Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Birth Rate Decline vs Actual Birth Rates

There seems to be a significant focus on the percentage drop in Xinjiang birth rates, but less attention on the crude figures. The crude birth rate in Xinjiang (after the decline) is allegedly comparable to the national Chinese rate in 2018 (10.69 vs 10.94). Is there doubt on the veracity of these numbers?

2018: 10.94 births per 1,000 people in China. "The Xinjiang government said in its response that the birth rate in the region had dropped from 15.88 per 1,000 people in 2017 to 10.69 per 1,000 people in 2018. "

70.79.234.213 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No one questions that the crude birth rate today is comparable and it is implied in the article. TFD (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

We will need reliable refs that make the connection. It seems some refs are using Xinjiang and Uyghur births interchangeably, we will have to be careful not to do the same. Also some seem to be using Chinese official information. If it is Wiki policy to take that a face value we may need to change quite a bit of this page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Was it removed? Not sure which numbers were meant, but I don't see anything being even implied. CurryCity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Regardless of ones views of the morality of enforced contraception etc the data set out on the main page is selective and misleading. The same data source shows that the Uighar birthrate was previously several times higher than the Chinese average and has now simply been reduced to the Chinese average. This of itself cannot be considered genocide, at least not unless one believes that the whole Chinese nation who have been subject to exactly the same pressure to restrict family size have also been victims of genocide. The actual birth rate rather than just the reduction in the birth rate should be made explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.32.134 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The references may not be accurate. If China is genuinely involved in forced sterilization (or anything of the sort), they could easily send out false or incorrect data. Animalmaster (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Statistics like birth rates are irrelevant without context; This whole page needs to go.

Declining birthrates do NOT constitute a genocide (otherwise Japan would have genocided itself somehow). Statistics don't work this way. Declining birthrates can be explained by far less speculative means, e.g. people with increased earnings tend to have fewer children.

The only kind of valid evidence to constitute genocide are photographs or videos of muslims running from China towards the nearest international border, which we have ZERO evidence of. It is NOT the job of anyone to prove that there is no genocide, as that would put the onus of proof on someone to prove something's non-existence, which is ridiculous. A lot of people on this thread have good intentions but simply are out of their depth on this particular topic. This page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.192.120 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

First, Genocide denial is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Second, the idea that the Uyghur Genocide is fake, is WP:FRINGE. Why do you consider "muslims running from China towards the nearest international border" to be the be-all end-all of proof? RandomPerson184729 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent RfC on this page about the term "genocide", and the conclusion was that the claim of "genocide" cannot be made in Wikivoice. Accusing someone of "genocide denial" is a personal attack, and it actually conflicts with the conclusion that the RfC came to, which is that "genocide" is a highly controversial claim in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of genocide is controversial, yet consensus that "Uyghur Genocide" is an appropriate title was established twice. Being controversial doesn't mean it is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, claiming things such as genocides to be fake is not allowed, Pointing such out is nowhere in the ballpark of a personal attack. 65.36.70.48 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely, if you are denying the existence of a genocide, you are engaging in genocide denial? WP:ASPERSIONS applies here. Doanri (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A very literal and wholly semantic argument. 'Genocide denial' as a term is virtually exclusively used to describe instances of people denying known, historically proven instances of genocide, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred, or that substantial numbers of people were murdered at Srebrenica. The term doesn't apply to legitimate disagreement about, for example, whether an ongoing situation, about which no one yet has the full facts, constitutes genocide and if so, according to which definition. According to the most common definition of genocide - ethnic mass killing - there certainly has NOT been any Uyghur genocide and it is denying nothing to say that. Serious human rights abuses, which are practically undeniable, do not automatically equal genocide. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is article II from the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. "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."

Part D clearly states that preventing birth rates with the intention to eliminate and ethnic group is genocide. And if there's any one source that should be the outright definition of genocide, it's the very convention that made it an international crime. Granted, yes decreased birthrates cam be caused by other factors, like in Japan. But the Japanese people are not being put into concentration camps, and there is evidence of forced abortion and sterilization. The idea that birth rates are irrelevant is ridiculous when the UN's Genocide Convention itself says that it can be Genocide. OboTheHobo (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the UN definition and its provisions BUT, there has never been a prosecution, nor any notable instance of genocide, even disputed ones, which did NOT involve mass ethnic death, whether actual killing or denying the means of sustaining life. It's hardly surprising therefore if most people associate genocide with mass-killing. The least we should be doing IMO is make clear what definition is being used. This is like reading an article about rape in which no non-consensual sexual penetration of anyone is mentioned or has occurred, it's perplexing at least and defending the content by saying that some legal definition exists which is at odds with the everyday understanding of a term doesn't clarify a lot. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The way you say "some legal definition" makes it seem like this isn't *the* legal definition. That's the convention that criminalized genocide in the first place and was made in direct response to WWII. And just because no one has been punished for it doesn't mean it isn't genocide. I'd agree that making it a bit more clear is a good idea, however, but there are already parts of the article that specifically cite that part of the genocide convention. OboTheHobo (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to belittle the UN definition. Still, the fact that this clause has never been employed, either in any legal setting, nor in the 'court of public opinion', means that to all but a handful of readers who know the legal definition, as opposed to the everyday, historical usage of 'mass ethnic killing' - the reason for using the word is obscure at best. The only reason I know is because I have edited the main genocide article and have read some of the work of Lemkin, but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite to understanding the article. Many of the sources which I have read are more explicit and thus clearer than we are. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional Sources

This article released by the Associated Press does not seem to be included in the article and includes up to date information on the topic: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9 Wackword (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting, it seems like half travel blog, half AP news piece (coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel). Given its collection of observations it would be hard not to just cherry pick. I have been on official tours before so remain skeptical, but it is not our place to judge. While I would pause on rewriting the introduction just yet, if this does signify a change in tact the current structure of the page does not easily allow for expressing it. I would favor getting confirmation through typical news articles then a new section may be in order (see also [1]). We would not change our DPRK page because a journalist went there and saw dancing happy people. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, our article is currently based heavily on opinion pieces (such as the New Yorker piece that is cited in the lede) and US government sources (such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is Adrian Zenz' employer). There needs to be a greater level of clarity in the article about where the various allegations come from, and we need to avoid putting claims by partisan organizations (e.g., government think tanks like ASPI) in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:You appear to be mistaken. That New Yorker article [2] is a feature piece of investigative journalism not an opinion piece. Or are you referring to a different piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's an opinion essay in the "magazine" section, not the news section, and it's written in a highly personal style. It's fine for telling us the viewpoint of the writer, but it can't be used to make statements in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t labeled as opinion and The New Yorker publishes reporting in their magazine section. The writer is one of the finest investigative journalists currently alive, they don’t write opinion pieces (certainly not feature article length ones). Unless you have something other than your personal opinion which says its an opinion piece we’re going to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See the article "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified" by Columbian university professor Jeffrey D. Sachs: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/apfjc5yg352d554k2ar2wwwkk8ryw9

In my opinion the label "genocide" which was first used by the then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is highly controversial and should not in any case be used in Wikipedia, who has thereby degraded itself to a weapon for the US foreign politics. A better name of the article would be "The Xinjiang rebellion" or something like that. 80.220.94.163 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

wow, I could not disagree more with this IP. "The Xinjiang rebellion" would be an extremely POV pro-China title. Most available RSes rely to this as the Uyghur genocide, so we will as well. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We generally don’t base article titles off of random opinion pieces. The article title has been discussed to death. I don’t think that a single opinion piece, even if written by a professor, is anywhere near enough to tilt existing consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The current title is reflected by reliable sources. The characterisation of an ongoing "genocide" has been agreed by numerous entities including various parliaments around the world. Past move discussions have established a consensus that the page title is appropriate, and furthermore there is currently a one-year moratorium in effect on moving the page unless substantial new information arises. Citobun (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that many/most of the sources/commentators are using a definition of genocide (often explicitly so) which is very different from the 'common understanding' of the word (ethnic mass-murder, as opposed to ethnic mass-suppression) and we are doing nothing to make this distinction clear. Thus, intentionally or otherwise, the actual effect is to imply that mass-murder is happening, which no sources support. I happen to have read Lemkin and be familiar with various distinct legal and scholarly definitions, but it shouldn't be necessary to know Lemkin and international law in order to understand an article's title or its lead, which is currently the case IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a widespread view that the claims of genocide are, legally speaking, unjustified. This view is held, for example, by the US State Department's legal advisors ([3]), though they were overruled by the political decision-makers in the Trump administration. This view needs to be described more prominently in the lede. At the moment, the lede pretty much ignores the view that there is no genocide, which is strange, as that view appears to be the majority view of the world's governments and is held by many legal experts (including those at the US State Department, as I've mentioned).

