are sent to the centers, and so far there is no actual evidence other than speculation that this is false. As well as that, it has always been known that those sent to the reeducation centers are released often in less than a year. Although I do not believe the term should be omitted from the article entirely, Using it as the main descriptor of these facilities seems like biased disinformation. Especially because it is only cited from US biased sources that have no real evidence other than guesswork and assumptions. Madmoons (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well when you consider head veils and beards are criminal offenses in Western China (seemingly arbitrary and targeted), or the lack of known trials for the million or so estimated in these "facilities". It certainly quacks like a concentration camp or internment camp. The term Concentration Camp on wikipedia redirects you to Internment Camp, which describes it as "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges,[2] and thus no trial......Interned persons may be held in prisons or in facilities known as internment camps, also known as concentration camps." I guess the burden of proof is on you to prove that the million or so people in these "facilities" are there for breaking a law and have been tried and convicted of such crimes. 174.30.61.202 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Really? According to you beard and head coverings are banned in China. After doing my own research I've found nothing to prove that, and frankly i'm curious where you're sourcing you info from. So is the burden of proof really on me? Madmoons (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Madmoons, could you show me some sources which demonstrate that 1) only convicted criminals are sent into the camps and 2) that people who are sent there have release dates? The New York Times (which is the US's Newspaper of record) demonstrates that the people in the camps are detained without formal conviction due to Thoughtcrime. This article in particular provides a decent overview of the situation through an investigative reporting structure. Another quote in particular seems to strike me as evidence against the two factors above. It's from a similar report by the NYT. 'Residents said people have been sent to the camps for visiting relatives abroad; for possessing books about religion and Uighur culture; and even for wearing a T-shirt with a Muslim crescent. Women are sometimes detained because of transgressions by their husbands or sons.One official directive warns people to look for 75 signs of “religious extremism,” including behavior that would be considered unremarkable in other countries: growing a beard as a young man, praying in public places outside mosques or even abruptly trying to give up smoking or drinking.[...]Now the beards and hijabs are gone, and posters warn against them. Mosques appear poorly attended; people must register to enter and worship under the watch of surveillance cameras. Thank you for your comment on this talk page. Recently, more information has popped up on Reddit, such as this clarity link and this Business Insider report. While you might be acting in good faith, your claim that such sources are biased due to misinformation is incorrect. The NYT is especially credible in many senses - and the investigative reports depicted earlier demonstrate a first-hand understanding of the situation. If you wish to see the reality of the camps, I suggest you watch this (NSFW) video which gives fair credence to the views above. Thanks! Kobentori (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Madmoons comments appear to be OR and WP:NOTFORUM applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you have a go at France or Holland or Denmark then. Western countries have also banned the veil. 2A00:23C5:C105:7B00:795C:67C8:54E1:C76A (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

These are clearly not "concentration camps"; and to call them such is an insult to the Jews who were put in Nazi concentration camps and exterminated. It is not clear that they are re-education camps either, since the Uighurs are probably not being re-educated, as they really do lack education in the first place. The simple term of education camp may be the most accurate. It must be remembered that the genetic ancestors of these people had the muslim religion forced upon them in the first place on pain of death and total destruction. The religion is also such that these people cannot leave, because any muslim leaving the religion incur the penalty of being killed by other muslims. The world and the UN should make it a priority that any muslim should be free to leave this religion without the fear of being killed by other muslims, and to protect this right. At least the Chinese are doing something to set these people free, what is the rest of the world doing to help these backward people? 86.137.73.187 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"to call them such is an insult to the Jews," followed by calling the Uyghurs "these backward people." Perhaps calling genocide genocide not only isn't disrespectful to past victims of genocide but it actually the way to honor their legacy by not letting it happen again. That's my two scents 08:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"as they really do lack education in the first place.” Yes I’m sure the teachers and university lecturers locked up in these camps lack education... Referring to a people as backwards is bigotry plain and simple. Also note that when it comes to the Holocaust the distinction between an extermination camp and a concentration camp it a key one, please get it right if you're so worried about being respectful to the victims of the Holocaust. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT Leak content

