Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oranjelo100 (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 17 April 2021 (→Is Newlines reliable source?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some more credible sources would be nice.. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I support the renaming idea. Calling things like this genocide renders the word overused and meaningless.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Totally agree with Drmies. Also, WP:NOTFREESPEECH; "freedom" is not an excuse for unacceptable behavior. Normchou 💬 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. When in doubt, it is always helpful to review the overarching goal of the project. Normchou 💬 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not in titles we don’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I see. Adding {{Talk header}}, so at least there's that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean all of that is just your unsubstantiated opinionPailSimon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, is this what passes for discourse here? Yikes. El_C 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Those are very good points, you’re more than likely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
For comparison, Iraq prison abuse scandals is not titled "genocide". Keith McClary (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey guys, is Americanization a Non-american genocide too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.232.13 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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). [1]

References

  1. ^ "Menendez, Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Designate Uyghur Human Rights Abuses by China as Genocide". foreign.senate.gov. United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. October 27, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2020.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right your lede uses the term genocide which is relevant to all the discussions above.PailSimon (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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). — MarkH21talk 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mikehawk10, When you say that the lede is fine, do you mean that you do not think it could be interpreted as a Wikivoice statement that there is a Uyghur genocide? I think any reasonable reader is going to view it as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, so unless you're arguing that we should make such a Wikivoice statement, I don't see how you can view the lede as "fine". -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’re beating a dead horse, its not a wikivoice statement... End of story. Stop trying to make an end run around consensus, this is becoming disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411 brings up a reasonable point though. There are others wordings that could improve the presentation and tone of the first sentence, e.g. something along the lines of (underlined differences with the current version):

The Uyghur genocide is the designation of an ongoing series of human rights abuses as a 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.

Other alternatives could include who is using the designation (perhaps too wordy?), refer to the Genocide Convention, or use other terms. A discussion about how to refine the first sentence is at least worth having. — MarkH21talk 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: The lede should make it clear that "Uyghur genocide" is an allegation, and it should also specify exactly who is making that allegation. Using "Uyghur genocide" in a sentence is probably the easiest way to go about this: The United States Department of State has alleged that the People's Republic of China is committing a Uyghur genocide. Subsequent sentences can explain what the elements of that alleged genocide are. The first paragraph should also contain the Chinese government's response to these allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thucydides411: We already have a sentence in the first paragraph that conveys the opinions that critics of the policies have, which reads, "Critics of the policy have described it as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang and have called it an ethnocide or cultural genocide, while some governments, activists, independent NGOs, human rights experts, academics, government officials, and the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile have called it a genocide.". Let's not be unnecessarily reductive here; reducing the designation to mere allegations put forward by the U.S. state department does not reflect how the situation is covered in reliable sources, especially given the wide breadth of the sorts of parties who have called it a genocide (especially with multiple generally reliable perennial sources plainly referring to the situation as a genocide). China's response thus far has been (initially) to publicly lie deny that the camps exist, then to acknowledge they exist but frame them alternatively as happy-dory boarding schools or vocational training camps inspired by counterterror efforts (and to deny that any human rights violations exist in the region). WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies here, and Chinese government denials should not be given undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's actual genocide not just designation. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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,”[13] in The Diplomat? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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:
TucanHolmes (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a "geopolitically-charged area", meaning that RFA's claims need in-line attribution, with an explanation that RFA is US government media. One of the reasons given in the RfC for exercising caution with regard to RFA was that RFA has pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 epidemic in China (specifically, it has pushed conspiracy theories about the death toll being orders of magnitude larger than what scientific studies find). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is what the article has been doing. Beginning in the subsection on Mosques, we note that Radio Free Asia, a United States government-funded, nonprofit international broadcasting corporation, reported that in 2018, a plaque containing Quranic scriptures, that had long hung outside the front entrance of the mosque, had been removed by the authorities to "eliminate Uyghur faith, literary works, and language". Following this, we should be attributing content solely sourced to RFA as "Radio Free Asia reported" or something along the lines of "a report from Radio Free Asia said". This is in line with how the deprecated(!) Global Times is used (such as in Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, where it is introduced as CCP-affiliated media and attributed thereafter). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "reported" is really the right word here: "say" would be more neutral. An additional factor to consider is whether we're giving too much weight to US government media. RFA is very heavily used in this article, as it stands. I count 20 references to RFA (only 9 of which have in-line attribution). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Reported is fine", and RFN is reliable, unlike CCP's media. Oranjelo100 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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."[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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][15] TFD (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Is "Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity" considered RS? There is also Sibel Edmonds for "Newsbud" who collaborate the hybrid warfare efforts (testimony here) but I don't know how to check if something is considered RS on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [18].

Oranjelo's point about fertility has been covered by the Associated Press in detail [19] and falls under genocide. According to the article experts are using the term "demographic genocide". [20] Gators bayou (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above about "having" to send troops is unsourced and the claim is simply not credible.  // Timothy :: talk  20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have made up that part of the Genocide Convention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[21]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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 [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If that's the case, then the usa is the biggest practitioner of genocide. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[23]

@oranje. What do you mean by you think? We are not here for what you think or what I think. Where is the evidence? The article you quote are made by Falum Gong. You are in the wrong article. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:4115:A10A:A8EB:B894 (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you genuinely think uyghur body parts are generally transplant compatible for the majority Han Chinese? They might be compatible for other uyghurs, but the compatibility with the Han peoples must be very, very low, and practically useless as a source. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF: Organ harvesting in Xinjiang has been going on for many years and evidence continues to be published about this (in sources that include peer-reviewed academic journals). I don't understand where your denial is coming from here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@mike. Just checked your references and not a single one of them say 25,000 uyghurs are being killed every year for organs. The articles and claims (some of which are dubious) are for organ transplants in China. So where's your evidence that 25000 uyghurs a year are killed for organs? Even in the UK now, organ donation is from presumed consent. That is to say, in a civilised country such as the UK, unless you explicitly not consent before you die, your organs could be removed from you on death for transplantation. There are likely to be more than 25,000 deaths a year in the whole of China from traffic accidents alone. 07:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:4115:A10A:A8EB:B894 (talk)
The (peer-reviewed!) source from BMC Medical Ethics stated that the evidence examined by the authors can only be plausibly explained by systematic falsification and manipulation of official organ transplant datasets in China. Some apparently nonvoluntary donors also appear to be misclassified as voluntary. The source also notes that In late 2005, Chinese officials first publicly admitted to the use of organs from executed prisoners. Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source. In its conclusion, the source states that rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivized by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors. The source also notes a mysterious jump of 25K organs in the system transplanted on a particular day. That is to say, the organ donation program isn't as voluntary as officials portray it as.
I responded to your question providing you with several sources documenting Chinese organ harvesting (including harvesting of Uyghur organs). If you read the articles, there is plenty of evidence for the historical practice of organ harvesting (both among prisoners of conscience and death row inmates). If you are wondering for the source on the 25,000 number, the sourcing I have found is Haaretz citing Ethan Gutmann, who the source describes as a world expert on the issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: While Gutmann is the most prolific investigative journalist looking at organ harvesting, I think some caution is needed with his numbers (beyond the contextual knowledge that he works for an anti-communist organisation, as noted below). The article is currently appropriately careful and attributes the reports to Gutmann. Only one of the journal articles you've provided explicitly describes organ harvesting in Xinjiang. It's Ethan Gutmann in World Affairs (pp. 51–52) from 2012 (before the 2014 ramping up of repression), and he describes it as part of China's response to Uyghur protests in the 1990s and a wider pan-China policy of killing prisoners. He suggests the Uyghurs were treated particularly awfully in the 1990s with regards to organ harvesting – he says prisoners not on death row may have been killed, citing an interview with a "young doctor" who described being "ordered to begin blood-testing prisoners in the political wing of an Urumqi prison ... in search of viable organs" – although Gutmann says "then the trail goes cold [for several years]"; he goes on to to "reconstruct the next decade of organ harvesting" only discussing Falun Gong and in the article we attribute him as saying that organ harvesting in Xinjiang had fallen by 1999. Gutmann has since made a connection between the mass interment of Uyghurs and organ harvesting, but I'm not sure he's done so in a peer-reviewed paper? The rest of your sources above say the following (generally attributing reports to Gutmann or others):
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (2020): "The procurement situation is further complicated by the fact that Chinese authorities insist that when prisoners do donate organs they do so voluntarily and without coercion. The fact is that some minorities are treated as prisoners solely due to their ethnicity or religion or both. For example, an August 2018 United Nations human rights panel stated that it had received many credible reports that one million ethnic Uyghurs in China are being held in ‘re-education camps’." (p. 687)
  • Harvard International Review (2017): "Suspicions first arose in 2006 that state-run Chinese hospitals were killing prisoners of conscience to sell their organs. Targeted groups were alleged to include religious and ethnic minorities, such as Uighurs, Tibetans, underground Christians and practitioners of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement" (p. 17)
  • BMC Medical Ethics (2019): "Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source" (p.3, various cites, predominantly Gutmann or relating to Falun Gong)
  • American Journal of Transplantation (2014): "While Falun Gong practitioners remain the largest persecuted group,there is evidence of similar fates for other minority groups in China such as Uighur Muslims, Tibetans and Christians (29)" (p. 2248, citing Gutmann)
  • Journal of Democracy (2013): "To mention one dramatic example highlighted by China analyst Ethan Gutmann: Highly unethical practices occasioned by the shortage of transplantable organs—including what appears to be organ-harvesting from the bodies of live prisoners—are now a nationwide scourge (and, some say, a shoe waiting to drop in the Bo Xilai scandal). These practices were first tested on condemned prisoners in Xinjiang." (p.77) Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oranjelo100: sorry I meant to ping you also. Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the repetition of Gutmann's research in multiple journals indicates that academics take it seriously, there is a notable lack of other sources independently connecting organ harvesting with Xinjiang since 2014. It's of course made difficult by the fact that the CCP has been trying its hardest to keep things hidden, but I would hope (and expect) that more sources will appear over time regarding this. WP:VNT. Jr8825 • Talk 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Another source (or really set of sources) I had not listed above is the China Tribunal (and the coverage) thereof. The Tribunal itself had stated that Uyghurs were at risk of organ harvesting, an item that was widely reported (I can provide sources later today, but I am currently in a bit of a hurry). Generally, it had been covered as "Uyghurs are at risk" between 2015 and 2020, though a WP:GREL reporting in 2020 on the findings of an expert source whose investigative work has been published in multiple academic journals (and widely cited, at that) would justify due weight for inclusion in the article with attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to my prior point, there has been reporting from a WP:GREL that Gutmann had brought up concerns about the Uyghurs as early as 2013, when he was investigating Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. China later announced that that it would stop organ harvesting in 2015, though even the BBC report covering the announcement notes that [China] has said for many years that it will end the controversial practice. It previously promised to do so by November last year. It's pretty clear that the announcement has been generally met with skepticism, and research has been done towards that end (including by Gutmann, but the doubt of China's ceasing of organ harvesting seems to be pretty common).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The medical journals you linked treat it very much as an ongoing problem and didn't suggest there were any signs of China changing direction. I guess the question is more about whether China has increased organ harvesting in Xinjiang as part of its genocidal/ethnocidal policy there, and how strong the evidence is for this. Jr8825 • Talk 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825 and Oranjelo100:In addition to the above, I've looked and tried to find some sources regarding the organ harvesting claims more generally. There have been some peer-reviewed academic sources that have referred to China's treatment of Falun Gong via organ harvesting as genocide, though the scope of the article was mostly limited to the impact of organ harvesting on Falun Gong (Uyghurs were noted to have composed ~11% of all organs harvested, but the article did not make a genocide analysis with respect to the Uyghurs). There is a law review article that is pretty straightforward about this being a genocide (it writes The Xi administration’s (and by extension the Communist Party’s) agenda for Xinjiang seeks to accomplish the same basic goal of removing dissidents and potential dissidents belonging to an ethnic group without the international condemnation and internal strife involved in forced migration and genocide. ...In Xinjiang this effort has three key components. The first is a vast surveillance network which combines a large and extremely active police presence with cutting edge technology designed to monitor the populace at all times. The second is the da fa, meaning “strike hard,”campaign which arrests dissidents and anyone with even a remote connection to dissident activity. The third is the internment camps themselves which forcibly re-educate those arrested.). That article seems to work organ harvesting in at the very end by citing a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and framing it as new, horrific allegations, though it makes its analysis with respect to genocide independent of the organ harvesting as a whole. Another source writes about organ harvesting of Uyghurs, saying that Uighur prisoners serve a growing demand, as their organs are classified as halal, which points to a motive of harvesting organs for the sake of obtaining halal organs. In short, there's a lot of mention of the organ harvesting, and there is some mention of the harvesting in those articles that describe the situation as a genocide, but most of the sources that describe the situation as a genocide don't seem to rely on the organ harvesting in making that determination.
In terms of additional news pieces, the National Catholic Register writes that organ harvesting and human trafficking are other atrocities regularly committed against Uyghurs and other people designated enemies of the state. Fox News reports that human rights activists and international leaders are collecting evidence that the beleaguered Uighur Muslim community in Xinjiang province, also known as East Turkistan, could be the latest in a long line of state-sanctioned "victims" being killed for their hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys and other vital body parts – sometimes extracted from their bodies while still alive. Public Radio International appears to put the organ harvesting on the same level as the forced sterilization, writing that After more than 70 years of Chinese rule over the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, there’s mounting evidence that in recent years, their occupation has intensified into an environment of strict surveillance, with more than a million Uighurs held in internment camps. Reports show many are forced to pick cotton and work in factories that supply international brands and that some Uighurs are even subjected to forced sterilizations and organ harvesting. Nepali news site Khabarhub reported that a recent report documented how the religious minority has been subject to massacres, mass internment camps, torture, organ harvesting, and disappearances in addition to forced birth control and sterilization. News.com.au has reported that healthy prisoners are euthanised so their internal organs can be removed and sold on a lucrative multibillion-dollar black market in a story that was republished by The Queensland times.
My apologies if this is a wall of sources without much of an explanation for each individual source, though I wanted to respond and also note some of the sources I have seen that I had not brought up before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to dissect every single one of these sources, but the "Year of the Bat" source from the King's College is hardly a reliable one. The entire paper is a politically driven and speculative piece of geopolitical opinion rather than any semblance of research. The "halal organ" claim is bizarre borderine geopolitical poetry on par with the several literary quotes sprinkled in the source along with flirtations of the idea of the virus being a bioengineered weapon to destroy the west. Deku link (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The piece states that Conspiracy theorists, not content with the possibility of an accidental leak of the virus, argue that Covid-19 was an experimental biological weapon and that the veracity of such claims may be highly questionable. I don't think that's favorable coverage of the people who think it's an engineered bioweapon (though you are certainly justified in worrying that it strongly entertains a lab leak theory, which per a recent RfC got a no consensus on if it is a WP:FRINGE theory/conspiracy theory). It's certainly not a WP:MEDRS, and I would not use it to make medical claims, but I don't think it's completely out-of-line on the claim regarding Halal organs. Other sources, such as Taiwan News, Radio Free Asia, and the Sydney Morning Herald have reported on allegations of the sort before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@mike. Can't you supply a better source? How can you spin 25000 transplants into the killing of 25000 uyghurs by the Chinese government? I hope you realise when you die, say in the UK, and they take your body for organ donation, they can without your consent take all your organs, eg heart, 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, liver, 2 corneas, maybe even your face, 4 limbs, etc for transplant. Therefore 1 dead body can give multiple organ transplants. 25000 transplants come from far fewer than 25000 dead people. You also spin the rumours into 25000 people must be 25000 people from Xinjiang, and because it is Xinjiang, then they must all be uyghurs, and these uyghurs must be uyghur prisoners, and all uyghur prisoners must be political prisoners. Do you think there are no Han Chinese prisoners in Xinjiang, and that uyghurs do not do crimes? None of the sources you quote claim that all the organs for the transplantation came from the one province in China called Xinjiang, let alone that they came from uyghurs. Tell me when you take organs for transplantation, can you just transplant them into anyone? Of course not, the recipients have to be compatible with the donors. I would say the chance of a match between a uyghur Chinese and a Han Chinese is a lot lower than a match between their respective peoples. Most of the organ from uyghurs would probably be transplanted into other uyghurs, and if they go to foreigners, as some of your sources claim, the most likely recipients are turkish people. You also spin the story into something like a horror movie, that uyghurs are killed to order for their organs, which is total nonsense. In China, there is the death sentence, but it is only carried out for very severe crimes. Even so, the Chinese system is however still a lot fairer than the system in america, as you can see people such as George Floyd was killed by government agents without the chance of a trial or prison. There is not just the one George Floyd, think of all the other Black people who are killed that way, no trial and no chance of prison. Those in China who are executed probably deserve to be executed in the eyes of their local people. In america Black people are lynched for committing no crimes at all. If you are really concerned about organ harvesting, then you should be more concerned about not letting things as in the following reference happen to people in your country https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9419141/Teenager-18-declared-brain-dead-hit-van-wakes-up.html , where in the UK they can declare you dead when you are not, so that they can harvest your organs. 81.141.207.254 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL. Jr8825 • Talk 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gutmann's estimates should definitely stay, and there are other sources who state that killings are happening like the Newline report. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjelo100 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this a bit more and reading through sources in responses to questions from Jr8825, I'm actually not sure that we should report that there are in fact no mass killings of Uyghurs; I don't think that is what reliable sources are stating in their more recent coverage. Enough reliable sources are reporting on the organ harvesting stuff (see my comments above) that us trying to write the article in a way that mass killings do not in fact happen actually seem to not be supported by RS. If forcible organ harvesting—the killing of live Uyghurs for their organs—is going on in Xinjiang as these RS report, then we should report the organ harvesting on the page with details from sources. I'm also not able to find reliable sources that deny the organ harvesting outright, though if they exist then I would ask an editor to provide them since it would help provide balance in the article. Additionally, I'd like to raise the point that there have also been widely reported allegations of infanticide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The specific allegations are that Chinese doctors have been ordered by officials to kill Uyghur infants, which would reasonably constitute mass killing of infants if true (though obviously the comments should be attributed to the alleging party when we write in wikivoice, owing to the way that the allegations are being covered in the sources). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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 [25]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting.
[26]
Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: [27]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. — MarkH21talk 02:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — MarkH21talk 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: [28][29]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. — MarkH21talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. — MarkH21talk 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[1] 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.[1]
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)[reply]
That's one of the definitions of God's people: "people who worship or believe in God." (Oxford)[30] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Half of evangelicals support Israel because they believe it is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy". Retrieved 2020-02-15.