Beyond that, readers will be misled by the lede as it is. The average reader will think of "genocide" as it's usually defined in the English language (which is essentially the same as the definition in the Genocide Convention, I'll add). That definition implies mass killing. Since no mass killing is even alleged in this case, that should be clarified prominently in the lede. I don't think any of us wants readers to come away from this article thinking that something entirely different (mass killing) is being alleged than what's actually being alleged (cultural assimilation, indoctrination, decrease in birth rates). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed that Foreign Policy article before [4]. The view isn't as widespread as you claim. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide, yet this view is barely discussed in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What's your source for "Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide"? You have mentioned the US State Dept, which should probably be given more space in sections 6.2 and 7.2, but they are very much in the minority, apart from the official position of the Chinese state and its allies, which is a bit too WP:MANDY to give more space to, and a couple of random opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty also says that what is happening is not genocide [5]. We devote a whole section to the 'Uyghur Tribunal' an organisation with zero powers, zero history and almost zero credibility as being anything other than a campaigning vehicle, but ignore the opinions of two of the most established, respected and neutral human rights orgs - ie Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both of which say that serious human rights are probably occurring, but not genocide. I was summoned here by bot for a previous RfC and haven't followed all the sourcing, but it is difficult to disagree with Thucydides411, sources that disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide, appear to be chery-picked or simply ignored or worse and a false impression is created by overuse of the word 'genocide' without ever clarifying explicitly what it means in this context, which is NOT the most generally accepted meaning, of ethnic mass killing. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility"? What are the sources that expressly disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide? Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? CutePeach (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility" What a ridiculous question! There are sources that clearly state it has NO legal powers, NO affiliation to any legal body, has NO history, was expressly formed by people wishing to draw attention to these human rights abuses (a wholly homourable wish by them, but hardly a neutral nor a judicial one) and NO sources saying it DOES have any legal powers, structure, history, purpose etc.. It's formed by a campaigning group and if it were in any other country we would be calling it a publicity stunt or a show trial. The absence of sources saying what its authority, powers, structure, history, purpose etc are make my lack of credibility claim justified. Russell's teapot applies here.

The same BBC source which is used to detail the tribunals conclusions in the article states EXPLICITLY that neither Amnesty nor HRW consider what is happening to be genocide "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." Amnesty and HRW have long and honourable pedigrees of speaking against HR abuses (wherever they occur), I'm sure they know what 'genocide' is and know how it differs from mass incarceration. The conclusions of the tribunal are listed, the Amnesty and HRW position in the same source is ignored totally. It's called CHERRYPICKING I believe! Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? Lots of places, including the title. Acres of the article are devoted to arguing that this IS genocide, often beefing up what the source says AFAI can see, removing any hesitancy or qualification and failing to be explicit about exactly WHY genocide is being argued, despite there being no known deaths, which is crucial to the most common definition and EVERY previous prosecution and virtually every previous instance of genocide. The irony is, to my mind, that the attempt to get that 'bad word' to stick means the article is not covering the virtually indisputable fact that serious HR abuses are taking place. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, please don't ridicule my question. If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked. The holocaust became known during WWII through the accounts of victims who managed to escape, not from judicial or such organizations you deem to be significant. Until international organizations are able to inspect the Xinjiang camps, the only independent sources we have are the accounts of victims and their relatives, as reported by RS - like the BBC. If you want to change the page name, we will need something much stronger than Amnesty and HRW stopping short of calling it a genocide. If we go with what Amnesty calls it, it would be "Xinjiang dystopian hellscape" [6]. CutePeach (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked I'm sorry, but that's an absurd assertion. AFAIK, there are no sources saying that Joe Biden isn't a Martian. Sources are explicit that the tribunal has no mandate, no legal powers and was formed by people wanting to draw attention to the plight of Uyghurs (which by the way is a very honourable thing for them to want to do. But, as I say not a neutral objective nor one with any judicial weight at all. The tribunal is a novel campaigning tool with no real claim to be anything other than that). AFAIK, the holocaust became known from accounts getting out though neutral couriers, not people escaping. But what does that prove? That itself is a campaigning logic on your part, not a reporting one. "We cannot establish the full facts of what is going on" does not translate into "the limited reports we have must be believed, because this COULD BE another holocaust". I would not want to exclude witness reports, but I'm aware of their limitations. No incident in human history has so far been described as a genocide, which did not involve significant human death. Substantial numbers commentators, news outlets and well-established orgs(such as HRW and Amnesty), use other terms - so how can it be the WP:COMMONNAME? Very dishonestly IMO, this WP article does not even make explicit that a 'non-standard' definition is being used to support the use of the term 'genocide' throughout. I happen to know a fair amount about Lemkin and the UN definition. What is happening here is that readers are being asked to already be Lemkin experts in order to understand the article title. Apart from being confusing and dishonest IMO, it's actually counter-productive. Boys calling 'wolf' comes to mind. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, but we don't have anyone claiming that Joe Biden is a martian... We do have you claiming that the Uyghur Tribunal is not credible so you're going to need to provide a source for that. I think you have the situation reversed, you're making a claim of substance not of absence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing on talk, not trying to insert text in the article about the legal authority and weight of the tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, since the views of the tribunal are reported, whilst those of HRW and Amnesty are ignored. It is very well sourced that the tribunal has no legal authority, no history, no supervising legal body and was formed explicitly to draw attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Individual witnesses there seem to have considerable reputations, but the body as a whole is a novel campaigning tool AFAI can see. It is also very well sourced that Amnesty and HRW have long honourable histories of researching and campaigning for human rights, and neither is exactly a friend of totalitarian regimes. The BBC reports the conclusions of the tribunal, HRW and Amnesty in the same article. WP reports the tribunal conclusion, but ignores that of Amnesty and HRW - who both consider that serious and widespread HR abuses are taking part, but don't consider it to be genocide. If that isn't CHERRYPICKING to promote a particular position, I really don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete you are advocating a change to the article text and even its title without providing reliable sources. When you provide the requested reliable sources, we will discuss them and make the proposed changes, if necessary. This includes your argument about the legal authority and weight of the Uyghur Tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, which is entirely your own. Your equating of victim accounts of genocide to claims of a teapot orbiting the sun is similarly quite novel, and would require very strong sourcing. CutePeach (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach I am not equating victim accounts to Russell's Teapot - whatever gave you that idea? Victims's stories are widely reported and are relatively consistent and credible, but inherently unconfirmable. Therefore there is no reason for us to either endorse nor question them - and to do so frivolously would be very insensitive of me.

I was equating the credibility of the Uyghur Tribunal to Russell's Teapot - ie of course there aren't sources saying that it isn't very credible. There aren't sources saying that it IS CREDIBLE either, but there are plenty saying it has NO legal, judicial or political AUTHORITY nor any prior history and (if I remember well), saying that it was formed specifically to draw the world's attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Fine, but that's a campaigning role not an investigative nor judicial one. The credibility of an human rights org, as with a news source is an earned reputation not a presumed right, and the tribunal hasn't been around long enough AFAI can see to have acquired a reputation, nor has it inherited credibility by having judicial powers or authority from the UN or some other body. The tribunal is a faux-judicial campaigning tool, much as a poster or slogan might be used to draw attention to a cause. I'm not asking the article to say that about the tribunal as it's obvious, but I'm entitled to point it out on talk in a relative-weight discussion.

The same BBC source used to support the tribunal text, says specifically "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." I have ALREADY posted that source THREE times in THIS section alone, and several times posted the quote.

I found that BBC source easily the very first time I visited this article, the HRW and Amnesty conclusions are NOT included, the tribunal ones ARE. Amnesty and HRW are also campaigning orgs, but both have long histories of impartial campaigns against HR abuses anywhere, unlike the tribunal. So if anyone has WEIGHT, it would be HRW and Amnesty, but they aren't included. It is difficult for me to not conclude that the reason the tribunal is included, but the other more established orgs ignored is simply because the tribunal says genocide is happening the other two choose other ways to describe the abuses. Cherrypicking to endorse a favoured position AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It could also reflect a shift in mainstream U.S. thinking towards a less confrontational position on China. TFD (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to refer to the dispute, but not to put it in wiki-voice or allow it to affect how we portray this crisis in Wikivoice. We would need better independent authoritative RSes referring to this as not a genocide to do that. The Sachs opinion piece above is not good enough for that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

US left-wing denialism in 'Denial' section

The source for the claim that "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" is very inaccurately 'copied'. What the source actually states is that a small number US blogs have published articles saying that accounts of abuses are being weaponised as anti-Chinese propaganda and some of these blogs say some accounts are false or exaggerated, (if this were not sometimes true, it would probably be the first time in human history that SOME exaggeration did NOT happen. It would also probably be the first time in human history if SOMEONE were not sceptical about accounts concerning an unfolding issue. Even if these left-wing bloggers turn out to be wholly wrong - being sceptical about an unfolding issue hardly constitutes 'denialism', in the sense of being a 'genocide denier', which usually denotes someone denying a situation where pretty much all the facts are known or knowable). Most of these bloggers don't even appear to deny that persecution of Uyghurs is occuring, though they often dispute the scale and believe that the claims are being 'weaponised' against China.