Significant content with a solid RS (NYT) has been released https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html Should be good to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @MarkH21: your revert here [1] of the IP address editor looks without basis. There is no evidence that CCP is different from Chinese govt and NYT is clearly an WP:RS here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the edit summary. I didn’t say that the NYT isn’t RS. The source is already in the article, I said that source should be in the article, and I said that material from the source should be used to expand the article. The lead has to explain the notability of the subject, which is being concentration/internment camps per MOS:FIRST. The IP edit disrupted that completely. Plus, there is a difference between the party and the government, even if the party runs the government. There are programs from the party (e.g. Communist Youth League of China) and there are programs from the government (e.g. this one). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no distinction between party and government at mid and upper levels of government in China and the NYT source accurately explains that in relation to Xinjiang. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There’s a formal distinction between the two. The party runs the government but they’re still formally distinct entities even if they’re effectively the same. It’s a very subtle point with little practical difference, but it’s a technicality that exists. The NYT does not contradict the formal distinction; the article describes the leaders, their stances, and their leaked documents as belonging to the party while the programs are effected by the government (e.g. The government sends Xinjiang’s brightest young Uighurs to...).

To further see the distinction, the government is structured into state organs of the central government (i.e. what carries out actions) which adhere to the policies and authority of the CCP (China’s state organs have different responsibilities, they all adhere to the line, principles and policies of the party). The programs are run by the government, whose officials belong to the CCP and may make decisions within the CCP affecting the direction of the program. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This NYT source is about Xi and the party and its relationship in Xinjiang. Everyone mentioned in the NYT source is a party member, in most cases notable. Nothing in NYT about civil service or bureaucratic level organs and it specifically goes into detail of the consequences of party member's failure to fall in line. This NYT source was not a source, for example, that discussed rank and file PSB (police) morale. Policemen in China are part of a state organ and the leaders in Xinjiang are party members, its not very nuanced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are party members. Are we still talking about the same thing, i.e. whether the lead should say that the camps are run by the government? The re-education camps are formally run by the Chinese government. The government is run by people in the party. The NYT article talks about people running the government, who are in the party, and their activities in relation to Xinjiang. There’s no contradiction to what I wrote earlier. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I responded to your objection to the revert of an edit that left the lead saying:

The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Communist Party of China, under General Secretary Xi Jinping’s administration.

That does not say what the camps are and is not even a grammatical sentence. I responded to your claim that There is no evidence that CCP is different from Chinese govt by explaining the structure of the Chinese government, which is formally distinct from the party at all levels. It’s not clear what you are now disputing. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mark, now I see my confusion and I agree with you. Thank you for clarification! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WAPO Edit war

@CaradhasAiguo, Horse Eye Jack, Wuerzele, and HaeB: Please discuss the now-protracted edit war stemming from this original edit. CaradhasAiguo, please use descriptive edit summaries and stop re-deleting the content until consensus is reached. The back-and-forth reverting is becoming disruptive.

Without going any further on editor conduct, please discuss the content. In particular, please articulate why you think the material does not belong here, CaradhasAiguo. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE I have full-protected the article for 2 days to stop the edit warring. You all are established editors and know better. Discuss here what to include and what not to include, and provide evidence and/or Wikipedia policy to support your opinions. When the full protection expires I hope you will have achieved an understanding. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I’m not sure full-protection is actually necessary. There are two different things happening simultaneously.

There are IPs who have been changing all instances of “re-education” to “concentration” and piping wikilinks to Winnie the Pooh in persistent disruptive editing against consensus and vandalism respectively. These have been regularly and correctly reverted by various editors, and would benefit from semi-protection.

Then there is the issue mentioned in this section about the 6-revert edit war solely involving the editors that I pinged above. It doesn’t seem that full protection is needed for their issue yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There definitely was some edit warring going on, and discussion here seems minimal up to now. But now that I look closer I see that it was mostly User:CaradhrasAiguo against everybody else. I will warn CaradhrasAiguo, and I will convert the full protection to semi-protection which is clearly needed. I trust your ping here will encourage them all to come here and talk it over. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm re-pinging User:CaradhrasAiguo since you misspelled their name. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