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

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)[reply]
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][31]
TFD (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We all agree Zenz should be attributed, we already do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm essentially paraphrasing their own self-description, which you can read here: [32]. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Not much to add here. Zenz is reliable according to multiple rses. Also here, Adrian Zenz is called a leading China scholar. [33] ​Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Thucydides411 and TucanHolmes:, it would appear that Zenz indeed is literate in Chinese. In his 2010 book , 'Tibetanness' Under Threat?, he references Chinese terms heavily, providing transliterations for readers. When his findings regarding an investigation into labor in Tibet was corroborated by Reuters, there were a lot of (Chinese language) government documents that were analyzed. A work in the Journal of Political Risk of which he is the sole author also contains translations directly from Chinese to English of the Karakax List. It would simply be unfeasible for Zenz to be able to do everything he has done (whether it be his books, his doctoral thesis, his translations of documents, or his primary source-heavy investigations) without literacy in Chinese language. When this is coupled with the fact that much of Zenz’s research has been corroborated by other scholars and independent media outlets, and this work involves heavy analysis of primary government document sources, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to conclude anything other than that he is literate in Chinese. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. — MarkH21talk 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. — MarkH21talk 23:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). — MarkH21talk 00:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. — MarkH21talk 01:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

About this page

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

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Requested move 1 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: No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is. Consensus for one-year moratorium unless substantial new information arises in reliable sources also exists, and a note will be added to FAQ atop the talk page.
After a full week of discussion on this (and noting, but not really weighing in assessing consensus here, that there have been several discussions before), there is certainly no consensus to move to “Uyghur cultural genocide.” A preponderance of the arguments offering putative support to move from the current name question the veracity of genocide claims, but largely do not proffer evidence that a cultural genocide is, instead, what is happening. Some gesture towards the possibility of adding a word like “alleged” to the title, but that is generally opposed here largely per WP:WEASEL.
As for assessment of what reliable sources say on the matter, the conversation is somewhat bifurcated between consideration of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. While much discussion exists over the extent to which reliable sources call this the “Uyghur genocide” as compared to saying that government officials call it the “Uyghur genocide,” there is certainly not evidence provided here that such sources instead use “Uyghur cultural genocide” as the common name. Taking that fact alongside arguments about the naming criteria in general, each of the five criteria—recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency—do seem to gesture towards the current name being acceptable, as several editors point out. As such, I find that there is an affirmative consensus against moving this page to “Uyghur cultural genocide” and an affirmative consensus, albeit a weaker one, that “Uyghur genocide” is the appropriate name.
Finally, with respect to the proposed moratorium, there is clearly fatigue with the iterative nature of these requested moves. However, that is part of how a collaborative encyclopedia like this works; to a large degree, such content disputes are a proof of concept that this sort of thing works. That said, I do find a consensus exists that, barring substantial new information, editors should avoid requesting another move until March 2022. As a practical matter, two things are true:

  1. The way to undo the consensus on this moratorium would be to discuss ending it, which would have echoes of a requested move discussion, and, since consensus can change, there is nothing to stop such a discussion from taking place before a year has elapsed.
  2. If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists (or if editors believe the reliable sources have uncovered relevant new information), the appropriate recourse is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. If all else fails, WP:IAR may well apply.

That said, this should be interpreted mostly as a gentle nudge against starting a new requested move and to let this article sit for a while unless there is overwhelming evidence against that presumption. I will defer to other editors active on this page as to how best, in light of this close, to phrase a note in the FAQ (if for no other reason than I don’t know that I know how to edit a page FAQ), but I would encourage a short summary of this close statement with an eye towards discouraging move requests in the absence of clear new information.
Thanks to all participants for constructive engagement on such a fraught and important topic and for spirited advocacy of positions. It is thanks to this kind of work that the encyclopedia goes ‘round. I am happy to discuss my assessment of consensus here on my talk page or in the appropriate review channels as warranted. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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 [34][35][36][37] German sources:[38][39].
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
With the exception of the AP piece [40], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [41], or the source is an editorial/blog, [42][43][44][45], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [46][47]. -Darouet (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged as you used may be better reflective of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dazaif: It's a genocide period.[1]


  • 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,[48] 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)[reply]
  • Support per Reesorville — Mainly 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — With the exception of the AP piece [49], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [50], or the source is an editorial/blog, [51][52][53][54], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [55][56]. 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
I strongly urge you to readWP:RSP—blindlynx (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 [57] — 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 [58] — 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 [59] — 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 [60] — 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 [61] — 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 [62] — A US congressional commission said that China may have committed genocide in its Xinjiang region.
  • The Japan Times writes [63] — 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 [64] — 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 [65] — The United States government already has characterized China’s conduct in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
  • The Council on Foreign Relations writes [66] — 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're misrepresenting the BBC's reporting in a very basic manner. The BBC attributes these claims: according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The BBC specifically says that it cannot verify the claims: It is impossible to verify Ziawudun's account completely: [67]. Reuters explicitly describes these claims as allegations, and says that it cannot verify them either: [68]. We can't jump from news accounts that report about allegations to claiming, in Wikivoice, that those allegations are true. This is an extremely basic question of how to read and use sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oranjelo100 and Mikehawk10. After following this discussion for a while, I've come to the conclusion that Uyghur genocide is not the best title for this article, but that Uyghur cultural genocide (the move target) would be more wrong, especially because it obscures the physical violence directed at the people living in the region—implying that the events are restricted to the cultural realm. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already pointed out, Mandy Rice-Davies probably applies. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective and inclusive of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective and inclusive of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. "Alleged" is a hopeless weasel word, hedging without actually giving the reader any more information. All it says is "someone disputes this". Well, of course they do. What matters is: alleged by whom and with what evidence? Vast human rights abuses are plainly occurring, reliable sources make clear the best label for them is genocide, and the article explains that the Chinese government and others dispute the term. Harland1 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're advancing your own interpretation of the Genocide Convention, an interpretation that is radically different from the meaning of the word in the English language. That should already tip you off that the definition you're trying to advance is almost certainly incorrect. dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say: You haven't shown any reliable sources that state that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. In order to put such an extreme claim in Wikivoice, you'd expect editors to show a strong consensus of reliable sources. But you haven't provided even a single one that does so, much less any sort of consensus. To the contrary, it's been abundantly demonstrated above that reliable sources scrupulously attribute such claims, which means that we also have to attribute them, and cannot put them in Wikivoice. You're simply asserting that your preferred (and likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention is correct, that it applies to Xinjiang, and that we should therefore do something that the reliable sources do not do - label the situation in Xinjiang a "genocide". -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. — MarkH21talk 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just so others reading this are clear, the above explanation of the Genocide Convention is incorrect. The Genocide Convention very explicitly says that what Morgengave is calling the "five criteria" (which is not the phrase the Genocide Convention uses) are not sufficient by themselves. As the UN explains,

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).