Over and above the sourcing and accuracy considerations, which might well be fixable. Are the opinions of a handful of US left-wing bloggers notable AT ALL. Even if we accept the inference that these people are making themselves into useful idiots of China, so what! Even the sources used characterise these people as few and marginal. WP covering them is very parochial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling a section "Denial," which begins with a "See also" link to Genocide denial is a clear violation of neutrality. It is not necessarily denialism to question the accuracy of unproved allegations or accepting them say that they do not constitute genocide. Also, the statement "some American left-wing media outlets" violates "Unsupported attributions." What percentage of "left-wing outlets" can be described as some? 40%? 1/100th of 1%?

Also, if we are going to cite "anthropologist and China expert Gerald Roche," writing in the left-wing media outlet The Nation of all places ("Xinjiang Denialists Are Only Aiding Imperialism" July 6, 2021), we should mention that he blames the United States for complicity in the genocide, hence the title of his article. Quoting his opinion seems undue anyway, since he isn't an expert on genocide or denialism and his views have not received attention beyond the readers of The Nation.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

TFD... Its been explained to you at length by nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same... While you may feel that it isn't neutral there is no violation of our NPOV policy here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make a persuasive argument, you might want to avoid basing it on a false premise, viz., that "nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same." Also, instead of an ad hominem personal attack, you might explain why you think calling a section "Denial" does not violate neutrality. Is it because reliable sources group people who don't classify human rights abuses in Sianking with holocaust deniers? If so, can you explain why the SPLC has a section on Holocaust Denial, but nothing about Uyghur genocide denial? TFD (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Our sources use the term denial/denier, so our use of the term conforms with NPOV (specifically "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."). How do you think it violates NPOV? And please be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

They are notable because they have received extensive coverage in reliable sources, I don't believe that we are actually trying to source anything to the bloggers/outlets themselves. Your own personal opinions are irrelevant, please don't share them. This isn't a forum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The first source (an opinion piece in The Diplomat) quotes "a Uyghur American attorney and activist" who calls it "genocide denial." The second source, an article in ProPublica says, "In one clip [spread by the Chinese government], a woman denies accusations of forced labor." The third source, an article in The Guardian says that China's UK ambassador "denied claims of abuses." The fourth source, published in .Coda (you recently voted for its reliablity) actually uses the term "Xinjiang denialist," but it is referring to denial of "Uyghur oppression," which it does not call a genocide. The final source, in The Nation is an opinion piece hence expressing the author's opinions and not a reliable source for facts.

The most one can say is that some people have compared this with holocaust denial, although it seems to be a fringe position.

TFD (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

When I looked pretty hard in the Codastory source, I could just about find one person/one article in one blog that is implicitly denying "the existence of the camp network" - which WP is claiming is a sufficiently widespread phenomenon among "some American left-wing media outlets" for us to report it. A nameable group of other bloggers say that US State dept or media exaggerate the extent of the abuses and/or US sources "weaponise" the claims, which is not necessarily denying anything of course. Apart from our coverage, being fairly inflated and inaccurate, (and I would agree 'loaded' in its use of 'denialism' over matters that people should be able to legitimately disagree about) - apart from that, this is so damned parochial. Mud-slinging within minor US news blogs is wholly disconnected from the events in China IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That Diplomat piece is a feature piece not an opinion piece. What in the world makes you think its an opinion piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the author, who is an editor, not a reporter. In any case, it's a moot point. The source does not accuse anyone of denialism, but quotes an activist who uses the term. TFD (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors can write as well, "Feature" is The Diplomat's highest level of article. We don't currently use that source to accuse anyone of denialism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TFD and HEB, this section is about the paragraph relating to denial supposedly occurring in "some American left-wing media outlets", if you want to discuss other claims, can you please start another section - otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation. I claim that the "US left-wingers" paragraph inaccurately represents the relatively poorly sources it uses, is cherry-picked and fundamentally, fringe-ly parochial relative to the topic. No one seems to have answered any of those points, but I cannot tell because you seem to be talking about other things. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was fringe-ly parochial then we wouldn't have significant coverage in WP:RS. Are you disputing the reliability of Axios and Coda Story? Those don't appear to be poor sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

They are relatively parochial AFAI can see and two sources is pretty thin gruel for an unattributed claim and an unbelievably low-threshold for "significant coverage", especially as these are essentially opinion pieces about an inherently parochial subject - what a tiny group of left-wing US bloggers are/are not writing. But the issue is anyway academic if they don't say what we say they say, which they don't. The Nation is a better known source outside the US, but that piece doesn't describe the 'nay-sayers' as "left-wing", in fact it is at pains to not identify them and is at pains to distinguish between legitimate scepticism (including about whether what is occurring is 'genocide') and what the writer considers 'denial'. Furthermore the Nation article covers many other aspects and discusses "US complicity in ongoing colonialism in Xinjiang" and states explicitly "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror." None of these other aspects of the Nation article find their way into OUR article, so AFAI can see the Nation piece has been CHERRYPICKED to imply what someone here wants it to say. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Two feature pieces in WP:RS is one feature piece away from meriting its own article WP:GNG wise, thats really strong and much stronger than we need to make the inclusion. They don't appear to be opinion pieces. If you would like to migrate more from the The Nation article into the article here you are more than welcome to as long as you abide by WP:DUE, but I would note that we don't actually use it as a source for "US left-wing" but the source we do use for that statement does "What is more, these fringe views appear to be creeping into other areas of the American left." "While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized." "Left-wing support and equivocation for authoritarian regimes is by no means a new phenomenon." "While a few fringe media outlets are unlikely to shift mainstream political opinion on China’s actions in Xinjiang, they can create significant problems in some areas of the left." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the claim that this handful of "left-wingers" are "deniers' is in WP:VOICE - even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty. Therefore these 'denialism' accusations should at least be attributed to the two accusing sources. That person X wrote text Y is verifiable, that the opinions expressed in text Y amount to 'denialism', not legitimate disagreement is an unverifiable opinion. Two minor sources making sweeping generalisations may satisfy you, it points to me to how some editors here are wholly unconcerned with accurately representing the balance of sources on contentious issues, but are in fact amplifying anything that endorses their own position and ignoring anything that doesn't. If a broad swathe of major US sources pointed to a significant left-right divide on this issue, coverage would be justified, as it is, it's fringe-y sources writing about a tiny number of even fring-ier ones, but expressed in WP:VOICE and extrapolated to imply a general phenomenon.

Even more perversely, you are ignoring the fact that none of these sources actually claim what our text says. It takes a whole bundle of WP:SYNTH to get from the accusations made by Axios and Coda Story to "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" -our claim. Certainly these bloggers are accused of down-playing the scale of abuses and of attacking the way the US State department has "weaponised" discussion, but by looking hard I could find only one named blogger who was actually accused of denying the existence of the camps and the abuses. If you attribute and accurately reflect the sources used at present, you are left with two minor US sources saying that one, completely un-notable, US blogger thinks there is no persecution or camps, while a very, very small number of other bloggers think claims about persecution are being exaggerated and 'weaponised' by the US State Dept and/or media. WOW! SEISMIC! All this before we consider the inherent WEASEL of 'some American left-wing media outlets', when what is actually supported by the sources is two named blogs, and the possibility of a very few others, all of which may or may not be meaningfully "news outlets" or "left-wing".

The Nation was being used to endorse the "left-wingers' claim until a few days ago, when I removed a linking word that implied the Nation writer was accusing Americans and/or left-wingers specifically, which he isn't. I also put the remaining sentence in a separate para to clearly 'delink' the topics. The remaining sentence is so vague and out of context that retaining it is pointless IMO, however I didn't remove but brought the whole subject here. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

ps If you really want to write an article about this very fringe-y, far-left-ish coverage of what is happening to China's Uyghurs in the US-blogsphere, go ahead and write it. As someone from the UK, I'd like an article about the abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs to actually stick to that topic, not to WP:COATRACK irrelevant and obscure US domestic disputes into EVERYTHING. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we go with what the sources say, if you want to disagree with the sources this is not the place to do so. I can't find support for "even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty." which would appear to mean that its your opinion and not an actual fact. If however you mean that labels are tricky then yes, yes they are which is why we don't apply those labels ourselves but go with what the sources say which is in this case denial. If we get enough coverage we might break off the section into its own article, arguably we should be doing that with a few of the existing sections given the size of the article. Your own distaste for America is not a reason not to cover it on wikipedia, I think you need to read WP:COATRACK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the sources. In fact I would be fairly surprised if there were NOT bloggers (inc in US, UK and other parts of the Anglosphere) who did NOT dispute US state Dept, US media positions/claims and numbers - and equally surprised if a lot of these people were not 'left-wing'-ish. What I'm firstly saying is that the sources are not being accurately reported by us. Neither of the two sources talks about anyone denying the existence of camps or abuses, except one named woman, who is reported to have claimed early in 2020 that no mass detention or abuse was happening. Some of these bloggers certainly seem to question the scale of abuses, and say that the reporting of the abuses is being 'weaponised' against China, but that isn't what our text says. We claim that they say there is no abuse and no camps - which is patently not what the sources accuse them of. Nor incidentally does the source used claim that LA Progressive was the first such site -as we do - it merely states when LA Progressive started the 'nay-saying'. All that of course is fixable, but I cannot see how this is anything other than very fringe and UNDUE and would remain so even if fixed.