HaeB has selectively invoked WP:NPOV without mentioning the WP:FALSEBALANCE item therein: publishing a known Iraq War supporter, Anne Applebaum, is tantamount to falsely assigning equally-weighted POV to a Flat-Earther, 9/11 "inside job"-ers, etc. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Im genuinely unsure how using a 2019 piece by a pulitzer prize winning historian and current London School of Economics professor who argued in favor of the Iraq war in a 2002 editorial "is tantamount to falsely assigning equally-weighted POV to a Flat-Earther, 9/11 "inside job"-ers, etc.” That doesnt work on a common sense, academic, or wikipedia policy level. I note that you have not backed up the other assertion you made in your edit summary [2] which seems to be a pretty straight up violation of WP:BLP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The appeal to the fluff Prize (how many were undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance) and tenureship is a straight up argumentum ad authorit. Hussein's possession of WMDs was known at the time by multiple intelligence agencies, not to mention numerous wiser politicians, to be a falsehood. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are your personal opinions and I respect them as such (you are however incorrect that Applebaum is tenured even if that may be your opinion). What bearing do these personal opinions have on wikipedia policy though? Also note that your now deleted argument that BLP only applies to articles is false, per WP:BLPTALK “BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No, those are the facts regarding Hussein, and are not up for contention following numerous inquests into the matter some of them costing millions of pounds. Engaging in falsehoods and conspiracy theories (an extraordinary claim), as Applebaum is well-documented as having done, absolutely is an essential matter to WP:FALSEBALANCE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that is not the claim I was contending was your personal opinion, you cant just dismiss the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction as a fluff prize (which she won for her book Gulag: A History, a books whose topic is closely related to the topic of this page). Its one thing to peddle falsehoods before they are proven to be false, its an entirely different thing to peddle them after. Are you genuinely arguing that not a single academic or journalist who supported the Iraq war or believed that Saddam possessed WMDs can *ever* be used on Wikipedia? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality must be maintained in the lead

The lead is extremely biased and it must be rewritten in compliance with the WP:NPOV policy. STSC (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which parts you feel aren't in compliance with NPOV? Its an awfully long lede.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for the time being, since it's unclear what the nature of the NPOV dispute is. Feel free to put it back if you can add some more detail here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

For a start, the infobox is in the wrong format - "concentration camp"? I'd fix this and other NPOV problems when I have time. STSC (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

In the "New York Times and ICIJ leaks" the third paragraph, the sentence "...including his release of 7000 inmates detainees." is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to "...including his release of 7000 detainees." [REMOVED "DUPLICATED" WORD] 192.197.205.213 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Map of supporting and opposing countries needs to be updated

According to the article, Kuwait has only withdrawn former support. Yet in the map, it is colored green (opposing countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Reactions_to_Chinese_treatment_of_Uyghurs.svg The linked news article points out explicitly that Kuwait wants to remain neutral. Thus, it should be colored in the gray of the other neutral countries. 2003:F6:2711:6400:A51B:8737:4F70:C070 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2019

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: not moved. Most editors prefer Xinjiang re-education camps over the proposed titles, because the current title is the common name that is most widely used by reliable sources to refer to the article subject. Supporters of the proposed titles note that Xinjiang re-education camps is a non-neutral euphemism, but most editors in the discussion considered this aspect secondary to the widespread use of the term in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Xinjiang re-education camps → Сoncentration camps for Uyghurs in China → Сoncentration camps for muslims in China. We can't use Chineese propaganda cliches to name the articles. I propose a more accurate name that is used in many authoritative sources. --Devlet Geray (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Provide evidence that either of those is the common name used by reliable sources. For instance, we can see the term “Xinjiang re-education camp” being used by: Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, TIME/Bloomberg, BBC, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, The Japan Times, and a United Nations panel (discussed in the previous talk page section “United Nations position”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs)

  I can also easily find many sources where conscentration camps is used bbc, bloomberg, uhrp and so on --Devlet Geray (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  It also looks to me that the term is used more often in American, British, and some Middle Eastern news sources compared to in other countries. Although I did read a rule here for English Wiki saying that English sources have more weight than those of other languages. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also, the past discussions above at "re-education camps" is the common name, not "concentration camps" and Request for Comment on the ordering of the names at the beginning of the lead point to previous consensus being that “Xinjiang re-education camps” is the established common name.

  @Devlet Geray: You need to demonstrate that a a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources use your suggested term per the WP policy at WP:COMMONNAME, not that a few use it. The examples you gave either use “re-education camp” first or use “concentration camp” to quote a Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman. There are other examples that describe the camps as concentration camps, but the majority still primarily use “re-education camps” to refer to them.