But just as importantly, reliable sources do not state that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. They have reported on allegations of genocide, but that is very different from confirming the allegations. Wikipedia can't put such drastic claims in Wikivoice without a strong consensus of reliable sources, and there is nothing remotely approaching such a consensus. Quite the opposite, there is a strong consensus among sources that such allegations must be attributed and described as allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huaxia, why would you support moving the page title to "Uyghur cultural genocide" if you are saying that this is "not even a cultural genocide?" That doesn't seem like a very convincing reason to actively choose to move the page to the proposed target. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the argument presented by Mikehawk10 and others. Citobun (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. [69] 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. [reply]

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.[2] Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. [reply]
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)[reply]

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’.”[3] Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [70]). TucanHolmes (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know what makes a declaration of 64 UN member states "a joke", any more than a declaration by the US State Department (contradicting its own legal advisors, it should be noted) could be viewed as "a joke". The United States and some of its allies have made allegations of "genocide" against China, and China and 63 other UN member states have pushed back against those allegations. The allegations being made by the US and a few obscure think tanks ("Newlines Institute" and "Jamestown Foundation") are clearly extremely controversial, and are regularly attributed in reliable sources. I don't see how anyone can argue that they should be put in Wikivoice. It's an obvious, massive violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I do not object to your arguments regarding the reporting in reliable sources, but I have clearly explained above why I think we shouldn't give any weight to the countries' statement (an explanation which you have ignored in your response). At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. I will update the reasons for why I voted the way I did. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore your reasoning. I don't agree with your flippant rejection of a declaration by 64 UN member states. That obviously carries weight and shows that the allegations being made by the US and some of its allies are hugely controversial. I don't see why we should put unsubstantiated claims made by the US government in Wikivoice, while rejecting out-of-hand the claims of 64 other UN member states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only weight is that China has strong economic influence over many countries.[4][5][6] Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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 ([71]). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [72]) 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

There's a huge amount of "citation needed" on the above statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is an essay, not a news article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a reported piece. It reports factual information. It even has the tagline "A Reporter at Large", which the New Yorker places on some reported work. It's also worth noting that the New Yorker is one of the most rigorous and reliable publications in the world. Harland1 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is from the "Magazine" section of the New Yorker, not the "News" section, as you can see in the URL. This is an essay, written in a highly narrative and personal style. The opening line is, When Anar Sabit was in her twenties and living in Vancouver, she liked to tell her friends that people could control their own destinies. The essay continues in a similar vein. The New Yorker is a magazine, and does not only publish straight news articles - it also publishes content that mixes personal narration, opinion and fact. That's fine, but it should not be confused with objective news reporting. As has been shown over and over again above, reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide, rather than putting them in their own authoritative voice. To put something that reliable sources consistently treat as an allegation in Wikivoice because of a single narrative essay would be absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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" [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deku link (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
except sanctions are already being levied against Xinjiang [9] Deku link (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[10] 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)[reply]
  • Oppose The entirety of the abuses don't just amount to cultural genocide, it is almost universally described as genocide, this new title in theory would not only be unnatural it also would downplaying the entire genocide. It's not simply cultural genocide it a systemic destruction of an ethnic group involving sterilization and mass incarceration. It is as such universally described as simply a genocide and tagging "cultural" when the abuses as laid out in this very article would not only be a contradiction of the current article (the article states multiple other abuses other then cultural genocide,) it is also a title that downplays such events. Des Vallee (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it is almost universally described as genocide. This is simply untrue, and has been shown above by Darouet (and others), reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide in Xinjiang to those parties making the claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear this up, that report is not from the UN but from a dubiously credible think tank Deku link (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, this is a claim made by an obscure DC think tank created by a dubious "university" ("Fairfax University") that 1) has only a few dozen students, 2) was nearly forced to shut down recently after the state of Virginia found it failed to meet basic standards, 3) is only accredited by a highly dubious accreditation agency that itself is under threat of losing its recognition. This is all described in an article in the Washington Post. This think tank's claims do not in any way represent any sort of official position of the United Nations, and cannot be put in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thucydides411 That is a redefination the definition of reliable sources, scholarly sources are reliable regardless of your position. The UN criteria does meet the definition of a genocide, and has been laid out in many different reports, this new title is completely well arbitrary (almost no organization describes the genocide in Xijang as just "cultural genocide") In fact this very article lays out it's not just a cultural genocide by describing things like sterilization, mass internment, forced abortions and killings none of which fit the "cultural genocide" definition. As laid out in nearly all reliable secondary, tertiary reliable sources it's is almost universally described as just a genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To go through your sources one-by-one:
  • Your first source is titled, "Settler Colonialism and the Path toward Cultural Genocide in Xinjiang". First off, it uses the phrase "cultural genocide", which is exactly the term this RfC is proposing to move the article to. But you haven't given any indication of how significant this source actually is. How many citations does this paper have? Is this a significant journal?
  • Your second source is a Bachelor's thesis (i.e., an essay written by an undergraduate student for university credit), and therefore worthless as a source.
  • Your third source does not claim that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. It is a news article that discusses the "genocide charge" made by the US government and China's reaction to that charge.
  • Your fourth source is the very report from the obscure DC think tank (the "Newlines Insitute") that I was discussing above. This isn't a reliable source.
If there were a strong case for the title "Uyghur genocide", it would not be so difficult for supporters of this title to identify a reliable source that actually states that there's a genocide. When you're citing undergraduate student projects, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also this report: [73] Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the source describes "genocide allegations". We can't put claims that reliable sources consistently describe as "allegations" in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Misleading and undefined, so-called “cultural genocide” does NOT exist as a crime punishable under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

“Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” [[74]] --Ooligan (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Arguments in favour of the move seem to all rely on some official definition (and even these are shakey) but there seems no doubt that the more common name is the current one, and that's what we should go with. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  1. ^ "Legal opinion concludes that treatment of Uyghurs amounts to crimes against humanity and genocide".
  2. ^ "China committing genocide against Uighurs, says report | Uighur News | Al Jazeera".
  3. ^ "China has breached all provisions of UN Genocide Convention in Xinjiang: Report | Hindustan Times".
  4. ^ "'We will not be intimidated.' Despite China threats, Lithuania moves to recognise Uighur genocide - LRT".
  5. ^ "China's Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang | Council on Foreign Relations".
  6. ^ "Turkey Cracks Down on Uighur Protesters After China Complains | Voice of America - English".
  7. ^ "If China's Anti-Uyghur Campaign Isn't Genocide, What Is? – The Diplomat".
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
  9. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56487162
  10. ^ "United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect". www.un.org. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
  11. ^ "China breaching every article in genocide convention, says legal report on Uighurs". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 April 2021.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

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

[75] [76]

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)[reply]

[77]

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)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I don't have anything more to add beyond what I've already said. OhKayeSierra (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Support per OP. It's getting a bit annoying now. — Czello 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support conditional move moratorium per Morgengave. Jancarcu (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support as no substantive evidence has changed since the last move discussion. - Amigao (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support the proposal, with a preference for a conditional moratorium, as outlined by Morgengave. WP:CCC notes that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Repetitive move discussions in the absence of substantial new information take up time that could be better spent elsewhere and it seems WP:CCC would indicate that it would be a good practice to avoid repeating move proposals in the absence of substantial new information that would be likely to change consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Has this proposal not been attempted over ten times over and every time it reaches the same consensus? These moves are a waste of time, but the name also won't change with time. As it's a genocide the fact that it's ongoing doesn't change that one bit, nothing new would change therefor a new title would be absolutely redundant. This isn't an armed conflict with the name changing with time, how is time somehow going to make this less of a genocide? The abuses present have nearly universal consensus of deliberate attempts at genocide, really they aren't subtle. If the consensus of the abuses is that it is a genocide no time changes that, we don't need to have this open to ten more wear and tear discussions, its an immense waste of time. Des Vallee (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First, this one year protection allows for the stability needed to help this article to obtain a higher quality status as an article[78]. Second, once the crime of GENOCIDE has been alleged by permanent members of the United Nations- it will NOT likely recede to some lesser crime. In fact, further investigation will likely add to the existing evidence, when a “Genocide Tribunal” or “Criminal Court” is convened to adjudicate these allegations and any potential future international criminal charges related to ”Genocide.” By the way, I understand there are three potential Genocide related criminal charges- 1. Conspiracy to Commit Genocide, 2. Attempted Genocide and 3. Genocide. Wikipedia is not the final tribunal of these allegations, but it can and should reflect these extraordinary allegations by some member states of the United Nations. This includes the State Department of the United States under both the Trump and Biden administrations, which is a rare continuity of policy between political rivals. Third, the proposed year will save valuable time and energy of Wikipedians with broad and varied interests in this overall Project by not having to engage in repeated effort on redundant requests on a specific, yet important issue. --Ooligan (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whatever the outcome of this discussion, this seems like a solid idea. ~ HAL333 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biases in Significant Editors

Collapsed per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:NOPA

(Personal attack removed) 69.144.100.2 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. I'd like to briefly respond to the personal attack levied against me, as well as to your self-description and the framing that you have provided above.
  1. First off, let me be very clear: the notions that I am somehow expressing "(Personal attack removed)" or that I am somehow engaging in an "(Personal attack removed)" are simply untrue and together constitute a nasty set of accusations that are both unevidenced and unfit for Wikipedia. Attacking another's motives in this way is—to put it lightly—not civil.
  2. Second, regarding your self description: it doesn't look to be the case that you have actually contributed to other language wikis from your IP. According to public information that one can find by looking at the links on your contributions page, you appear to be posting from a static IP that is based within the State of Montana. The IP from which you have posted has made a grand total of one edit over all of Wikimedia projects up to this point—and that edit is the one that you have made to this talk page. This calls into question the way you described yourself by saying, "I often contribute to other language wikis," unless you have been doing so from a different IP address or while logged in. (The former case is rather unlikely given the public data, while in the latter case I would not understand why you choose to engage anonymously when you could have done so from your user account—that is, if you believe that you are acting civilly).
  3. Third, regarding the framing of my contributions: while I did indeed create the article and I have contributed significantly to its current form, the work on the article is something that has been undertaken by the community for a year-and-a-half after its creation. Between February 2020 and December 2020 (inclusive) I made no edits to Wikipedia. During that time, editors found consensus to move the page multiple times and rewrite great portions of the page, and editors updated the page as additional information was reported about the topic. If you took time to look through the history, you would actually find that I didn't contribute to the first RfC that affirmed that the page should be named Uyghur genocide. According to XTools, 164 editors (most notably myself, MarkH21, Amigao, Geographyinitiative, Normchou, Oranjelo100, and Horse Eye's Back) have authored the current text that is on the page. I have done my utmost to bring sources to the table in my discussions to ensure that my contributions to Wikipedia are positive and in line with established policies. And, I've been doing my utmost to engage on talk pages to build consensus when edits are contested. I have openly explained my positions on the talk page at length, responded to follow-ups, and positively engaged with editors with whom I have disagreed on substance. If you believe that I am editing against consensus or that my edits are not helpful to the article, then the proper way of handling things would be to bring up the specific content issues for discussion on this talk page, not to write a smear piece here that attacks me personally.
I am generally very pleased to have worked with my fellow editors on making this page better and keeping it up to date. Through the professionalism shown by members of the Wikipedia community, editors have come together in extended discussions to collectively write an article on an issue that pertains to a highly charged and controversial topic, while generally remaining highly civil. I am not pleased, therefore, with the clear personal attacks that have been presented in your comment above, as well as the false narrative you have constructed in order to harm my reputation as an editor. I sincerely hope that you retract your comments and I respectfully ask that your apologize for your personal attacks. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a section on denialism