It is self-evident that there is no agreement, even among campaigning groups and parliaments, as to whether the apt term for these abuses is 'genocide'. Some use that term, some use it but qualify it, others avoid it or say they don't agree with its use - such as Amnesty. If there is no agreement about whether, or in what sense, 'genocide' is occurring, how can 'loaded' terms like 'denialism/genocide denialism' be more than accusations? You can only meaningfully engage in genocide denial iro instances where the genocide itself has been established as a historical fact. Accusations are ordinarily attributed to the accuser.

I find your label comments a gigantic cop-out I'm afraid. If the "US left-wingers" text and label were attributed and phrased as an accusation made by two news outlets against specific news blogs and bloggers, your comments might be apt. But the accusations are phrased in wiki-voice, needlessly weasel-led, and phrased so as to avoid making clear how very, very small the numbers of people thus accused are, they are also SYNTHed to 'beef up' the accusation as I say above. Effectively your defence of the text is that because two (relatively obscure US outlets) use the 'denialism' label - WP has to endorse their accusations and opinions by amplifying them and phrasing them in WP:VOICE. Disagreement about the scale of what is happening in China, or what to call it, is not genocide denialism, but we are implyimg that it is. To report this accurately as an accusation made by Codastory against named sites would be neutral, though undue IMO. To report this in-accurately as a fact against "some", unspecified, "left-wing media outlets" is none of the three. In fact the first source used is a good deal more careful and specific about precisely what it accuses these websites and bloggers of than we are.

I don't have any distaste for America. A momentary frustration is not an abiding antipathy and the two or three sources used to justify this text are a tiny percent of those who have covered these human rights abuses worldwide. If the "boot were on the other foot" and these were UK sources - writing about a couple of fringe UK news blogs - either of the right or the left - I would be arguing much the same case. Namely, that attribution of these accusations, including clarification of who is being accused of what should be a minimum. Sourcing is a necessary, but not a sufficient pre-condition for inclusion of text. I don't have any illusions about countries other than the US also being capable of being parochial. I also know what COATRACK says.

We have both made our views plain and we clearly aren't going to agree. I shall wait a few days to see if anyone else wants to chip in before deciding whether I want to take matters further. Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term. I also haven't seen where those Amnesty that use the 'denialism' term are considered 'obscure'. I would not consider Axios and Coda Story parochial, and while I would normally not object to attributing their statements, I am concerned about the inch that becomes a mile. Please keep your posts succinct, otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation - as you said yourself above. Since this is a controversial topic, please formulate your arguments based on what we can see in RS, and not your own opinion. CutePeach (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term - this is my FOURTH time of posting the same source, where both Amnesty and HRW choose to NOT say genocide. Incidentally, 'Genocide Watch' cited below also uses various descriptions, which do NOT include 'genocide', which is ironic given the name and stated purpose of the org is to highlight potential genocide.

I think I said the two US outlets were 'relatively obscure' ie they aren't major news outlets with international standing AFAIK. I certainly did NOT say that these sources were parochial, I said the content was, ie text about two US news blogs which hardly anyone in the US has ever heard of and certainly not the other 95% of the human world. To attribute is not something which WP editors deign to do, it is a requirement where the content has not been established as a fact to be rendered in WP:VOICE. I have a concrete proposal which I will attempt to make below, later. At present we are WEASELING a very sweeping accusation, although the number of those accused is tiny and their names are known, and we are not even accurate about what the 'some left-wingers' have supposedly said and written. How many policy errors does that add up to? Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Horse Eye's Back and CutePeach say. Hard to follow the objections due to lack of concision, but (a) "See also" is different from "Main article" - it's a clearly related topic; (b) we currently use the word "denial" in the section and not "denialism" and do not make any Holocaust comparisons, and the sources all clearly use the word "denial" too; (c) Gerald Roche is definitely a China expert; it's irrelevant that he isn't specifically a genocide expert. (I'd have no objection to more of his article being used elsewhere in our piece.) (d) to considerably expand the content on the left would become undue, but the minimal coverage we now have is definitely due; as evidence for this being noteworthy, there are plenty of (mainly RSOPINION) sources that draw attention to this, using the word "denial", which could be added as sources if we need more to show noteworthiness, e.g.:

• a major US left-wing academic and a genocide scholar in an al-Jazeera op ed say "some sections of the left continue to dismiss reports of China’s atrocities as an American imperialist ploy...The most steadfast bastion of denialism has been the Grayzone";[7]
• another CodaStory piece[8] referencing several leading China scholars denouncing the publication by a major US left outlet of a piece of what they call "denialism" (and "apologia for the campaign of harsh Islamophobic repression now taking place in Xinjiang");[9]
• a Ha'aretz piece by an academic expert on disinformation and fascism uses the word "denialism" in relation to some left-wing media outlets;[10] and
• a BylineTimes opinion piece by an Islamophobia expert which uses the word "denialism" and says "the far-left blog The Grayzone...falsely claimed that stories regarding forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang are a propaganda campaign" in a post shared by John Pilger and others.[11]

The Coda Story piece we already cite was republished by Genocide Watch, further showing noteworthiness.[12] And a New Republic opinion piece says that "parts of the conspiratorial far-left remain convinced that the crimes against humanity in Xinjiang are simply Western propaganda".[13] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Something expressed as an opinion in The Nation does not become a fact in Wikipedia. I am surprised that you and Horse don't accept that since you disagree with 90% of the opinions expressed there. TFD (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think this at least needs to be elaborated a little. Done. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, what you say is all very well except that our text bears little relation to what the sources used say. OUR TEXT: The abuses, and the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets. The first such group to do so was a small left-wing blog called LA Progressive which began publishing denial articles in April 2020, while The Grayzone has been the most influential outlet to publish such claims.

The sources used - almost exclusively- speak of two specific named news blogs, 'downplaying' the scale of the abuses, not mainly denying their existence. Sources chiefly describe the 2 blogs as 'far'left' and sometimes as 'anti-imperialist' and don't say anything about who was first to publish these 'denial' stories. "Some American left-wing media outlets" is inherently and unnecessarily WEASELLY when the common thread is two named news blogs and vague mentions of a few others existing, while comments like Grayzone being "most influential are inherently judgements, not facts and should be attributed if included. Personally I remain of the opinion that what a very small number of US bloggers are writing is both too unsurprising and too obscure to be of much interest or importance to this topic, but if people want to include it, they should at least accurately reflect what sources say, including iro being less WEASELLY about 'the accused' and more accurate about the "accusation". Forgive me for saying but a small number of fairly marginal sources and one or two academics is a very low threshold to justify inclusion of ANYTHING in WP:VOICE, especially so since these are grave accusations.

I haven't looked closely at the Al Jazeera piece, but even at a glance, the writer attacks at least 2 other groups who have "let down" the Uighurs according to the writer: "And so, the Uighurs are wronged four times over: by China’s oppression, by American imperialist cooptation, by left-wing denialism, and by Muslim leaders’ dereliction" - none of the other accusations finds it way into the article, nor does The author's claim "For the Trump administration, the Uighur’s plight was yet another card to play in its China-bashing, along with Hong Kong and COVID-19. It is blatant CHERRYPICKING to single out his comments about "faux anti-imperialism", render it in WPVOICE and ignore the rest of his comments. Just as the 'Nation' quote ignores the author's claims that: "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror … … The US War on Terror made it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to redefine Uyghur resistance as terrorist extremism, rather than national liberation or anti-colonialism".

I would drop my objections if the text was written more accurately in terms of who specifically is accused of exactly what - which appears to be mainly two blogs "minimising" the scale of abuses. I disagree with you strongly about leaving the link to "genocide denial" where it is - it belongs as a REAL 'See Also', You cannot deny the existence of a genocide which has not been firmly established yet either in any court, nor in scholarly judgement nor in general usage. Apologies for my delay in replying! Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction, reference to Trump is now in "The Nation" text, though not reference to the "War on Terror"'s role in justifying Chinese actions. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

The mass protests didn't really kick off until at least April 2017, so the Uyghur "genocide" starting point of 2014 doesn't really make sense at my point of view. Maybe it should be changed to 2017? EvaTheWingdale, January 14th, 2022. EvaTheWingdale (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

New evidence on Xinjiang proves propaganda

Hey guys,

there is an organization named Xinjiang Victims Database. From those organizations that publish on Xinjiang they are one of the few that are not funded by the US government. They also accuse China of crimes against humanity so the are completely unsuspicious of being a Chinese op. They recently published two reports, the Primary-Evidence Report and the Facilities Report, you can find both directly on their homepage: https://shahit.biz/eng/

As the name suggests, the Primary-Evidence Report is a collection of mostly uncommented primary evidence, such as 51 detailed reports from people who had been detained. It also contains information on the Karakash list, one of the leaked Chinese government documents, that you may have heard about. It actually contains much more but these two chapters are the most important ones.