  @Donkey Hot-day: Yes, the restriction to English-language sources is mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support for Сoncentration camps for Uyghurs in China: On the grounds on WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of reliable sources in English using those terms. Melmann 14:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Plenty of reliable sources is an obvious fallacy as that does not equate to clear "plurality usage" or "majority usage". And per WP:NC-ZH, as the re-education / detention centers are strictly in Xinjiang, Xinjiang must be in the article title. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not married to the particural proposed title. My fundamental issue is that the current title inherintly fails WP:NPOVNAME. They're not 're-education' camps, they're a form of political prisions, and English-language reliable sources have been unified in this conclusion. Calling them re-educational camps merely lends credence to the official Chinese cover that they're vocational education facilities, which they are not. Call them 'detention camps' if it makes you feel better. Melmann 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

English-language reliable sources have been unified in this conclusion — I do not know how that can be typed with a straight face given the body of "literature" linked to by both MarkH21 and myself disproving that unfounded bold claim. And, as you should know by now, Wikipedia is not the place for activism of any sort. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the name shouldn’t be changed (at least not yet), but cool it with the whole babe in the woods act when it comes to activism on Wikipedia... I respect many of your edits and the tenacity with which you argue your points but your POV is an extreme one. See Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan. Melmann has made some solid policy based points and it would behoove you to engage with them in good faith. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per MarkH21's post, and I have checked all the links he provided except for NYT and WSJ; in the entirety of eight articles, the word "concentration" is quoted only in passing mention by a reference to Turkey's Foreign Ministry, which is the focal point of 2 out of 3 links Devlet Geray provided. Three more mainstream media sources on the matter (NBC, The Guardian, CNN) published in the past month make no mention at all. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I too seem to have noticed that normally the "re-education" camps that is officially used by the PRC seems to be more prevalent. I think we have to continue to use the source that is more common. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I support a name change. In my opinion, using the term re-education is an ambiguous and inaccurate name for this article, and is therefore misleading despite the official narrative of the PRC. Concentration camp, internment camp, or even “detention centre” are more accurate descriptors. There certainly are many sources that describe these camps as concentration camps (e.g. The Independent, Business Insider, etc). Additionally, in common parlance these camps are not referred to as “re-education camps”, which may fall under WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVNAME. The Morphix (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. Regardless of the diversionary tactics being used here (such as insistently pointing out that a particural word is not found in reliable sources) the reality is that the English-speaking world has soundly condemned the camps and characterised them as tools of religious and political oppression. There's certainly space to debate whether 'concentration camps' is appropropriate, with the term evoking images of Nazi era extermination camps, but accepoting the official line that they're 're-education' facilities is clearly in disagreement with English-language reliable sources.Melmann 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  The debate is not whether they are concentration camps, as that is clearly the descriptor in the lead right now. It’s what the WP:COMMONNAME is. It seems that most reliable English-language sources refer to these camps as “re-education camps” (even if some of the same sources describe them as concentration camps), as partially demonstrated by the list of sources above in the first comment and the established consensus in prior discussions. There has been no demonstration so far that a majority of English-language reliable sources use “concentration camps” primarily to refer to the camps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  If the debate is about what most English-language sources refer to these camps as then the answer appears to be internment or detention camp. Its certainly not concentration camp, but by the same coin few sources refer to them as re-education camps without any modifying statement. Al Jazeera English’s highly respected program The Stream had this exact discussion about what to call the camps yesterday [3]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Of the many examples that I listed, only the articles from TIME, BBC, and The Guardian used quotation marks around “re-education camp”, and the rest use the term unqualified. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be true. The SCMP article also used quotation marks, the CNN piece starts "A series of leaked documents threatens to shine a spotlight on the Chinese government's Xinjiang detention centers, indicating what Beijing claims are voluntary training schools for Muslim-majority Uyghurs are in fact heavily policed re-education camps.” “heavily policed” being a significant modifier. Reuters calls them "political re-education camps for Muslim Uighurs” political being a signifiant modifier). Those are just the first three besides TIME, BBC, and The Guardian I decided to check. I’m sorry I didn't trust you, but its a good thing for all of us that I double checked. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  The SCMP article uses “Xinjiang re-education camps” directly in the title and the CNN article also uses “Xinjiang's massive re-education camps” directly in the title. The adjectives of “massive”, “political”, and “heavily policed” don’t change that “re-education camp” is part of the WP:COMMONNAME. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  I note that use in the article’s body carries more weight than use in the headline, if your argument is that no quotation marks in the headline trumps quotation marks in the body thats a nonstarter (its also not the argument you originally made when you claimed that SCMP did not in fact qualify re-education camps, you could have said they did both but you didn’t). Perhaps the ten articles listed above are a bad sample but they don't seem to make the point you are claiming they make as strongly as you think they do. As much as I love quibbling over random articles why don't we try the remedy suggested to us by WP:COMMONNAME and conduct a google search? How about we run re-education centers, re-education camps, "re-education camps” (honestly not super sure this one can be separated from the non-modified version), concentration camps, internment camps, and detention centers through as "Xinjiang ______ ______” (perhaps also "Uighur _______ ______") so that we can actually get a sense of the data? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean for the SCMP article, because it uses Xinjiang re-education camps in the title without quotation marks. My point was that all but three of that sample use re-education camps without quotation marks when introducing the camps in the article title or body, and that the adjectives in the body mentioned above are not significant modifiers with respect to what the common name is. I'll run a thorough search though, posted below. (I switched to {{tq}} here to avoid ambiguity with quotation marks.) — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose "re-eduction camp" is a common name to refer the camp. However, I suggest the name "Xinjiang concentration camps" to be a redirect page to the page since the term is used by some western media.Mariogoods (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mariogoods: It already is a redirect to here! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose also on the basis of undue weight. Non-US newspapers such as The Times of India, The Hindu, BBC, Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle (German media is careful regarding its own history I assume), The Straits Times, SCMP, The Irish Times Euronews, The Star, and probably others do not use 'concentration camps' unless it's attributed with quotes by other sources (mostly the US and Uighur activists so far). If the proposed name change is to 'internment' or 'detention camps', then I won't argue against it. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The point about the German sources is very important. Concentration camp on Wikipedia redirects to an article on "internment" generally, and the only articles with "concentration" as opposed to "internment" in their name refer to the German ones during World War 2. Our own article references this historian who notes that "concentration camp" as a term is extremely often confused with Nazi extermination camps. This "Chinazi" idea is a confusion that Washington-based Uyghur separatists want to promote.