I wanted to open up a discussion about adding a section on denial of the cultural genocide in Xinjiang. The main question here is one of notability, as I've only found a couple sources on the matter. One is an article by CJ Werleman of the Byline Times, which discusses genocide denialism among sections of the so-called "anti-imperial left". Another is an article by Mamtimin Ala of News Vibes of India, which looks at denialism by world leaders such as Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau. Does anyone know of any other sources that could contribute to a section on denialism, or if not, would it be best to leave it until more sources are available?--Grnrchst (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably wait a couple of years, actually. Since the 'genocide' label is still contentious (see the numerous discussions on this talk page) and people are cautious for diplomatic reasons, it's hard to frame denials it as 'genocide denial'. We can talk about denials of human rights abuses, since these are more clearly and unquestionably documented. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These were along the lines of my thoughts yeah. Both of these sources are very recent, so such a section may need more time in order to develop notability and accuracy. Thanks for you thoughts.--Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "East Turkestan", do you mean "Xinjiang"? As far as I'm aware, "East Turkestan" is a politically loaded term used by separatists, whereas the common name of the region is "Xinjiang". But setting that aside, in order for there to be "X denialism", there has to be a strong consensus that X is true. Reliable sources do not treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang as fact, so a "denialism" section would simply push an unverified POV in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that it was I meant, apologies. I agree that a denialism section would add POV, which is why I wanted to bring it up here before going forward with anything.--Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clumsy genocide denial campaign by China but this is a fullblown genocide not a cultural one. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[79]

To echo the reasons given by TucanHolmes, I'm going to say that I think it's something that will need more time and references. The Byline source is definitely an opinion piece and is pretty much as problematic as grayzone is (in that it is mostly written like a blog), which although I do not think makes it inherently irrelevant does make it not the most reliable source (which you already seem to acknowledge so I'm most likely preaching to the choir on that one). Overall I think I've made it clear that I believe the actions in Xinjiang are absolutely being interpreted by governments and NGOs for political reasons (especially in the heat of the moment), and to actively discuss denial as a phenomenon without inserting POV we'd first need the foresight to acknowledge which claims and accusations are provably true (currently the reeducation camps and extrajudicial internment are acknowledged even by China and are no longer in doubt) and which ones might just be exaggerations (organ harvesting, genocidal IUD implementation rather than just even handed one child policy implementation, eradication of the uighur script, etc). The issue with making such a section now is that to avoid POV it would specifically have to cover denial of the existence of camps, which to my knowledge no one (not even China) engages in. Deku link (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To comment separately from the above, there are definitely some RS that have referred to denial of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, writ large, as "Xinjiang denialism" by some variation of denialism/denialist (Axios, China Digital Times (1 2), Brookings, Coda Story (1 2), Foreign Policy, ASPI). In particular, a good bit of these sources single out The Grayzone for its denialism writ large. There isn't exactly an article for The Grayzone (it's a redirect to Max Blumenthal), so I'd be unsure where to include it, though it's probably worthy of inclusion somewhere based upon the coverage from multiple sources. Some of the articles (most notably the Foreign Policy, Brookings, and ASPI sources) are of broader scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASPI should not be regarded as a neutral source here. It is funded by the Australian Department of Defence, the US government, the governments of a few US allies, and by US weapons manufacturers (including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman). As far as I know, the Brookings Institution is not heavily funded by weapons manufacturers, but it is very close to the US government, and writes quite explicitly from the perspective US policy makers. Just to illustrate this, all one has to do is list the titles of a couple of recent Brookings reports:
Brookings has an entire "China Strategy Initiative", with the goal of "countering and responding to [China's strategy] effectively". Basically, these sources can be used to give the US/Australian government/military establishment view on China, but they should not be viewed as neutral observers of China.
I've never heard of "Coda Story" before, so I have no idea how much weight to give their views. The Axios article you're citing doesn't actually point out anything that's incorrect in Max Blumenthal's criticism of Adrian Zenz. It just complains that Chinese media likes Blumenthal. I don't know how accurate Blumenthal's criticism of Zenz' writings is, but the Axios piece just tries to discredit Blumenthal based on who does and doesn't like his work. The Axios piece also attacks the WHO for an entirely factually correct statement that a WHO representative made (that the Taiwanese government's claim to have provided early warning to the WHO about the novel coronavirus in December 2019 was incorrect). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep trying to discredit reliable sources all you want... But it really isn’t productive and this talk page is not the proper venue for it. We also don’t require sources to be “neutral," whatever gave you that idea? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is absolutely the place to discuss sourcing. We can use non-neutral sources, but we have to be careful about weight and attribution. We wouldn't want to make controversial claims about China in Wikivoice based on the claims of a think tank funded by the Australian military and American weapons manufacturers, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no source on this earth is truly neutral, but if we're scraping the bottom of the barrel to blast this article full of think tank pieces from explicitly anti-Chinese sources, WP:NPOV starts to come into play. As has been brought up time and time again, many of the sources are not actively stating many of the claims made are true, they are just reporting on reports made by think tanks or related groups. Intentionally obfuscating that important detail when drawing information from the sources is the issue. Deku link (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on whether or not that think tank was reliable, wouldn't it? It would also as with all sources depend on who the authors were. I would also note that funding does not equal editorial control, if the Australian military or American weapons manufacturers exercised editorial control of what a source publishes that would be an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if you think think tanks being pumped full of money by weapons manufacturers who would financially benefit from distracting from their own rampant use of prison labor[1] aren't letting the manufacturers call the shots on most of the "research," I can't help but feel like you're being willfully ignorant Deku link (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deku link: Do you have any reliable sources that suggest that the defense industry is, in fact, manipulating ASPI for its financial/PR benefit in this way? It seems like a bit of an extraordinary claim to make. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a think tank established by the Australian military, which is funded by the Australian military, the US State Department and US weapons manufacturers, and which is headed by a former high-ranking Australian national security official (Peter Jennings) might represent the views of the Australian/US military/foreign policy establishments does not seem extraordinary to me. It seems like the default assumption. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see anything in the linked source about distraction, think tank funding, calling the shots, my willful ignorance, etc. Do you have a source which supports those assertions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To respond briefly to your question regarding the source you have not heard of, Coda Story is a non-profit news outlet that has recently won the European Press Prize for Distinguished reporting for its coverage of a particular Xinjiang issue and Columbia University's Alfred I. Dupont Award for a radio documentary that it had produced in partnership with the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. Its journalism has been republished in Rappler (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, etc.), as well as The Atlantic, and NBC News, each of which are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP. From a WP:USEBYOTHERS perspective, Coda Story seems to be generally reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Coda Story" article that you linked to doesn't actually address any of the factual claims of the various people it criticizes. It criticizes them on the basis that Chinese and Russian media like some of the things they write. In return, the people that Coda Story is criticizing point out that Coda Story itself is funded by the US government's own foreign influence operation, the National Endowment for Democracy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To WP:RSN we go. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are columns by non-notable people in obscure publications. In order to have weight for inclusion, this viewpoint would need to receive wide attention. The authors are making a clear reference to Holocaust denial. But claims of Holocaust denial are well documented in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/2011/03/prisoners-help-build-patriot-missiles/
I don't believe the criticism is that Code Story is inherently unreliable. The criticism is that what the Coda Story article is saying and what is proposed to be included in the article are at odds with each other. Furthermore, the article is already grossly inflated by sources that are directly funded by the US state department or weapons manufactuerers. At a certain point, we have to wonder how much weight we're giving to certain sources and how literally we interpret the information from them (there is a difference between an opinion piece saying "I think that the reports of this government are wrong because I do not trust them" and an article outright stating that the reports are incorrect). Deku link (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RFC regarding the reliability of Coda Story

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RFC for possible consensus regarding the reliability of Coda Story. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article need to explain the genocide itself

The main article makes a lot of mentioning around the genocide but not the actual genocide itself. For example, while it is true the US, Canada gov't etc are calling it a genocide, it doesn't actually explain what was the underlying action by the PRC that constitute the genocide itself.

TL;DR - the article does not actually state what is the genocide committed by PRC. It relies on imaginative inferences.

For example: 1. Mosques: No where is it explained that PRC ordered the destruction of mosques. And no where does it explain "significant cultural damage" is tied to PRC actions to eradicate the Uighur ppl. Therefore, this section does not relate to the genocide. Also, main article suggest Id Kah Mosque had been vandalized, but if you look in the wiki article of the mosque itself, it explains it was going thru renovation, and it is now restored. Its also not clear how mosques have to do with genocide. Article seem to infer PRC used violence in the process, but did not actually state that claim.

2. Education: it is not explained why this amounts to genocide. For example, in America, native Americans also get their primary education in English. Article seem to infer children are kept at internment camps, but did not actually claim that.

3. Detained academics and religious figures: It is not clear this is genocide. It would be political or religious persecution. The details very vague and relies a lot on imagination.

4. Detention camps: it is not explained why this is genocide. to be genocide, these ppl need to die, disfigured, sterile or "destroyed". detention by itself is not genocide. if these ppl go thru mandatory training camps and subsequently released without losing an army or leg, it would not be genocide. The comparison to Nazis is relying on inferences that Uighurs are being gassed in the millions. But article does not clearly accuse PRC of gassing Uighurs.

5. Torture: it is not explained why this is genocide. the article claims that 1 (or 2) woman was tortured. to be genocide, all (or significant part) of Uighur women need to be treated this way. the article itself does not actually accuse the PRC of having systematic torture camps that put thru millions of women into these torture programs - it relies on reader imagination to make that inference.

6. Labor and cotton: how is this a genocide again? Are the Uighurs permanently locked up in interment camps to do hard labour? The article does not actually make that claim - it relies on imagination to presume they are locked up for life.

7. Medical experiments: what exactly is the medical experiment that give rise to genocide? it relies on imagination that terrible things must have happened. It also relies on imagination that large number of Uighurs have been experimented upon.