The evidence presented therein sums up to the following: In late 2016/early 2017 China started to build a prison network and began to arrest people, hundreds of thousands, possibly up to a million. They also issued a new family planing law. Before 2017 there was the one child policy but it was only enforced on Han. From 2017 on the new law allowed people in urban areas to have two children and three in rural areas. Since Han typically only had one child, it was primarily enforced on minorities. One of the main reasons that got people arrested was having too many children. China also declared Kazakhstan an untrustworthy country, which got many Kazhaks arrested for having traveled to Kazakhstan. People were sent to prison first and later to "Re-education camps". Torture occurred in these prisons and camps, when people disobeyd the were beaten or sometime put in a so called Tiger Chair. However, in early 2019 China released the prisoners, at least 90% of them.

In this interview from early 2019 at the end you can see how Adrian Zenz mentions that China had begun to release detainees. He also says that in his view the detention system was not meant to be indefinite and that he expected the majority of detainees to be released within the next one or two years. https://www.nzz.ch/international/china-jeder-uigure-kann-jederzeit-im-umerziehungslager-landen-ld.1457048

One year later, in early 2020, Zenz acknowledged in an article about the Karakash list that China had released 87.5% of the detainees (search Text for "87.5 percent"). https://www.jpolrisk.com/karakax/

What this means in total is that the genocide allegations are an Iraq/WMD style propaganda campaign, because everything except what I'm describing above are lies: The concentration camps, the genocide, the cultural genocide, the mass sterilization to prevent births, the claim that 1+ million were still in detention, the systematic sexual violence, the murders, all of those are bad faith fabrications.

I'm a veteran of online discussions. I know that the human brain is incapable of dropping firm belief in an instant. I know with absolut certainty that your very first reaction will be to throw some BS at me aimed at preserving your current view and to save yourself the trouble of reading anything.

I want you to hold yourself back there. I want you realize that I'm providing detailed information and sources and that there is a vast amount of evidence right in front of your nose. I want you to look at the evidence first and THEN you can reply. I want this to begin with a discussion on the evidence and not with a discussion on your your refusal to even take a look at it. This is your responsibility as Wikipedia editors.

Should you be capable to live up to this responsibility, you absolutely must brace your self for an emotionally challenging experience. Having been lied to like that, being this wrong on something is an emotional hell-ride. Most people are not capable of processing what you need to process here.

However, it is of utmost importance that the truth gets out. Now, not decades later. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laroop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an awful lot of WP:SYNTH to me. I'm not seeing how the websites you link support your claims, and on Wikipedia we follow what reliable secondary sources say – we don't make our own judgements about primary sources as that would result in original research. Unless you have specific suggestions on how to improve the page, this isn't really helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

French recognition

The National Assembly of France has recognized the Uyghur genocide [14]--203.218.141.159 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they haven't. It is non-binding. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10423189/French-politicians-officially-recognise-Chinas-treatment-Uyghurs-genocide.html 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:3959:938:B59A:2376 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Most, if not all the recognotions are 'non-binding', which the article accurately reflects. Crudely speaking, they are expressions of disapproval from parliamentarians, which do not bind their respective governments to any (particular) actions. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Therefore it has as much meaning as my recognition that france is committing genocide of North African Muslim peoples in france, because many of them are homeless and beg on the streets and forced to learn french. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:ADFE:BD27:D1F7:8F44 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Except you are not a parliamentarian! But legally you are quite correct, it's a formal expression of disapproval, nothing more. But in the case of the UK (and perhaps some other countries) it's the only kind of genocide recognition that ever occurs. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence does not make sense

The lead sentence says that "The Uyghur genocide is the characterization of the [ongoing abuses] as genocide." This is a circular sentence, and it seems like a classical case of confusing the use and mention of a term.

Now, I understand that the classification of something as genocide is complicated. By naming the article it seems we have, for now, decided that "genocide" is the most neutral or correct or standard way to describe what is happening to the Uyighurs. Judging from the section "Classification of abuses", which elaborates on the naming debate, this seems solid, again, for now.

The present article "Uyighur genocide" is obviously mainly about the abuse and persecution of Uyighurs, not about the classification issue. By saying that the Uyghur genocide is the characterization as a genocide we have a very contrived first sentece which really says that the main subject of the article is a terminological dispute. The Uyighur genocide is an ongoing series of abuses against Uyighurs. And, we could add, the characterization of these abuses as "genocide" is controversial. Then at least we would not bend over backwards to avoid using the title of the article to refer to its subject, which really should be frowned upon. ——St.nerol (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not ongoing and basically everything the genoiced advocates claim are lies. This is an Iraq/WMD-style propaganda campaign. For example, China released the prisoners in early 2019, as you can see in this article (search text for "87.5 percent"): https://www.jpolrisk.com/karakax/

For the full story see my post above. Laroop (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice misrepresentation there, the following sentences say: "Release verdicts often state that a person first has to complete what is evidently a minimum one-year study period before they should then be released. It is important to keep in mind that “re-education internment” for all of these main persons exclusively refers to internment in VTICs. These camps will intern persons for designated periods of time before releasing them into either community control (社区管控) or, more commonly, forms of forced labor. In fact, a number of verdicts bluntly state that persons are to be released into “industrial park employment” (园区就业). Jr8825 • Talk 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Naming an article using a disputed term is always going to result in problems of phrasing. Normally one would expect an article with this title to be about the claim that the Chinese government is committing genocide in Xinjiang. TFD (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse what St.nerol says. Present text is very unclear as to whether the subject of the article is the abuses against the Uyghurs, or whether the subject is some academic/legal/naming dispute about how to classify those abuses. I understand the compromises that have lead to this point, but, the outcome is a pig's ear I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How about this: "The Uyghur genocide is the the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, which is variously characterized as a genocide^[1], a cultural genocide^[2] or a crime against humanity^[3]." (with suitable references inserted). ––St.nerol (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't say "The Uyghur genocide... is variously characterized as a genocide, cultural genocide, or a crime against humanity" because then we are picking one in wikivoice. It wouldn't be "variously characterized" here, it would just be characterized as genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but every time we refer to what's happening we inevitably have to pick one characterization, right? Would it work better with "The Uyghur genocide is [...] in Xinjiang. It has also been characterized as a cultural genocide or a crime against humanity"? ––St.nerol (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree the current sentence is awkward, but I don't think there's any way around the problem other than changing the article title, which isn't going to happen. (Edit: sorry, I forgot about the avoidbold option as it involves overturning the last RfC, but I think this is a good alternative, see below. Jr8825 • Talk 12:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)) Starting off with "the Uyghur Genocide is X abuses" and then using "also characterised" suggests 1) the characterisation of genocide is broadly accepted, and 2) possibly that other labels are simply terms used in addition to genocide, rather than the labels preferred by those who disagree with, or cautious about, terming it genocide. I'm sure you can find alternative phrasing that makes your proposed text more explicit/clearer, but then you'll end up with a longer, more convoluted first couple of sentences, and I'm not sure it'll be any more elegant than the current wording. Also, I'm not keen on exploring the views of those who don't think it's a genocide in the first few sentences, as I think it distracts from the substance of the topic and actually has the unintended effect of placing more doubt on the abuses than necessary. Unfortunately, this has all been pointed out several times before and a clear majority of regular page editors are against a title change (repeated failed attempts at changing the title are pointed to as justification for keeping the current one). You're not the first new editor to come along and point out the current situation doesn't work well, but it's probably the best compromise available as we have to work from community consensus. I can live with it myself, because although I think the title's not strictly within policy, I'm sympathetic to why editors want to keep it, and the first sentence is probably the best that can be done with it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Of all possible policy-violations-as-a-result-of-compromise, logical incoherence might be my least favourite. So I'll give another try. How about: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, if characterized as a genocide." ––St.nerol (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Another option is not having the title bolded in the first sentence at all per MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Something like The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide. – Anne drew 22:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this version by @Anne drew, I don't think we should bend over backwards to have the bolded title, and this is an accurate summary in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I argued in favour of something similar at the previous RfC on the lead sentence for pretty much the same reasons as St.nerols, but the closer found a consensus in favour of the current lead sentence instead. I also think that dropping the bolding would be a better option, but there may be opposition as it will involve overturning that RfC outcome. My suggested formulation would be similar, starting with "Since 2014, the Chinese government has... (moving "since 2014" from the current second sentence, which was originally the first sentence). There's an explanatory supplement of MOS:AVOIDBOLD at WP:BOLDITIS, which clarifies that bolding the title shouldn't be done if it compromises on a natural first sentence outlining the article scope. I don't think St.nerols' suggestion here is better than the current sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what the best alternative is, but I totally agree the first sentence doesn't make any sense as it is now and it is more confusing than informative. Vpab15 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A mass ping to previous RfC participants might be good to gauge the level of opposition to a new lead sentence. If there's not much disagreement it might be possible to change it without needing a new RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 12:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I support an explanatory first sentence without bolding like the one @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: and @Jr8825: suggest. Perhaps the part "has commited a series of ongoing human rights abuses" could just be shortened to "is committing human rights abuses"? But I guess details can always be honed once we agree on the type of solution we want. I have no idea about how to mass ping people, but open to see how it's done! ––St.nerol (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to drop in and add my two cents; Agree with User:St.nerol's original sentiment that the lede sentence as it stands is horribly circular and tautological. A simple and quick fix would just be to remove the repetition of "genocide" (i.e. "The Uyghur genocide is a term used to describe a series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.") NickCT (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Against current sentence "the Uyghur genocide is the characterization of the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang as genocide" on these points (1) characterization is not the article's focus although important, (2) "as genocide" at end redundant when it opens with "genocide", (3) it's "mainly Uyghurs" just say so instead of tying-in unspecified minorities, (4) probably unintentional but the word "ongoing" excludes past abuses, "a series of" suffices as current situation is adequately covered. Support AVOIDBOLD as a means to reach a more natural, neutral, and accurate first sentence. CurryCity (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: Would The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang satisfy your concerns? — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Why not, The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang? — 141.156.196.94 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