I think OP's idea that the term "re-education" promotes Chinese state propaganda is itself, extreme. Our article on re-education redirects to "brainwashing", and of course the state itself uses "vocational training" instead of "re-education" and "centers" instead of "camps". In other words, we are already describing these institutions in a pejorative way, denying their antiterrorism and social cohesion functions, and implying that the goal of these centers is political and repressive. The current title isn't great, but oppose a move to even worse bias. Câu lạc bộ (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. I want to comment on the debate and ask you to help me in working on Xinjiang pages. I am doing a clean-up and upgrade of Xinjiang minor geography pages (see Qira County, Yutian/Keriya County, Minfeng/Niya County, Ruoqiang/Qakilik County, etc.). Please join me if you are interested. Most of these pages had almost no content until I started working on them. My goal is to proceed from the citable sources to build a foundation of solid knowledge about Xinjiang, which English Wikipedia currently lacks. With nearly blank pages for places like Lop County (I plan to start work on that page today), nobody can be certain about anything. I don't want to get involved in this nomenclature dispute, but I would say that from what I have seen, 're-education camps' does seem to be describing what's going on on some level. For those interested in an American senator and presidential candidate's perspective, here's a recent quote from Bernie Sanders that I recently added to the Political positions of Bernie Sanders page: On December 6, 2019, Sanders spoke concerning the Xinjiang re-education camps, telling the DesMoines Register: "What we should be doing with China is understanding they are a superpower, they are a strong economy. We want to be working with them. We certainly don't want a Cold War. But we should be speaking out against human rights abuses. When you put into concentration camps, you know, or at least lock up, I don't know, a million Muslims there, somebody's got to speak out about that." Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC) (modified)

References

• Google search results (English-only, Google News only, excluding Wikipedia and blog via X -Wikipedia -blog, sub-results using site:Y):
  • "Xinjiang re-education camps": 2,150 results
    • Generally reliable sources: 10 results
    • Broader international English-language sources: 28
  • "Xinjiang detention camps": 4,960 results (3,350 of which are from the Shanghaiist blog, 1,610 from all other sources)
    • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
    • Broader international English-language sources: 17
  • "Xinjiang internment camps": 3,240 results (1,820 of which are from Radio Free Asia, 1,420 from all other sources)
    • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
    • Broader international English-language sources: 16
  • "Xinjiang detention centers": 587 results
  • "Xinjiang concentration camps": 450 results
  • "Xinjiang re-education centers": 141 results
  • Using Uyghur or Uighur returned relatively very few results that are not worth listing here.