8. Bio-metrics, DNA and GPS: How does bio-metrics and DNA sequencing relate to genocide? I am not too sure what kind of inferences are supposed to be drawn here. Privacy invasion? And what is the issue with GPS? Privacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to address your first point regarding the inconsistencies between this article and that of the Id Kah Mosque. Deku link (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like there are no reliable western sources reporting on the imam of Id Kah Mosque, so I guess the article will have to go without the claim for now. Deku link (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Id Kah mosque article had some sourcing issues, which I have rectified by including independent reporting. Twitter was not reliable there, since a tweet is essentially an WP:SPS. Also, per WP:RSP, [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately, so use of Xinhua is ruled out. I think we can move some of the updated text over. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can use in-line attribution for Xinhua in this case, if you'd like. It's a wire service, and is very often the most reliable source for information about events in China. This article already makes extensive use of Radio Free Asia, which is questionable when it comes to geopolitically-charged issues (for example, RFA has repeatedly pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting numbers orders of magnitude higher than scientific studies find). Use of Xinhua with in-line attribution is probably less problematic in this context. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply perform a google search for Id Kah mosque right now, you will find that it is a "must see tourist attraction". Isn't it kind of misleading to put this under "have been the target of systematic destruction." It does not appear that the sources that speak about Id Kah mosque has been the mosque itself to witness any destruction. Also, as a side note: UN definition clearly states that "Cultural destruction does not suffice" as genocide. And the article is not clear about what exactly is being destroyed.198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent, reliable sources that point in the opposite direction of those currently used as sources in the article with regards to the mosque, I would suggest that you put them here so that they could be added to the article and provide further context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as currently presented is confusing. It claims that mosques are being destroyed, but the example given (Id Kah) isn't actually destroyed. Either a) remove the Id Kah from the article or b) explain why is that mosque and example of genocide.198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading your block comment again now, and I'm wondering if you have specific issues with specific content that is currently in the article. Are there sources that you think are not reliable that are currently being used to back up the text of the article as-is? The comment is coming across as if we should take a WP:OR approach here. Also, where in the article are we specifically appealing to imagination rather than to sourced information? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the issue I am raising is that the claims being presented here (assuming if true), does not help a reader understand why this is genocide. like the education example, its not clear why this is genocide. The United States provide education primarily in English but that is not normally considered genocide against Hispanics. Are children forbidden from speaking their own language or is it the use of Mandarin heavily promoted? FYI - majority of Han Chinese, including President Xi Jin Ping himself, does not speak Mandarin at home either, but when they go to school, they learn standard Mandarin. So its very hard to understand what exactly is the genocide here?198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article does a very bad job at explaining what the alleged genocide is. Part of the problem is that the article was written as a compilation of various alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and the "Uyghur genocide" label was slapped on later. The article should make it clear that "genocide" is an allegation made by the US government and a few other parties, and that it's highly contested. Material that's unrelated to the accusation of genocide should also be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant POV issues in "Chinese propaganda campaign" section

Lots of large assumptions made that deviate from sources, biased tone, and undue weight given to US sources or sources from the alleged supressed journalists themselves regarding the propaganda campaign around the subject. Deku link (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section seems to be generally well-sourced, with the vast majority of the sources appearing to be newspapers of record, reliable public broadcasters, and/or sources listed at WP:RSP as WP:GREL. Is there specific content that you have an issue with the sourcing on? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
but how does Chinese propaganda have to do with genocide? for example, Nazi propaganda that portray Jews as evil does relate, because it justifies or promote the use of violence against any and all Jews with the intent to eliminate their existence. so how does the propaganda we speak of here has anything to do with the alleged crimes of mass murdering Uighurs? it can go into a section called government response. but it is not part of their policy of extermination. the main article is incredibly thin when it comes to speaking of the actual crime itself. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Not all Nazi propaganda about the Holocaust was propaganda that was attacking the Jews for some chocked-up reason or another. If you're familiar with the Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross saga, as well as the related propaganda film, there was also Nazi Propaganda that was specifically designed to deny that the Nazi regime was committing human rights abuses ongoing against the Jews. The Holocaust is also an extremely large topic with lots of WP:CFORKed articles (including those describing the denial propaganda campaign itself). I agree that the ongoing and well-documented propaganda campaign might be better placed in its own section (it's not a government policy so much as an abject denial-focused PR campaign), so I'll move it to its own section promptly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure what Nazis did to deny the holocaust, but i am confident the Nazis did a ton of propaganda to promote the extermination of Jews. "Early in his membership in the Nazi Party, Hitler presented the Jews as behind all of Germany's moral and economic problems, as featuring in both Bolshevism and international capitalism.[1] He blamed "money-grubbing Jews" for all of Weimar Germany's economic problems.[2] He also drew upon the antisemitic elements of the stab-in-the-back legend to explain the defeat in World War I and to justify their views as self-defense.[3] In one speech, when Hitler asked who was behind Germany's failed war efforts, the audience erupted with "The Jews". Its not clear to me how the Chinese propaganda cited in the article promotes extermination of Uighurs. The only thing that is clear from the article is that Chinese propaganda claimed that extremists are responsible for the acts of terrorism that took place in the past decade. and their actions are in response to those acts. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So... you agree that part of the Nazi propaganda was to deny the Holocaust? I don't see why the publication of pro-denial propaganda is mutually exclusive with the publication of other sorts of propaganda. And, on another note, there's also a subsection currently devoted to the counterterrorism justification that China has tried to put forward; China has attempted to justify the actions they acknowledge by arguing it is used to combat what the government calls the "Three Evils of [religious] extremism, separatism and terrorism" by, as Al Jazeera puts, taking aim at the cultural and religious beliefs of the mostly Muslim ethnic minority, implementing widespread surveillance and – from about 2017 – opening a network of camps.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi propaganda covers a wide array of issues. But the key issue here is the propaganda that promotes violence and hate against Jews, not the denial. Simply put, how was Hitler able to get his men to kill the Jews? What did he say to them? The propaganda was alot more than "just do it". What exactly was the Chinese propaganda that said "this is why we need to kill Uighurs"? And who is calling this a propaganda? This is never truly explained in the (original) article. Did the PRC lied about terrorist attacks in Xinjiang? Is that a propaganda? Did they overstate the deaths? Did they lie about who the perpetrator is? What is exactly is the propaganda? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box Information Accuracy?

Victims

Currently, the box says "est. >1 million detained". Is this the current number under detention or cumulative total? And what happened to the previously detained? Have they been exterminated? Since we are calling it genocide, is it safe to presume they have been all killed? If not, can we clarify that in the info box? Because its very much open to speculation as opposed to being informative. And where exactly is the source for this? (see info box on Holocaust wiki page)


Deaths

How come there is no information on death toll? there are about 12.8M Uighurs in China. How many have been exterminated? 1 million? The words "mass death" appeared a few times in the main article. Surely, we must have a head count or an estimate of death toll right? If you look at other currently occurring genocides covered by Wikipedia, like Bosnia, Rohingya and Yazidis, we always provide death toll. Why do we have no deaths here? Uighurs (12.8M) by far outnumber the population of Bosniacs (3M), Rohingya (1.5M) and Yazidis (1.5M) combined. surely, the death toll must be in the millions.


Refugees

Why are we not disclosing the number of refugees? The current Rohingya genocide only killed 25k ppl and the remaining 700,000+ fled the country. Why did other countries not report their Uighur refugees? Surely, there must be millions of them by now. Are they collaborating with China to kill the Uighurs? If so, we should disclose their collaborators too. Or why isn't the 12.8M Uighurs fleeing? Are they all dead?


Target

Do we have reliable information that Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, and other Turkic Muslims are systematically targeted? The article claims that these other groups are also targeted because they are all Muslims? So should the article be "Genocide of Muslims in China"? Or is it a particular sector of Islam?