141.156.196.94, immediate response? - Far too many 'alleged's. There is near universal agreement that large scale human rights abuses are occurring. The exact scale, including the extent to which coercive medical interventions, such as forced abortion/sterilisation may be unestablished/able, and how best to characterise this programme may all be uncertain/unagreed, but no serious source doubts that a programme of oppression exists. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with this version, as it needlessly waters down the genocide as existing only in the minds of the west. When actually our sources indicate the belief that this is a serious set of abuses (often called a cultural genocide) is much wider than just Western academics. It's also from politicians, human rights watchdog groups, the UN HRC, etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: First Sentence

What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?

• Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
• Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
• Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
• Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang
• Option D: Replace the current first sentence with some other descriptive sentence.
• Option E: Leave the first sentence as-is.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey: First Sentence

• A or B, in that order. The first sentence is plainly the most clear way to convey what the subject of this article is: the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and religious minorities in Xinjiang. This is generally how the topic is defined among academics and the mainstream press, as shown in what I am collapsing below for the sake of readability. The first sentence of the lead should reflect that. I prefer the bolded version (Option A) because it is more direct than the alternative proposed by Anne drew Andrew and Drew, but both are acceptable to me. Option C is the least preferable, since it both hand-waves excessively over well-documented and flagrant human rights abuses and confuses the main topic of the article (the abuses) with a mere characterization.

Academic and mainstream press sources

Academic sources (Peer-reviewed journals and law review articles) Reyhan, Dilnur (July–August 2021). "Le génocide des Ouïgours: Aboutissement d'un projet colonial". Esprit: 161–170.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) les révélations récentes sur le mode de fonctionnement des camps de concentration et la stérilisation massive des femmes permettent désormais de parler du génocide des Ouïgours en Chine (in French). Turdush, Rukiye; Fiskesjö, Magnus (28 May 2021). "Dossier: Uyghur Women in China's Genocide". Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 15 (1): 22–43. doi:10.5038/1911-9933.15.1.1834. Newer policies not only include previous measures such as sterilization and enforced abortions under the Chinese family planning policy, but also mass rape and sexual torture in the new concentration camp system built from 2017 onward; state-sponsored inter-racial forced marriages of Uyghur women to Han Chinese men, as well as the state placing Han Chinese male cadres (Party and government staff) in an innumerable Uyghur homes, violating the privacy of Uyghur women. Forced labor camps and factories also segregate Uyghur women and men in different places, thus serving the same purpose. All of these are acts of genocide which meet the Convention’s definition under article 2(b) and 2(d). ... In many cases, systematic mass rape in China’s concentration camps is intentional, conducted from the top-down, and centrally directed as part of the genocide plan to destroy the Uyghur people and nation. Waller, James; Salazar Albornoz, Mariana (27 April 2021). "Crime and No Punishment? China's Abuses Against the Uyghurs". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 22 (1). Johns Hopkins University Press: 100–111. at least five counts of crimes against humanity—persecution, imprisonment, torture, enslavement, and forced sterilization— are being committed against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. This paper also argues that the state’s measures to sterilize Uyghur women and reduce Uyghur birth rates signify an intent to destroy the group, therefore constituting at least one count of genocide Çaksu, Ali (Fall 2020). "Islamophobia, Chinese Style: Total Internment of Uyghur Muslims by the People's Republic of China". Islamophobia Studies Journal. 5 (2): 175–198. As it has been clear in the last 30 years since the Tiananmen Massacre, in the Chinese case, economic growth and technological progress do not bring improvements in human rights, democracy and freedom, but rather consolidate control and authoritarianism (and even have brought totalitarianism to the Uyghurs). Today, the Uyghur Region is the living embodiment of the Orwellian dystopia of 1984. The regime with its inhuman policies is currently carrying out genocide through concentration camps, surveillance capitalism and terror capitalism. Radhakrishnan, Adi (Fall 2020). "An Inherent Right to Health: Reviving Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention)". Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 52. Columbia University: 80–139. Healthcare denial in Xinjiang violates Article II(c). There is significant evidence published before June 2020 that indicates the treatment toward Uyghur Muslims constitutes a violation of Article II(c). ... Repeated orders, evidenced from the leaked Xinjiang Papers, demonstrate an intent to "break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins," and to round up "everyone who should be rounded up," with the aim of eradicating the Uyghur communities. Such evidence goes beyond allegations of cultural genocide and encompasses harm perpetrated well before the reports of forced sterilization. The health practices and abusive treatment would fulfil the requisite actus reus elements under the originalist Article II(c) framework analyzed by this Note. Eruygur, Adilcan (2020). Çincenin Uygur Türkçesinin Söz Varlığına Olan Etkileri, Uluslararası Uygur Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 2020/16, s. 1-14. doi: 10.46400/uygur.808151 Çin Devleti, Doğu Türkistan topraklarını kalıcı ve sonsuza kadar ilhak edebilmek için Uygur Türklerine ve bölgedeki diğer Türk topluluklarına karşı da siyasi, dinî, sosyal ve kültürel baskıve zulmün yanında etnik soykırım politikası da uygulamaktadır. (in Turkish). Gökçe, İsmail (September 2020). "Güneşin Doğduğu, İnsanlığınBattığı Topraklar: Doğu Türkistan". Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi (in Turkish). 69: 629–652. doi:10.14222/Turkiyat4352. Çin polisinin Uygurları fişlemek için kullandığı mobil uygulamadan, gerektiğinde bir eğitim kampına dönüştürülebilen zindanlara, iletişim olanaklarına uygulanan karartmadan, Uygur diasporasının kökten dinci bir terör örgütü olduğu yönündeki kara propagandaya kadar en ince ayrıntısına kadar tasarlanan soykırım planı sistematik olarak işlemektedir. (in Turkish). Balaki, Naved (1 April 2020). "Islamophobia in Myanmar: the Rohingya genocide and the 'war on terror'". Race and Class. 62 (4). SAGE Journals: 53–71. doi:10.1177/0306396820977753. In China, structural processes enacted by the state have been implemented to imprison over a million Uighur Muslims in concentration and labour camps. Reports of the experiences of Uighurs under these state measures describe forced labour, the sterilisation of Uighur women, coercive thought-transformation and brainwashing, the harvesting of organs, rape and various forms of torture. Many of these violations fall within genocide conventions to which China is a signatory. Fiskesjö, Magnus (2020). "Forced Confessions as Identity Conversion in China's Concentration Camps". Monde Chinois. 62 (2): 28–43. doi:10.3917/mochi.062.0028. Indeed, Chen Quanguo, the Communist Party officer directly in charge of the genocide in Xinjiang, builds directly on his personal experience in force-converting Falungong members in Henan, eastern China. ... Together with measures such as suppressing fertility and depriving children of their mother tongue, the ultimate purpose here is instead the destruction of the victim’s self, their pride and dignity, and their identity as Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and so on, thus destroying their nations altogether, by destroying them one by one and all together — in this genocide with Chinese characteristics, guided by purist, ultra-nationalist ideologues. Finley, Joanne (2020). "Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang". Journal of Genocide Research. doi:10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109. [T]he suppression of Uyghur births on this scale, in concert with the Chinese state’s other efforts to eradicate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, amounted quite simply to a genocide-in-process The Atlantic (RSP Entry) Mimbs Nyce, Caroline (14 July 2021). "The Atlantic Daily: One Man's Story of Escaping Genocide". The Atlantic. "The Experiment Podcast: A Uyghur Teen's Life After Escaping Genocide". The Atlantic. 19 August 2021. Axios (RSP entry) Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (28 July 2020). "China's consulates do a lot more than spy". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (31 July 2020). "U.S. sanctions China's paramilitary in Xinjiang". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (11 August 2020). "The American blog pushing Xinjiang denialism". Axios. Allassan, Fadel (22 August 2020). "Supply chain disruptions, sanctions threaten school shortage of 5 million laptops". Axios. Allassan, Fadel (22 September 2020). "House votes to ban U.S. products made with forced labor in Xinjiang". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (14 August 2020). "Lawmakers demand answers from World Bank on Xinjiang loan". Axios. Perano, Ursula (12 September 2020). "Members of Congress demand answers over Disney's filming of Mulan in Xinjiang". Axios. Basu, Zachary (8 October 2020). "More countries join condemnation of China over Xinjiang abuses". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (22 February 2021). "Norway's youth parties call for end to China free trade talks". Axios. knutson, Jacob (24 March 2020). "Facebook says Chinese hackers used platform to target Uyghurs abroad". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany; Baker, Kendall (31 March 2020). "FIFA's corruption and authoritarian regime problems". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (14 December 2021). "Exclusive: Jewish groups urge Biden to take action on Uyghur genocide". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (2 January 2022). "Muslims in the West embrace the Uyghur cause". Axios. Deseret News (RSP Entry) Romboy, Dennis. "What should U.S. do to shine light on Uyghur genocide during 2022 Beijing Olympics?". Deseret News. The Dispatch Wilt, Haley Byrd (18 January 2022). "What's Next for the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act". The Dispatch. Foreign Affairs Coca, Nithin (10 September 2020). "The Long Shadow of Xinjiang". Foreign Affairs. The Hill Ali, Shirin (14 December 2021). "Jewish groups push Biden to take more action on Uyghur genocide in China". The Hill]. Romaine, Jenna (16 July 2021). "Senate votes to ban products from China over Uyghur genocide". The Hill]. Just Security Van Schaack, Beth (25 August 2020). "Policy Options in Response to Crimes Against Humanity and Potential Genocide in Xinjiang". Just Security. New York University School of Law. MIT Technology Review O'Neill, Patrick Howell (27 May 2021). "Chinese hackers posing as the UN Human Rights Council are attacking Uyghurs". MIT Technology Review. National Catholic Register Liedl, Jonathan (13 March 2021). "'Total Control': China Regime's Communist Ideology the Common Thread of Web of Human-Rights Abuses". National Catholic Register. News Co. Australia "Chinese embassy release propaganda film riddled with misinformation on Uyghur genocide". News.com.au. 7 April 2021. The New Yorker (RSP entry) Khatchadourian, Raffi (1 May 2020). "Surviving the Crackdown in Xinjiang, in Mandarin". The New Yorker. Khatchadourian, Raffi (5 April 2020). "Surviving the Crackdown in Xinjiang". The New Yorker. Society + Space Klimeš, Ondřej; Finley, Joanne Smith (7 December 2020). "China's Neo-Totalitarian Turn and Genocide in Xinjiang". Society + Space. Green, Penny (7 December 2020). "Reflecting on the persecution of Uyghur Muslims from the perspective of the genocide of the Rohingya". Society + Space. The Taiwan Times Conklin, Lisa (29 January 2021). "Biden Pressured to Act on Genocide Ruling, China Reacts, China Reacts, China Reacts!". The Taiwan Times. Buckton, Mark (11 May 2021). "China Tries To Kibosh Wednesday UN Event On Uyghur Genocide". The Taiwan Times. World Politics Review Ferguson, Kate (7 September 2021). "Genocide Designations Aren't Enough to Stop Mass Atrocities". World Politics Review. Notes