Generally reliable sources here means: Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Der Spiegel, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, TIME, and The Wall Street Journal.

All of these are generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. I'd run a thorough search on non-Western English sources too but it's a bit time-consuming.

Broader international sources here means the previous list plus: ABC (Australia), AFP, Al Jazeera English, DW News, Haaretz, The Diplomat, The Japan Times, The Korea Herald, The Straits Times, and The Times of India.
— MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC); Updated with Broader international English-language sources 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork (your google fu is superior to mine), we do need to expand the search slightly though... At the least we need to include some regional (central, south, and east asian) english language news sources. To start I would suggest The Korea Herald, SCMP, Taipei Times, Taiwan Times, The Japan Times, The Diplomat, The Times of India, Dawn, ABC (Australia), DW News, AFP, Al Jazeera English, and Haaretz. This data is very illuminating, I think we can safely narrow our search to Xinjiang re-education camps, Xinjiang detention camps, and Xinjiang internment camps. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I did a few of the sources, taking care to remove some repeated results (e.g. RSS feeds that duplicate dozens of results). It's time-consuming so I didn't do all of them, but have updated the results with some of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, it appears that we have our answer. Can I ask why you chose to exclude both Taiwanese papers from the list of international sources? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Taipei Times has several dozens of redundant links due to their layout, and Taiwan Times’ website doesn’t seem to exist anymore. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose that particular name as there are not just Uyghurs in those camps but also significant numbers of ethnic Kazakhs. Amigao (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support technically I would oppose this change, but I feel like the comments supporting are not without merit. The article does not appear to present the camps as anything other than concentration camps, so I am not sure if changing the name to "concentration camps" would achieve very much. The problem is, when we say "re-education camp" in English, we usually mean detention camp, typically for inmates who are accused of some nebulous political or religious thoughtcrime that are exposed to cruel and unusual punishment. This describes a concentration camp without the nazi-gas-chamber association, which has monopolised the phrase. "Xinjiang concentration camps" would be my recommended title Tentonne (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the nominator and others have not convincingly substantiated the case for the proposed name, because--as shown in the sources provided by user MarkH21--it is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. --Cold Season (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As Mark and Donkey point out above, concentration camps is not supported in the sources. Also following Donkey's comments, I would support internment camps or something similar. Also big thanks for doing the legwork to get the counts in google, great! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia's mandate is to objectively describe things for what they are, not to provide a survey of internet commentary. A genocide has to be pretty horrific for dozens of countries condemn one of their largest trading partners for it, knowing China does not tolerate dissent. Further, I would argue that the "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" vs "Re-Education camps" survey is biased, as the world knows it more commonly as "Chinese Concentration Camps," while pro-Chinese sources are more likely refer to Xinjiang re-education, using both terms to make it seem less significant.
  • "Chinese concentration camps": 79,500 results

- Used by Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post

• "Chinese detention camps": 21,400 results

- The Guardian, Global News, New York Times (!), NBC, CNN(see here)

• "Chinese re-education camps": 11,100 results

- CBC, NY Post, The Independent, NY Times, etc.

I'm not married to any of the options, but it should be looked into (e.g. Chinese Concentration Camps (Xianjiang)). I also feel that whichever term objectively presents the situation as it is should be given more credence, as it would better provide people with the information necessary to create positive change. An encyclopedia provides knowledge—the purpose of which is to translate into practical benefit; in a situation of potential genocide that need is ever more pressing.

--Moonlight2001 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What "mandate" do you refer to? The English Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME says that it prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) for article titles, so we do reflect what reliable sources use. Your search queries are too broad as they allow:

1. Results on unrelated topics such as Laogai
2. Results from unreliable sources, blogs, etc.

See the more precise search results above that filter out large portions of results from unrelated topics and from unreliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coverage of international reactions

Here's Lavrov's response from October: [4]. We've got to get all if these organized and laid out- all foreign ministries that have made a statement should be included. Perhaps a new subpage should be created. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say be bold to add it in the page but be catious to create a new page. We could create it when the sole page cannot contain international reactions without damaging readity.Mariogoods (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not all reactions are notable, in fact the vast majority aren't. I dont feel that a distinct page for the reactions of foreign ministries to a specific situation serves the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia *is not* meant to host all possible information about a topic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all- I tried to add info about the Russian position on this issue- let me know if you see any problems. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Subsection on separated children

@Geographyinitiative: There are two problems with this.