Attack Type - Killing and Infanticide

Is there RS for these? Its not explained in the article itself. How are they killed? Gassed? Gunned down? Hanged? Same with infanticide. Article did not explain. It merely asserts bad stuff happened without saying what is the bad stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for infanticide is related to forced abortions under the one child policy (which it should be noted is done to the Han Chinese population and is against Chinese law as well, which hardly makes it genocidal in implenetation and if occuring is the result of overreaching social workers) [1] [2]. The claim of infantacide is a POV exaggeration of an unfortunate policy that happens across the entire Chinese collectivist culture regardless of race or religion. Deku link (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a person casually reading the article would not be able to come to the understanding you just described. this is a genocide article, so it is automatically implied by the tone that PRC must be killing all the new borns so that Uighurs become extinct. its not a genocide unless their very existence as a group is in jeopardy. as one of the commenters asserted above - this is not just a cultural genocide, it is a "full blown genocide". so we need to describe how Uighurs are being eliminated from existence. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as much as the convention on genocide is brought up, many editors here are ignoring that the largest thing that must be proved is "intent." There are many claims made in the article that cited sources only say are accusations, the sources do not confirm them themselves. There's POV issues all over this article, however, and this has been discussed ad naseaum in some cases. Deku link (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The claim for infanticide is not a recasting of the allegations regarding forced abortions under the one-child policy (that would certainly be a POV issue). Rather, the sources for reported infanticide that I had provided above seem to be pretty plainly describing allegations of killing newborn children against the will of parents, which is a notable difference from killings of (more often than not female) children that occurred under the one-child policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Free Asia is a blatant propaganda outlet directly funded by the state department (its article even says so in a heavily sourced intro, catholic news agency is not a reliable source, the fox news source is not making any new claims and defaulting to other sources, and the New Indian Express uses Asian News International as a content feed, which has been found to fabricate information and is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deku link (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before on this talk page, and I'll state again here, there is currently community consensus that Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source and that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. While we certainly should attribute it, it ain't a "blatant propaganda outlet".
Secondly, Catholic News Agency is a reliable source with a good reputation for fact-checking and accurate reporting; I cannot find evidence that it is sloppy with facts and it certainly doesn't pull punches when it runs stories that make the Catholic Church and affiliated entities look bad (1 2 3 4 5); it appears to be reasonably independent from censorship concerns. It's certainly Catholic, but I don't think that we hold a religious affiliation to disqualify reliability (as both Deseret News and Christian Science Monitor are WP:GREL at WP:RSP).
Third, I think it's gotten a bit more NGO recognition beyond the five sources I provided above. I think it's noteworthy enough to include, provided specific details are properly attributed.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You left out an important part of the WP:RSP entry about Radio Free Asia: In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. You quoted the sentences immediately preceding and following this cautionary statement, but left out this statement.
One of the reasons why this cautionary statement was included was because in the discussion about RFA at WP:RSN, it was shown that RFA has engaged in disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan over the past year. Compare RFA's wild speculation about 40,000+ ([80]) or even 150,000 deaths ([81]) in Wuhan / Hubei province with the scientific estimate of fewer than 5,000 excess pneumonia deaths ([82]). RFA has repeatedly pushed poorly sourced conspiracy theories about the CoVID-19 death toll in China - theories which have turned out to be false. That's one of the reasons why it is only to be used with caution in geopolitically charged areas.
Just as a comparison, the CoVID-19 death toll was far more accurately reported by Xinhua ([83]). The number reported by Xinhua is fairly close to what scientific estimates ended up finding (only about 15% off). RFA's speculations, by contrast, ranged from about 10 to 30 times the scientific figure. RFA's claims in such a geopolitically charged issue as US government allegations of genocide by China have to be attributed, and we should be careful not to give them too much overall weight in the article. We should consider removing any controversial claim that relies heavily on RFA, unless there is some very good argument for keeping it in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it was shown that RFA has engaged in disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan over the past year” Really? Do you have a WP:RS which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment links to RFA articles that engage in completely wild speculation about the death toll in Wuhan and Hubei province, placing it at 40,000 or even 150,000. Those are insane estimates, which are 10 to 30 times the scientific estimate. RFA sourced these crazy figures from social media speculation and random non-experts that it claims to have interviewed, such as "an [sic] Wuhan resident surnamed Zhang" (no qualification given). A number of good scientific studies about the extent of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Wuhan and the death toll have now been published in scientific journals, yet RFA keeps on publishing wild, unsupported speculation. If that's not disinformation, I don't know what is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: You brought this up in the very same RfC that achieved a ommunity consensus that Radio Free Asia is generally reliable. As was stated in that discussion, the urns story has also been discussed by multiple generally reliable outlets. In addition to the Bloomberg News and Time Magazine sources discussed in the RfC, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. Rather than WP:ORing your way into declaring the urns story to be disinformation based upon your own personal extrapolations, I think that the vast majority of reliable sources treat the urns story as credible. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC result specifically called the reliability of RFA into question in "geopolitically charged" topic areas, suggesting in-line attribution of its claims. This was partly based on RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I discussed in the RfC. As for the sources you list above, the first Washington Post article is really terrible, as it engages is some of the same wild, poorly grounded speculation that has since been debunked by scientific studies (which have found fewer than 5000 excess pneumonia deaths in Wuhan, and a matching low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of only a few percent). The second Washington Post article doesn't appear to say anything about the death toll in Wuhan or China. The FT article is not nearly as bad, as it does not list the wild numbers that RFA came up with - it just notes that there has been social media speculation. This is an area in which WP:SYSTEMICBIAS may come into play. However, these articles are largely sparked by the original claims by RFA, and RFA has since published even crazier numbers - recently suggesting 150,000 deaths in Hubei province, as I noted above. In these geopolitically charged areas, we should be very cautious with RFA, attributing its claims in-line and avoiding placing too much weight on them. Otherwise, we risk putting dubious, poorly grounded claims - such as those it has pushed about the CoVID-19 death toll in China - into Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is disinformation is not relevant to this discussion. Either provide a WP:RS which supports these assertions or strike them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not concerned that RFA has pushed death tolls that are 10 to 30 times larger than the scientifically established figure? I'm not arguing for putting anything in an article in Wikivoice. I'm saying that we should be cautious about making controversial statements about China in Wikivoice, based on a source that we know has pushed disinformation about CoVID-19 in China over the past year. Not treating such a source with caution would be extremely reckless. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I’m concerned or not is irrelevant. Either provide a WP:RS which supports these assertions or strike them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about the reliability of sources and specifically misinformation pushed by those sources don’t require direct citation to reliable sources on a talk page. Outside of articles contributors are allowed to put two and two together to figure out ways in which a source could be unreliable or biased. If a medium article claimed that the moon has a secret Rabbit Colony at its core, you wouldn’t need to cite a reliable source to point out how that’s inaccurate. Deku link (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t call it misinformation or disinformation unless a WP:RS does. An editor can’t raise concerns about reliability unsupported by WP:RS, it always has to be supported. Also just FYI we can’t use Medium for anything beyond limited about self, its generally unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you absolutely CAN call it misinformation in talk pages and discussions of the reliability of sources without citing WP:RS. WP:RS applies to information included in articles and not discussions about the weight applied to sources and a level of scrutiny given to them. If we had to cite WP:RS for every single claim rather than point out the obvious (ie RFA blatantly inflating COVID death rates), we’d be gridlocked from calling a spade a spade on talk pages. There is a consistent behavior to biblethump on WP:RS where it’s not needed. Deku link (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is relevant, because we're deciding how much weight to give to this source and how to present its claims. You're misusing WP:RS. I've provided actual scientific studies of mortality and seroprevalence in Wuhan, which show that fewer than 5000 people died in the city of CoVID-19. RFA recently speculated that 30 times that number - 150,000 people - may have died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. WP:RS does not say that editors cannot compare different sources on a talk page and realize that one of them is making wild claims that are contradicted by scientific studies. I don't need to show a reliable source that says that 150,000 is way more than 5,000 before saying on the talk page that these two numbers are completely inconsistent. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to a few more portions the top-level comment here, there are sources throughout the article that describe the oppression as being targeted at "Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims" quite a bit. Some sources enumerate these to include Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs as well. If you're arguing that there must surely be millions of Uyghur refugees by now, I don't think that takes into account how hard it is to get out of China and how expansive the Chinese surveillance state is, though in any case it's certainly WP:OR for us to speculate on that in the text of the article without reliable sourcing. (The talk page here isn't a forum, so I don't feel the need to expand upon that much more.) Additionally, the sources listed Xinjiang internment camps page might provide us more guidance if we would like to update the number detained (the page has a few estimates separately listed, which is generally good practice when there are multiple estimates floating at the same time). Regarding deaths and abuses writ large, one source to read would be a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Genocide Research describes what is going on as comprising political re-education involving coercive Sinicization, deaths in the camps through malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, withheld medical care, and violence (beatings); rape of male and female prisoners; and, since the end of 2018, transfers of the most recalcitrant prisoners – usually young, religious males – to high-security prisons in Xinjiang or inner China. Other camp "graduates" have been sent into securitized forced labour. Those who remain outside the camps have been terrified into religious and cultural self-censorship through the threat of internment (emphasis added). No matter how someone wants to spin it, beating people to death is indeed a way of killing them. The source, however, does not provide an estimate for the size/scope of killings writ large, so we would require another source as an estimator. I believe the lack of its inclusion there is because there really isn't a consensus estimator out there, as far as I can tell. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand a good estimate of death toll is hard to come by, but a genocide is more than just killing a few random ppl or a few prisoners getting beaten to death or raped in camp (ie. Abu Ghraib). The words mass death did appear in the article itself. But no details or explanation is provided. Mass killing, if deliberately targeted, is the definition of genocide, but the article does not clearly claim that China is intentionally targeting Uighurs for mass killing. Thus, either a) we remove any claims or rumors of mass killing or b) we clearly state the accusation of mass killing (or mass death) and provide extensive detail from the source. Mass killing is an extremely serious accusation, we should not just leave it as "There have been multiple reports that mass deaths have occurred inside the camps." as it currently is stated in the article. Mass deaths need to be speficially highlighted to give its due weight on the issue. Most casual reader will attribute mass death or mass killing as the very definition of genocide. Currently, this leaves the issue incredibly misleading. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass killing, if deliberately targeted, is the definition of genocide” no it isn’t, as our sources clearly explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A deliberate, organized attempt to physically destroy an ethnic, religious or national group is, however, what is meant by "genocide". The IP is correct that random killings or abuse do not constitute genocide. And IP is correct that mass killing is almost always what is meant by "genocide". The underlying issue here is that this article was originally written about alleged human rights abuses generally, but was later renamed "Uyghur genocide". As most of the material in the article is unrelated - or at best tangentially related - to the accusation of "genocide", readers are likely to be confused. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think thats true... The alleged human rights abuses generally are covered at Human Rights in China, Xinjiang, Xinjiang conflict, Xinjiang internment camps, etc. This page is for a specific set of abuses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back through the early history of the article, I see that it was originally about "ethnocide", which was defined as cultural destruction (i.e., not genocide). The article has since been loaded up with all sorts of accusations, both related to the original focus of the article (on allegations of cultural destruction and Sinicization) and related to the new focus of the article (on allegations of genocide), as well as accusations unrelated to either ethnocide or genocide. The article is a mess. Even the first sentence is extremely confusing: 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. So is the "Uyghur genocide" a genocide, or is it just more generally a "series of human rights abuses"? You've been arguing that the first sentence is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide. So the "Uyghur genocide" is not a genocide? Or it's an allegation that there's a genocide? What is this article about? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles evolve as the issues they cover do, thats just natural. Whether or not its a genocide Uyghur genocide is the common name, this article is about the 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 and that remains true regardless of what the title is. If there wasn’t a scholarly consensus to call it a genocide (or its subcategory ethnic genocide) then we wouldn't do so. If you have sources which say the scholarly consensus is to call it something else I imagine you would have shared them during your crusade to get the name changed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scholarly consensus to call it a "genocide". The allegation of "genocide" is extremely controversial and contested in this case. In the move discussion, you'll recall, it was repeatedly demonstrated that reliable sources refer to "genocide" as an unproven allegation made by specific parties (e.g., the US government, an obscure DC think tank). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been demonstrated multiple times on this page thus far, multiple reliable sources (including those listed as WP:RSP perennially reliable) have described the situation as a genocide without qualification. A short (non-exhaustive) list of some of these sources include:

  • News.com.au, which reports that The Chinese Embassy in Canberra has aired a bizarre nine-minute propaganda film riddled with misinformation in an attempt to downplay the acts of genocide being committed against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang.
  • Australia's ABC News refers to a discussion on human rights abuses in Xinjiang as discussion on the issue of Uyghur genocide in China.
  • Axios (RSP Entry) has affitmatively referred to the abuses as cultural and demographic genocide or simply demographic genocide(1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9, etc.), and has assigned responsibility to the Chinese government in its straight news reporting. More recently, Axios has begun to refer to the situation simply as China's Uyghur genocide.
  • The New Yorker (RSP Entry) notes in an investigative reporting piece that "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."
  • Vox (RSP entry) also goes into this in-depth with a well-written data journalism piece that affirms conclusions regarding the ongoing genocide.

With regards to China's widespread and blanket denials and tactics to defend itself, additional reliable sources seem to treat them as utter rubbish that includes disinformation A short (non-exhaustive) list includes:

  • Global News reports that China‘s ambassador to Canada says reports of genocide and forced labour of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province are the "lie of the century," despite international bodies like the United Nations deeming the reports of such activities "numerous and credible."
  • The Globe and Mail reports that China has repeatedly described Adrian Zenz's findings as "lies" even in cases where it has confirmed that his findings are truthful.
  • National Public Radio has reported that The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union have all leveled sanctions on China due to their treatment of Uyghurs, which includes detention camps, forced labor, sterilizations and abortions, which a 2020 State Department report has called genocide. China denies the allegations, despite personal testimonies, extensive reporting and, indeed, satellite footage of Uyghur detention camps in China.
  • The New York Times (RSP entry) reports that Chinese officials and state media outlets have pushed the government’s narrative about its policies in Xinjiang in part by spreading alternative narratives — including disinformation — on American social networks like Twitter and Facebook

I don't think that there is much more to say here; multiple reliable sources report about the genocide not only as an "allegation" or "accusation", but as a genocide. Framing it as mere accusations is not appropriate for this article. And, given reporting on China's denials, it's likely that mentioning the denials prominently in the lead without comment on the veracity thereof would constitute undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/world/asia/china-suspends-family-planning-workers-after-forced-abortion.html
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/world/asia/pressure-to-repeal-chinas-one-child-law-is-growing.html

Suggestion: Please actually explain what give rise to Uighur genocide

I have complained above that the article does not explain the genocide. Therefore I suggest we dedicate a section why proponents are calling this a genocide, based on the words of those proponents.

Currently, I am only aware of the US State Department and Dutch Parliament calling it a "genocide", as opposed to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide", AND gave their reasons for doing so. Both the US State Dep and Dutch Parliament's decisions are readily quote by MSM. The Canadian parliament also made a motion, but it is not well reported on what is the action(s) that gave rise to genocide.

US State Department

The following are asserted by the US State Department, Mike Pompeo, and is quoted by the media. https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-of-state-on-atrocities-in-xinjiang/index.html

1. Arbitrary detainment, 1M Uighurs

2. Forced sterilization, torture, forced labor, restriction on religion, expression and movement

3. PRC is committing the same crime as the Nazis.

4. "we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state" and "eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic and religious minority group"

The claims 1 and 2 are often cited by MSM. The claims 3 and 4 does not appear to be frequently reported, except in opinion pieces.

Dutch Parliament

They had determined that: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-china-uighurs-idUSKBN2AP2CI

1. “A genocide on the Uighur minority is occurring in China,” the Dutch motion said

2. “measures intended to prevent births”

3. “having punishment camps”

It is not reported whether the Dutch determine these actions are aimed at the elimination of Uighurs. It should be noted here that restrictions on religion, expression and movement is absent from the Dutch news article, as it is not related to the determination of genocide.