— Mhawk10 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• B or D: WP:AVOIDBOLD or at least not bolding the first phrase makes sense here. Ongoing may be interpreted as excluding past transgressions or become obsolete, so should be left out. Has been committing suffices to indicate events occuring over time. I disagree with the inclusion of other ethnic and religious minorities in the first sentence because it's vague, and whether those populations can be lumped in under the genocide characterization is different from the case for Uyghurs. Suggest the Chinese government has been committing a series of human rights abuses against mainly Uyghurs in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide for the first sentence. CurryCity (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  The purposse of ongoing is that it indicates that the topic is the current (i.e. ongoing) series of human rights abuses, starting in 2014. When the abuses end, it would be trivial to remove "ongoing". — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  So you mean any abuse not ongoing (before 2014) is not part of this article? CurryCity (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  The initial point of this article was that it was a class project about the Chinese abuses against Uyghurs (my classmates and I initially titled the page something like "Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China" when the page was created, which was before all of the forced sterilization stuff came out). There's a long history of China oppressing Uyghurs that extends to before the creation of the PRC. We obviously don't want to include that information in this article in anywhere but the background section, since it isn't really useful in describing the more recent abuses and most scholars see the more recent abuses as something that's been very different in size, scope, and method from the prior abuses. Some place this sort of shift in the abuses against Uyghurs as beginning at the 2009 Urumqi riots, but the general consensus is that the particular series of abuses that this article is about started around 2014 (following the launch of the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism) and that the Uyghur human rights situation rapidly deteriorated after Chen Quanguo became the XUAR party secretary in 2016 and ordered the creation of the massive-scale Xinjiang internment camps and the Civil Servant-Family Pair Up.

  So, I guess to more directly answer the question, the events between June/July 2009 and April 2014 are a bit more fuzzy in terms of whether or not they're in scope, but something in like the mid-to-late-1900s is almost certainly not in scope anywhere except the background section. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• B (first choice), or A(second choice). Can't answer about D without a specific proposal. C is absurd, and E is only slightly better. It's oppression, documented by approximately one zillion sources, as shown above. So "allegation of oppression" is absurd. I don't much like "the characterization of", which is the current wording. It's just strange wording. Not sure where that is in policy. Limiting the characterization to "Western Academics" is also wrong. What do the Uighurs say about it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that I don't mind A at all. With NickCT's suggestion below, I think it becomes just as good as B. I will scream bloody murder if this is closed as C or E. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note to say I'll be screaming with you. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• A - I'd prefer "The Uyghur genocide is a term used to describe the series......", but A is good enough I guess. B is overly editorial. Doesn't seem like Wikipedia voice. C is both editorial and poorly written. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I missed this suggestion. It's a compromise I can get behind. I'm not sure it resolves the concerns of editors who feel the current problem with the sentence is its focus on nomenclature, though. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• A > B > D > all others. A is the most succinct and best summarizes our sources, but B is also acceptable if we prefer not to call it a genocide in Wikipedia's voice. – Anne drew 19:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• B or D We should not label something a genocide unless there is consensus in reliable sources. Also, the current reading is confusing because for the average person, because the term to most people means "the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group." (Merriam-Webster)[15] TFD (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

MW lists as the specific definition "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" which would seem to fit the current situation perfectly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the debates is whether a group is being destroyed. CurryCity (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean it fits one interpretation of the current situation perfectly. In any case, I assume that you would agree that the meaning of the term to most people would be killing people. If a different meaning is used, it should be explained in text, per Technical language. Also, could you please take your opinions to the discussion section below. This section is for the survey and your repeated arguments with editors is distracting to contributors. TFD (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We could probably use an "Introduction to Genocide" article, also we have WP:RS reports of people being deliberately killed. What we don't have is reports of mass killings but per the meaning you provided apparently "mass" is not part of the common meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you please take your opinions to the discussion section below. This section is for the survey and your repeated arguments with editors is distracting to contributors. I will not reply to your questions here because I don't want to be part of the problem. TFD (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TFD, as has been explained to you multiple times thats just not how it works. Either point to a consensus or stop being disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No it hasn't been explained to me. Why do you think there is a discussion section in the RfC? (Rhetorical question.) Anyone coming to vote here would have to wade through walls of text explaining your views. It's not as if these views are unfamiliar to editors familiar with the topic. Lots of sources such as the Epoch Times give them extensive coverage. TFD (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

re "should not label something a genocide" - This sounds like an argument for a move discussion. Not for this discussion about the lede sentence. Fact is, while the title is what it is, we've already labeled it genocide. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• B or D or E as said above by another editor, we should not use wikivoice when labelling it a genocide. We need a consensus among reliable sources to do so, and discussion by Horse Eyes above would violate No original research. Xoltered (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"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." Wikipedia:No original research Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, this discussion is about article content, I am not saying you violated the original research policy, but that inclusion on that basis would violate it. Xoltered (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of what on what basis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