1. It's placed in a section called "Camp detainees", but the children of the detained parents are not themselves detainees. This applies to the preceding sentence about Mandarin education as well.
2. Again, it's news that does not have to do with the actual camps. It's undue WP:PROMINENCE for a news report of a child of two detainees (first detained two years prior) dying while in the care of his grandparents. While it may have indirectly caused the death, it's speculative to relate the death with the detainment. Finally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS for even reliable sources, let alone Radio Free Asia.

I really don't think that this material belongs, and the preceding sentence should be moved to another section (perhaps a new one on the effects of the camps, since it doesn't really fit in the existing sections). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Okay, I see your points here. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Country Map Removal

I have removed the map of countries ([5]) from this page because countries outside the 24/37 of the letters are colored-in. Wikipedia needs specific citations for specific facts, and I just didn't see them anywhere on this page or that Wikimedia Commons page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can bring up issues about the map on the image's talk page. It's a useful visualization to show the contents of the table in the same section. Mapmaker345 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mapmaker345: The proof that those nations are "for" or "against" Xinjiang re-education camps needs to be very very clear, and we don't even have a scanned copy of the letter from the 37 nations at this point. The foreign ministry websites of those nations rarely have any mention of Xinjiang (except Russia). Who knows what the content of the letter from the 37 really is or how the nations that signed the letter want to be understood. That map is essentially a mix of truth, lies, confusions and silliness, and I think we should be better than that on Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Scanned form of letter from the 37 nations needed

We have a link to a scanned form of the letter from the 22 nations which are against Xinjiang re-education camps, but no scanned form of the letter from the 37 nations. The 37 nations aren't too vocal about Xinjiang on their respective foreign ministry websites. We don't really know what their specific opinions are- all we have is some reports and no statements from any officials. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2 statement from Bahrain Council of Representatives

At 3:30, [6] Pompeo mentions some kind of criticism of the camps by Bahrain. What's the source on this? Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Would like an Arabic source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Qatar

In what sense was Qatar's support withdrawn? It what sense was Qatar's support ever given? I suggest a clean-up of some kind on this article! Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

List of current permanent representatives to the United Nations problem

In the case of Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan and South Sudan, the names of the permanent representative to the UN that we have on English Wikipedia doesn't correspond to the name of the signatory to the letter in which 50 nations allegedly support the Xinjiang re-education camps. I have not looked into all the names in the list yet. Maybe some of Wikipedia's information is out of date, and maybe some ambassadors have moved on. But I think particularly in the case of Turkmenistan, they have had the same ambassador for a really long time- it is Aksoltan Ataýewa and is not Atageldi Haljanov. For this reason, I am adding a "better source needed" to the page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Solved-- these are the Geneva permanent reps, not the New York permanent reps Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ablajan Awut Ayup.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Satellite images

Hello all- over the past two months, I have been working on minor geography in southern Xinjiang. I would like to ask if there is any way we could add satellite photography of re-education camps to this page. I can't think of a way to do it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is pretty easy, if you can find the camps on the map. There is plenty of satellite imagery on wikimedia commons - see c:Category:Satellite_pictures_of_China - which seems to be sourced from NASA. It looks like you might simply use their World Wind software with the right (public domain license) settings.

Requested move 29 January 2020

Xinjiang re-education camps → Vocational Education and Training Centers – I have seen arguments in Chinese Wikipedia. Supporters of moving argued that the current title violates WP:NPOV which does not represent Chinese official usage, and Chinese government would taken actual actions against using, reading the current title. It is controversial, but it is considerable. Mariogoods (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposed title is propaganda and violates WP:Soap. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear propaganda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only a Chinese propaganda mostly intended for Western audience uses "Vocational Education and Training Centers." Legal documents use 教育转化, which may be translated as "conversion camps," "transformation through education camps," "educational conversion camps." "Re-education" camp takes away something from the Chinese expression but is not incorrect. NongJungJo (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose propaganda, disgusting Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is this supposed to be a joke? It isn't funny. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)