Therefore, I believe the article should use the above claims as basis. And evidence that supports the above claims can be categorized based on the above issues. This also means other issues are not relevant and should not be part of the article that explains what the alleged genocide actually is. This means - education is not related. Neither is cemetery, marriage, children names, clothing, outside China issues, surveillance, DNA, GPS. Also... oddly enough, despite these entities accusing genocide - they did not claim there are mass deaths, mass killing or infanticide. The article that did claims mass death (ie Radio Free Asia), did not claim the deaths are related to or give rise to genocide. The cause of death is not known. Given the very ppl who claimed genocide happened did not claim mass death or mass killing happened, it would not be appropriate to associate this article with mass death or mass killing. To make such association constitutes Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: There is already a section that describes the classification of the ongoing human rights abuses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section provides detailed explanation on the classification of the atrocities that have been occurring from multiple sources and also describes some of the changes that have occurred over time regarding the classification. And, as has been said many times on this page, a genocide doesn't have to only include mass killings/mass deaths; as The New Yorker reports, "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."
I think that we should keep items in this article that are aimed at targeting those essential foundations of the life of national groups, then certainly the surveillance apparatus, destruction of Uyghur culture and language wholesale, the desecration of Uyghur graves, and China's international propaganda and monitoring of Uyghurs abroad seems relevant. Considering that many reliable sources (that are cited in the article as of now, mind you) are framing these all within the same set of actions by China tells you that connecting the two isn't WP:OR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i think you missed my pt. per the current article, only US State Dept, Canada and Dutch Parliament is calling it genocide (as opposed to cultral or ethnocide). All of the other sources are calling it something else but did not actually call it genocide. So to include that information here is OR. Like the cemetery example, there is no RS that calls such action amount to genocide. such attribution is made only by some wikipedians.198.48.246.37 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI cultural genocide is a type of genocide. The guys saying cultural genocide are saying genocide but in a limited sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raffi Khachadourian's opinion, expressed in his essay in the magazine section of The New Yorker, could possibly be given with attribution, but it is just an opinion. Genocide, as the UN defines it, requires a "mental element", an intent to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, in addition to a "physical element", one of a few specifically defined actions carried out in order to bring about the physical destruction of the group. Finally, genocide requires an organized plan on the part of the government, and it must target people specifically because of their membership in one of the designated groups. Under the legal definition, targeting of political groups is not genocide, and cultural destruction is not genocide. In his magazine essay, Khachadourian says that he's describing a "broad understanding" that goes beyond the legal definition of "genocide". Khachadourian is free to argue for that broader understanding, and to argue that it applies to Xinjiang, but we can't put those views in Wikivoice. It should be noted that the large majority of countries that have voiced any opinion on the "genocide" allegations against China have rejected them. The allegations that the US government is making are extremely controversial, and this article has to reflect that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are not WP:RS... And we have never relied on them as you suggest. The US government had not even made those allegations when this page was renamed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also a lengthy feature piece in a WP:RS by one of the best investigative journalists around (Raffi Khatchadourian) can not be dismissed as an opinion piece or essay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously when experts qualified in the law argue over the definition of genocide and how it applies to the events in Xinjiang, we cannot resolve it by consulting a magazine article by an investigative journalist, no matter how qualified. Even if the opinion were provided by someone qualified, it would still be an opinion, unless and until there was consensus among experts. TFD (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that we resolve this non-Wikipedia issue by consulting a magazine article by an investigative journalist, thats never been within our purview. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411 said we could not use Khachadourian's determination of genocide as a fact but should treat it as an opinion. You countered that Khachadourian's article cannot be dismissed as opinion. So what exactly is your objection? Do you agree his determination of genocide should be treated as a fact or as an opinion? TFD (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411 said we could not use Khachadourian as a source for the statement that "a genocide doesn't have to only include mass killings/mass deaths” which I think is off. Nobody is proposing that we use Khachadourian's determination of genocide as a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up any confusion, I'm saying that we cannot treat Khachadourian's opinion on what is a genocide as fact, though his opinion could possibly be given with attribution (as I said in my earlier comment). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying about Khachadourian’s assertions about what a genocide is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it doesnt matter what Khachadourian thinks. Shes not a subject expert and no major outlet quotes her work to give it weight. Her position is also not the position of majority views on the subject. We should avoid UNDUE.198.48.246.37 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Khatchadourian uses male pronouns. That feature piece was published in The New Yorker, which is a major outlet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Khatchadourian's opinion even matter on this subject? Does the UN adopt his definition or designation of current event as genocide? Does US State Dept, Canada or Dutch Parliament relies on his essay or his definition when determining what is a genocide? Conversely, does the exclusion of Khatchadourian's work cause this wiki to omit a significant POV adopted by the majority or a significant minority? His work carries no weight. It does not belong here. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A feature piece in The New Yorker carries an immense amount of weight. I get that you’re new here and don’t understand our policies but please review WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DUE WEIGHT: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. // Can you tell me who consider K's opinion as "commonly accepted reference", or please provide prominent adherents of K's views. If you can not provide these citations then it has no place in Wikipedia.198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Horse Eye's Back is justified here; it ain't just The New Yorker (RSP entry) saying this. In addition to the Newlines Report (which has been widely cited as independent research by reliable sources), there are a number of reliable news outlets who treat the human rights abuses similarly. Axios (RSP entry) has repeatedly referred to the abuses as a "cultural and demographic genocide" (1 2 3) or plainly as a genocide (1). The Toronto Sun has referred to the situation as consisting of credible claims of genocide in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Australia's ABC simply refers to the ongoing situation as the Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made by the "Newlines Institute" have been reported as allegations - not as facts - by several news outlets. The vast majority of reliable sources similarly treat "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and that's how Wikipedia has to treat it. Scraping the internet and coming up with a small number of apparently unqualified references to "genocide" does not mean that we can put this claim in Wikivoice. It's an exercise in cherry-picking. Even some of the sources you've cherry-picked clearly treat "genocide" as an unproven allegation. Your Toronto Sun article refers to Uyghur genocide claims. Wikipedia can't put highly controversial allegations into Wikivoice, especially allegations as serious as "genocide". -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Forced Sterilization and Forced Birth Control

The article is not clear on the issue and should be clarified.

1. Forced birth control is not the same as forced sterilization. Forced birth control seem to have more details - usually done via IUD, as stated in the source. Not clear how forced sterilization is implemented. Please add details on how this is performed. Also, it is not clear whether the IUD cause sterilization or whether IUD is reversible form of birth control.

2. Prevent all birth or prevent excess birth? The source claims that "After Gulnar Omirzakh, a Chinese-born Kazakh, had her third child, the government ordered her to have an IUD implanted." and "They gave Omirzakh, the penniless wife of a detained vegetable trader, three days to pay a $2,685 fine for having more than two children." Currently, the article is misleading, as it suggests the birth rate must be rapidly approaching 0, since no Uighur woman is capable of giving birth. The word genocide implies that they must be targeted for extinction. But the article suggests that she is permitted to have 2 kids without penalties. Can anyone provide RS that shows Uighurs women are systematically sterilized BEFORE she has given birth to any children? if not, can we clarify in the article that IUD's or sterilizations only apply on the 3rd child, which is what the actual source is suggesting.

It should also be mentioned here that China currently has a Two-Child Policy. Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy#China_(mainland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not supposed to claim that China is carrying out a genocide. It is supposed to document the allegations made by the US government and various other parties of genocide. When you read the article, does it come across as saying that there is a "Uyghur genocide" going on? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For context, we should also mention how China applies population control measures to the entire population. During the one-child policy, Uyghurs and some other minorities were allowed two children, three if they lived in the country, while ethnic Chinese families were allowed one one child. This is considered genocide because quotas for Uyghurs did not increase and are now the same as the rest of China. TFD (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem like the framing that reliable sources use in their reports. The Associated Press is pretty clear in their reporting on this, writing that The Chinese government is taking 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. ... while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law. CNN also frames this in the context of sterilizing minorities, reporting that CNN's reporting found that some Uyghur women were being forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang. ABC News reports that camps are used as a form of threat and punishment, with officials detaining women and families who fail to comply with pregnancy checks or forced intrauterine contraceptive devices -- more commonly known as IUDs -- sterilizations, and even abortions. The result is a huge drop in birth rates among China's Muslim population, even as it moves Han Chinese, the country's main ethnic group, into the mineral-rich region. Radio Free Asia reports that The detention camps, forced sterilization of women and other policies have prompted the U.S. government and several Western parliaments to designate the abuses as part of a state-backed genocide. Catholic News Agency reports that At least 1 million Uyghurs are believed to be interned in concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang Province. Human rights groups and international watchdogs have documented a "slow genocide" against the Uyghurs, including forced sterilizations and abortions, as well as forced organ harvesting, political indoctrination, and torture. I could go on, though I generally think I've made the point about how this is generally being framed by reliable sources as being targeted specifically at Uyghurs/minorities. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well i think this post from Mikehawk settles it. everyone here knows that China has Two Child policy. But MSM choose not to report it. so we will not. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: The comment This is considered genocide because quotas for Uyghurs did not increase and are now the same as the rest of China doesn't follow from the reporting. The AP's reporting that "while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show" goes against the narrative that this is about Han Chinese people and Uyghurs being treated equally poorly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the argument for genocide is that Uyghurs are not allowed to have more children than ethnic Chinese. If you think that argument makes no sense, argue with the Sinophobes who are promoting the genocide designation. In fact their argument makes some sense, since restricting women to two children will result in population decline, since not all women will have two children and not all of their children will themselves have two children. TFD (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TFD - i think the pt here is that if MSM (the West) choose to be sinophobes, then wikipedia is obligated to promote sinophobia, because that is the majority view. i've checked the sources as best i can, including Zenz, and could not confirm evidence of sterilization or IUD usage that amounts to "intent to destroy" as opposed to the regular two-child policy. and the only sources that fact checked Zenz is Greyzone and Xinhua, which are deprecated. and i don't see anyone acknowledging the issues that Greyzone raised about Zenz's work. i think Zenz's work is flawed, as those above explained, but this is not the view of MSM right now. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua is not deprecated. It's a reliable source, though for issues where the Chinese government has a particularly strong interest, its reporting should be attributed in-line. Including Xinhua's response to Adrian Zenz' claims, with an explanation that Xinhua is a Chinese government news agency, would be entirely appropriate. There have been several criticisms of Zenz' claims about Xinjiang, and in particular, about his claims on birth control and family planning policy. This article currently covers allegations by the US government, DC think tanks and US government media (Radio Free Asia) in great detail, but includes very little of the reactions from the other side. It would be entirely appropriate and consistent with WP:NPOV to include Chinese responses to the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua is not reliable for the purposes of covering this article's topic; the WP:RSP entry notes that [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and notes that some editors even favor outright deprecation due to its lack of editorial independence. The Chinese government clearly is a stakeholder in the Uyghur genocide and the research related to it, so the notion Xinhua is reliable would fly in the face of community consensus already established through an RfC. If you believe that the community consensus is incorrect, then I would suggest that you open an RfC to see if the community would change its consensus into one that would establish that Xinhua is reliable for its coverage on this topic. Unless that happens, Xinhua should not be used as a source of facts in this article owing to the consensus on its lack of reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources in the article already clarify it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Revise lede to define what the current genocide is, based on those who claim this is a "genocide"

I am of the view that Wikivoice should not inject its own opinion of what Uyghur genocide is. But rather, attribute the definition to the people who actually calls this a genocide.

Current, US, Canada and Dutch calls it genocide and the MSM, when reporting on the subject of designation of as Uyghur genocide (ie when quoting the US/CA/Dutch) describes genocide charge as:

1. "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" Source: BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

2. "China's policies and practices targeting Uyghurs in the region must be viewed in their totality, which amounts to an intent to destroy the Uyghurs as a group, in whole or in part," Source: CNN https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/asia/china-uyghurs-xinjiang-genocide-report-intl-hnk/index.html

3. China bears responsibility "for an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs" and has breached key elements of the 1948 Genocide Convention with its "intent to destroy" an entire ethnic group. Source: USA Today

In my view, the words "intent to destroy" need to be clearly stated in the article lede. Because these are the words chosen by those who made such accusations. Wikipedia should not remove such crucial element in the lede charge. Therefore, I suggest the lede be revised as "Uyghur genocide is the accusation of ongoing policies and practices by the Chinese government intended to destroy 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. These practices include the detention over one million Uyghurs, sterilize or force IUD in 80% of women of childbearing age, causing mass deaths in detainment camps, mass rape, forced labor and torture."

I am not saying the above accusations are true, but I am saying China is formally being accused of these acts and that these accusations are reported by RS'es (the 3 articles above). All other allegations of abuse are made by other people who have not actually accused China of genocide and should not be part of this article. (of if they did, MSM did not report on it as genocide and therefore is FRINGE) An example is cemetery destruction does not give rise to genocide and has no place in this article.

The accusation of 1M detainees is from US State Dept. The accusation of 80% sterilization, mass deaths and mass rape, is by US think tank Newlines. The accusation of forced labor and torture is carried by CNN in their "genocide" coverage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Canada and the Dutch don't call it genocide. Their parliaments approved non-binding resolutions. The Canadian government ministers abstained on the motion, while the Dutch government's ruling party voted against it. TFD (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of reliable sources that call this a genocide, as has been discussed above on the page. And, within the past 24 hours, even more reliable sources have joined the list of those who refer to what's going on as a "genocide" or refer to the events simply as the "Uyghur genocide"; The Toronto Star has reported that there are credible claims of genocide in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, while ABC News simply refers to the ongoing issue as the issue of Uyghur genocide in China. Taking these in combination with the sources listed in the very long move discussion that took place not even two weeks ago and the many discussions that have happened since, I don't think that the proposed lead shift improves the article, especially in light of MOS:ACCUSED. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where exactly are these RS that is calling it a genocide? they are merely attributing that someone else is calling it a genocide. also, China is only accused of genocide. There is no finding of fact. There is no consensus or even a clear majority that genocide has occurred. For example, BBC's report calls it "Who are the Uighurs and why is China being accused of genocide?". Clearly, in BBC's view, China is being accused of genocide rather than "why is China committing genocide". So the term "accused" properly describes what the MSM calls it right now. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying there are "credible claims" or quoting what someone says is not the same thing as stating something as a fact. There is a credible claim that the police officer accused of killing George Floyd committed murder, which is why he is on trial. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to make that call. While I have an opinion about what happened, I choose not to use my position as a Wikipedia editor to call him a murderer unless and until he is convicted. TFD (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's "determination." Predictably, he doesn't explain what he means by genocide, it's more of an argumentum ad hitlerum. TFD (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"EXCLUSIVE: State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China". This is a news report, not an opinion piece. And in the report, FP objectively calls it for what it is - insufficient evidence. They did not put these words in quotations, they calls it for what it is straight up. Therefore, the use of the term "accused" is consistent with MSM description when they are not using genocide in quotations. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is accurate as it is. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think short pithy responses to detailed critiques of the status of the article are beneficial to anyone, and ultimately they don’t contribute much to the conversation. Deku link (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Newlines reliable source?

Currently, the first and only non-government agency calling the situation a genocide, without qualifications, is Newlines. https://newlinesinstitute.org/about/#/our_team

Newlines report is cited by all MSM in the west, including CNN, BBC, Aljazeera, WaPo, etc, describing "clear and convincing evidence" of genocide. Additionally, Newline is currently the only non-gov't entity that asserts the mass killing, mass rape, etc are targeting Uighurs with intent to destroy the people in whole or in part. Other sources, like HRW, which reports abuses, does not use the term genocide, nor does it allege these actions arise to the intent to destroy Uighurs.

However, Newlines background is highly unusual. It is a think tank with approximately 100 individuals of which 22 are considered staff or fellows. Newlines is funded by Fairfax University which has enollment of about 150 students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_University_of_America

How does a school with 150 students fund a think tank of 22 staff on payroll? And they published their genocide report summary in 6 languages - but the report itself is only in English. The report itself, 55 page PDF, of which only 30 pages actually discuss the actions of PRC. Executive summary is 3 pages and the biographies of the authors are 5 pages. Because the actual report itself is only 30 pages, covering 32 subtopics of violations, they merely accept the allegations of wrong doing as fact and argue why these facts together give rise to meeting the definition of genocide and why the PRC should be held responsible. Also within the 30 pages of discussion are the citations. So the actual space remaining for analysis is incredibly thin, given the need to prove 32 pts of abuse within that space. There is no actual questioning of the veracity of the alleged crimes.

I question whether Newlines should be used as source and whether MSM that refer to Newlines should be cited in this article. Currently, MSM appears to be giving a lot of due weight to Newlines. They all cite Newline without questioning.198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is according to large amount of reliable sources that use it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the particular Newlines report in contention is reliable, as established by its widespread use by other reliable sources for facts. The notable individuals who have signed on also lend credence to it based upon their being experts on the topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you enlighten me then, where is this "clear and convincing evidence" which all MSM quoted Newlines claims to exist? All of the MSM reported that it exists. Now where is it? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It came up before. Newslines is a division of Fairfax University of America, which is a tiny (153 students) for-profit university with questionable academic standards. The fact that it is oft quoted makes their claims noteworthy but not definitive. TFD (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@198.48.246.37: Are you asking what sources refer to Newlines as a source for facts, or are you asking if there is evidence in the Newlines report? I'm a bit confused as to the question. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i am asking whether Newlines work and articles that cite Newlines should be used in this article. as stated below, I am not able to follow how Zenz came up with 80% figure, which is cited in Zens published work, which is then cited by Newlines, which is then cited by Aljazeera. there is a whole ton of citations used here that are based on citations. But the ultimate evidence or what gave rise to the claim is rather ambiguous. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that have reported on the Newlines report are usable in the article. Additional citations of the report up the chain are generally considered evidence of the reliability of report itself, so I am a bit confused by your question here. We make the article based off of the coverage from RS in line with verifiability policies, not based on original research into the area, if that helps. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is wp:or personal opinion. We follow sources. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read down to the first paragraph of WP:OR: "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 to determine if sources are reliable and talk pages are the proper place to discuss them. TFD (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i am at a loss of what to conclude about this..... MSM (in the West) unanimously report "clear and convincing evidence exist". but MSM didn't actually cite the said evidence. The report itself blasts thru 32 topics of abuse in under 30 pages. what exactly is the evidence really? for example i think Aljazeera quoted Newlines, which in turn relied on Zenz's work to claim 80% sterilization or IUD rate. This is a very bold claim to make. But details in the report itself reads as this: "By 2019, XUAR planned to subject at least 80 percent of women of childbearing age in Southern XUAR to sterilizations or IUD placements.186". The 186 is citation to Zenz, which eventually goes to this page: https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Internment-Sterilizations-and-IUDs-REVISED-March-17-2021.pdf?x83747 // that page simply claims the 80% rate without explanation. but it does provide a link to the government budget: http://archive.is/hfGL6 . The document is a general healthcare budget for the year 2019, it includes everything and the total revenue and total expense is about 17 billion yuan for the entire province. the gov't stress how important it is to work hard and ensure the health and wellbeing of citizen. theres nothing incriminating about the gov't budget. The strategic objective of 2019 includes: raise healthcare awareness, to increase coverage to rural villages and areas of hardship, increase quality and accessibility of healthcare, and reform healthcare to create proper oversight. The budget is all about improving public health. not sure where is the deep dark secret that Zenz is trying to unveil. Its a public document, whats the secret here? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


It is per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's stretching the policy. Do Journal articles regularly use inline citation of Newlines articles? I doubt it. OTOH, quality newspapers are routinely sourced in journal articles without intext citation. For example, a journal article might say that Pompeo declared a genocide in Xinjiang and in the footnote it will say that the information is from the New York Times. Since many journal articles do this, we can assume that the NY Times is reliable. If they said, "According to the New York Times, it would create doubt. And I haven't seen Newslines cited about any other topic. In any case, the issue is not whether their facts are accurate, but the weight of their opinions. If they form a conclusion not reached by any similar organization, do we treat it as a finding of fact? I would suggest that even opinions of the venerable Brookings Institute are not treated as fact unless other institutions agree with them. TFD (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it has been listed among the references of an article in the Oxford-published Journal of Global Security Studies This is rather quick given how recently the Newlines report was released, though I do believe that the use of the source as a reference provides additional evidence for its quality. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says, "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." One citation doesn't do that. But bear in mind that Newslines is cited as a source for the existence of "allegations of “mass atrocities”2 including genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in China." The article doesn't use Newslines as a source that mass atrocities occurred even though it comes to that conclusion. Ironically, the article concludes that "naming and shaming" China is counterproductive, that it will lead to more human rights abuses. Maybe that should be in the article: that calling the human rights abuses a genocide is more about politics than any concern about the people affected.
Note there were 22 Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, all of whom were later released without charge. Where was your outcry then?
TFD (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many MSM "outlets" reported the Curveball bullshit, in the lead-up to Amerikkka's second kick at Iraq's can? The idea that more for-profit corporations selling the same story makes it more plausible is a flaming bag of dog filth. Just stop it. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C84:C06:A3C1:2409 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same MSM outlets also reported the baby incubator story (First Gulf War), Wood chipper story (2nd Gulf war) and Viagra rape squad story (Libyan war). come to think of it, MSM has a very bad track record at falling for false rape accusations in particular. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I 100% agree and sympathize with you, it is important to note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a tool of social change. Wikipedia does not lead the forefront of confronting misinformation presented by governments and will always favor certain viewpoints as “reliable” over others as a western based website with a heavily American userbase. This has the unfortunate effect of putting significant amounts of weight on the words of western governments against those of the global south and will ultimately always lead to the safer defaulting towards whatever narrative American media has until enough years of retrospect allow us to face facts. I have no doubt that if the Iraq War had started while Wikipedia was a thing we’d have an article titled “WMDs in Iraq” and that the policies in place would heavily support such an article. With that being said, this article still has issues with attribution in wiki policy and has ultimately become a slapfight between two ideological groups based on a misunderstanding of policy and a number of (in my opinion) unfortunately unorganized and underdiscussed reliability consensus discussions that have led to blatant propaganda outlets like RFA being given enormous amounts of weight while Chinese state media is somehow not relevant for discussion of China’s response to accusations. Deku link (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we are going in circles here, rehashing a conversation we had multiple times, and even going into forum mode with these references to the Iraq War or other events. If the Newsline report is indeed inadequate or biased, some reliable sources will report this, and we should then include this reporting in the article. This is a much more productive conversation than trying to have Wikipedia "not follow" reliable sources, as understandably that won't happen. Morgengave (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that if something is unreliable that a reliable source will inherently report on it anytime soon. There are many situations where think tanks fly under the radar of reliable sources because they are giving information perceived as beneficial to the vast majority of reliable sources (or otherwise fly under the radar). Naturally there is little to be done as far as Wikipedia is concerned when this loophole occurs, although maybe this phenomenon leaves something to be gleaned on the limitations of policy. Deku link (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be the case that the Newlines report is flying under the radar, especially given the extensive media coverage thereof. If the report was inaccurate or unreliable, would reliable sources not have said so? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When non-academically sound thinktanks were peddling garbage to support the Iraq War, few reliable sources were commenting on the inaccuracy. Something founded in falsehood being granted undue weight and perceived reliability due to an abundance of citations is not a unique or new phenomenon. Deku link (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the Newlines report is false or not reliable (aside from comparisons to the Iraq war)? It looks to be written by experts in the relevant fields and it's certainly been widely cited (and not just in US media). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, the claim of 80% sterilization or IUD cited in the report could not be verified. the report links to Zenz, but his number could not be reproduced, verified, or checked. significant portion of Newlines report is also citing from RFA without questioning it. RFA claims also can not be verified or checked. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are contributors using reliable sources, we cannot be reliable sources ourselves. To nuance or dispute what reliable sources report, we need other reliable sources doing so. If your analysis is correct, either some sources have already reported on this, or will do so in the future. Once they do, we should include them in the article. Morgengave (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Newlines Institute's claims can (and should) be discussed in this article, but we should frame them as the vast majority of reliable sources do: as claims. We cannot put them in Wikivoice or otherwise state that they are true. At the same time, this article is seriously lacking in balance. Allegations by the US government and DC think tanks are given an enormous amount of weight, but there is very little explanation of Chinese responses to the allegations. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia with a global view, or at least, that's what it's supposed to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is not supposed to factcheck reliable sources, we are not supposed to publish claims as true unless mainstream media (MSM) say they are true. MSM did not say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they said that the U.S. government had made that claim. They then quoted "experts" who said the claims were true. As far as I remember there were no experts who refuted the claims, because there was no way of knowing that they had been fabricated. I should mention too that the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs were far better supported than in this case. It wasn't just two contributors to the Victims of Communism website, an obscure think tank and a U.S. Secretary of State speaking over the objections of his department. TFD (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re forgetting the dozens of witnesses whose testimonies WP:RS have been treating as trustworthy and for the most part verifiable. There were not dozens of independent witnesses to the alleged ongoing Iraqi MDD program. The existence of the camps can also be verified remotely, remember that way back when the Chinese government denied even the existence of the camps but survivor testimony plus satellite imagery put an end to their ability to issue blanket denials. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the time and aptitude, I could read through the dozens of statements and possibly come to a conclusion with some degree of accuracy. I assume you haven't done that. But fortunately we can follow policy and guidelines which say that we are not supposed to do that, but leave it to writers in reliable sources and we then report their conclusions. What bothers me about these claims is that the two main investigators work on the Victims of Communism website. Its statement of the number of deaths attributed to Communist states is widely seen by experts as wrong. That makes me wary of any claims they make about genocide in Communist China. TFD (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: "Rape, internment camps, mass sterilisation: How China is committing genocide of Uyghurs". [84] Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China&oldid=1018265429"