on the basis that the MW definition "would seem to fit the current situation perfectly." We need to rely on reliable sources not your own personal view. Xoltered (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Include what on the basis of that MW definition? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What? What does that even mean? I am going to stop engaging with this bludgeoning of discussion. Xoltered (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you think its perhaps because I didn't actually argue to include anything and you didn't know what WP:OR actually was when you accused me of violating it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You argued against what TFD said, that we should not label it a genocide in wikivoice. Therefore, you wanted to include the wikivoice label. Now please stop replying. Xoltered (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, WP:AGF. I know you have failed to assume good faith in numerous other discussions. This seem to be a recurring issue for you, please take a step back and consider the policy. Xoltered (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You have a very active imagination, I just pointed out that the technical definition fit better than the common meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So you think the article should not call it a genocide in wikivoice? Xoltered (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• A per Mhawk10. — Czello 21:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• A as has been mentioned, the other options fall into WP:EDITORIALIZING. And, per WP:YESPOV, factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. ––FormalDude talk 23:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Calling a genocide is often a judgment call not a factual assertion, and this case is contested. CurryCity (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at the plethora of sources above? ––FormalDude talk 23:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we use factual assertion differently. To me factual assertion is something objectively measurable, like distances. Judgment call is deciding whether something observed fits under certain definitions not directly measurable. CurryCity (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we put things in wiki-voice if they are widely accepted in our best RSes, even if there is some dispute. Because wikipedia is not about truth or absolutes. It's about verifiability. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• A Mhawk10 has given an extensive list of reliable sources to support that wording. No counter argument has backed their argument with such an extensive list of reliable sources. AlanS^talk 01:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @AlanS: well that just ain't true. Look at MarkH21's collation in the last previous RfC. Economist and Project Syndicate articles have been pointed to in this discussion and others which argue specifically against the term; these are top tier RSs by reputation. The Economist article is, in my view, poor. The PS one is not, and its two well-regarded authors point out that that genocide is hard to prove, and firm evidence upon which to make such a determination does not yet exist. RS news articles don't call it a genocide without attribution. The BBC published an excellent article in December explaining the intricacies of the label. The World Uyghur Congress (in the BBC's words "a global activist group"), trying to draw attention to the plight of the Uyghurs, organised a tribunal of experts to listen to evidence from victims and found China has committed genocide, but it has no legal standing and there's legal limbo since there are no courts capable of making a ruling over China (China isn't a member of the ICC, the ICJ needs the Security Council to agree to investigate). Both HRW and Amnesty, the leading international human rights groups, have called the abuses "crimes against humanity" but avoided the term genocide. There's scholarly disagreement over whether the crimes are covered by international laws on genocide, although from my reading I don't believe there's serious disagreement among scholars that China is committing "cultural genocide" in attempt to seriously undermine (or possibly completely wipe out) the group's identity. Exactly what the Chinese state intends is extremely difficult to determine; arguments regarding genocide hinge on proving intent to destroy. Allegations of widespread birth control measures are often pointed to, but the scale of these policies is unclear. So, on whose authority are we stating in wikivoice that it's "genocide"? We're not supposed to be voicing our own opinions, we're supposed to be following sources, and their agreement stops at "crimes against humanity" and "cultural genocide". Jr8825 • Talk 05:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Jr8825: you point to a handful of the sources that you claim to be problematic from an otherwise very large list. While there may be some academic disagreement on the subject, helped not too inconsiderably by funding flowing to confucius institutes at various universities around the world, the coverage from the mainstream press including the liberal press is a lot more consistent on the subject. The only reason this is subject to any debate at all is because there is no ability to test the claims before the ICJ. Given the pretty consistent coverage from large sections of the media I see no issue with option A. AlanS^talk 06:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't picking apart individual sources supporting the term genocide, I was actually doing the opposite: pointing to sources which say something different, that it requires qualification/further evidence, and arguing they come from well-regarded publications. However, if I'm basing my judgement solely on a comparison with Mhawk's list above (it may be incomplete), I'd say it looks as though if you deducted articles published in opinion sections, magazines or low impact journals, and those written by non-experts, or conservative American foreign policy hawks, you'd be left with a similarly sized pool of quality sources calling it genocide to those saying it's difficult to apply the term with certainty. A handful of Mhawk's sources are excellent sources, and I've read them. But it's dishonest to suggest there isn't genuine disagreement here among quality sources. Regarding the liberal mainstream press, it is not consistent - usages of "Uyghur genocide" without qualification (i.e. "accused") have not generally trickled into news reports discussing the topic within major broadsheet newspapers or newswires; if it had, we could drop the "characterised as" right now and all go back to improving our coverage of the abuses. Jr8825 • Talk 06:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Just FYI while it is appropriate to exclude "opinion sections, and those written by non-experts" it is not appropriate to exclude "magazines or low impact journals," or "conservative American foreign policy hawks" as such exclusions would have no basis in policy, they're pretty explicitly not kosher. Also just a note on your previous comment, Project Syndicate is not a "top tier RSs by reputation" its not even a regular WP:RS... Articles from Project Syndicate are all opinion pieces and only usable under subject matter expert allowances. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Both authors are subject matter experts; TFD linked their wiki pages below. Jr8825 • Talk 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  And yet we have sources that explicitly talk about a consensus emerging among scholars as early as 2020 that a genocide is occurring. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: that's an excellent article, I read it last time you brought it up and I've skimmed it again today. I agree with the author. I refer to the events as a genocide when discussing them in my personal capacity (without my wiki-editor's cap on). However, on close reading, it doesn't support using the term genocide without qualification. The author says "I increasingly felt that there was growing evidence to support each of the five elements in the UN definition ... However, though the above actions (actus reus) indisputably amount to crimes against humanity, to levy a charge of genocide also requires proof of requisite intention (mens rea) ... all of the indications ... are that what is being perpetrated against the Uyghurs is an international crime; however, it is notoriously difficult to show – legally – that particular acts of violence constitute genocide. As is widely recognized, part of this difficulty derives from the requirement in the Convention to prove intent ... the crime will not be somehow less bad for being called a “crime against humanity” rather than genocide: “What’s happening is terrible, period, and it is not less terrible if it is not [called] genocide." Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Who on earth in English-speaking countries is going to publish any counters in the current climate? When you rely on judgment by people and non-measurable definitions, personal biases often come on top. CurryCity (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: arguing there's a global conspiracy/tendency to limit sources of a certain view isn't a relevant argument on Wikipedia. See WP:VNT and WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT. We approach issues on the basis of their relative coverage in well-established sources, and those sources' reputations – that's just how we work. Jr8825 • Talk 05:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A>>>B>D. Oppose C, E. per MHawk10 and the extremely good sourcing we have that shows the consensus position is that this is a cultural genocide. Is there dispute? Probably, there is always dispute when it comes to genocide. But we still are beholden to the position most widely accepted in our WP:BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• B2 per my comments in the above discussion. I also argued for B2 in the previous RfC on this sentence. Option E (current wording) is my backup choice, but I think the discussion above this one correctly points out its limitations, so I'm hoping a different preference can be found this time around. I oppose A; I've voiced my opinion on this in plenty of recent discussions, so I'll refer back to the closer's reading of consensus on that wording at the previous RfC: "the majority felt that the WP:NPOV policy cannot be set aside. By both numbers and strength of arguments, the discussion below concluded that the lede sentence should not directly label the events as a genocide". Option C should be not have been considered, it's blatant denialism. I'm ready to reconsider the use of genocide in wikivoice when a clear majority of RS use or accept the term, which I don't believe is presently the case (as can be seen by both routine RS news coverage and various RS articles adding qualification or advising caution). Jr8825 • Talk 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

re "the lede sentence should not directly label the events as a genocide" - Seems like a silly point given the title has already labeled the thing "genocide". Having the title label something "genocide", then arguing the lede sentence should not, only sets up contradictions. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@NickCT: there problem is there are two (actually three) groups of editors who each have a consistent stance. (1) Editors who believe the term genocide is appropriate for wikivoice as the sources stand, (2) editors who believe the term genocide isn't appropriate for wikivoice as the sources stand (and (3) editors who take a line similar to CCP propaganda, because, in all fairness to them, they are consistent in their denialism, maybe they're even salaried). There have been two different community discussions, one on the title (protracted across multiple RMs), and one on the first sentence (the last RfC). A consensus was found in favour of group 1 in the RMs and a consensus was found in favour of group 2 in the RfC. That's what's causing the contradiction. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: - Alright. Well thanks for the history. And for the record, I don't know what the "right" answer is for the "genocide is appropriate for wikivoice" question. I do know that we should avoid contradictions though. And while the title is what it is, I think B2 maintains that contradiction. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: - Follow-up thought; did anyone in those previous conversations consider "ethnocide"? NickCT (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@NickCT:, yes, "Uyghur ethnocide" was the original title of the article prior to Feb 2020, you can check the page move history at the top of this page. "Ethnocide" hasn't been discussed much since we moved towards the title "Uyghur cultural genocide" (another title I have no issue with), which eventually led to the current title "Uyghur genocide". I presume this lack of discussion is because it's seen as insufficiently strong compared to genocide-related terms, and discussion/disagreement over the genocide label has become a notable part of the RS literature and coverage in this time too. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 and NickCT: The move discussion from Ethnocide of Uyghurs to "Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs can be found here. Original title was Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China and it was WP:BOLDly moved to Ethnocide of Uyghurs because an editor thought there was no need to disambiguate with the "in China" piece. The original discussion that resulted in moving the page to Uyghur genocide can be found at Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_2. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time squaring this argument with the one you made above "We're not supposed to be voicing our own opinions, we're supposed to be following sources, and their agreement stops at "crimes against humanity" and "cultural genocide"." because all cultural genocides are genocides by definition. Would you support an opening that went "The Uyghur genocide is the cultural genocide..." ?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

re: "all cultural genocides are genocides by definition": not by all definitions though, such as dictionary definitions that only use "mass killing", or the Genocide Convention's definition, since "cultural genocide ... was excluded from the UN Genocide Convention, and destruction of dignity is not considered genocide in international law, which requires the intended physical destruction of members of a group (quote from Finley paper we were discussing above). Jr8825 • Talk 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How would the "demographic genocide" component here fit into "cultural genocide"? I'm seeing sources that list them as separate components of the abuses, such as 1, 2, 3, 4. Nor would that fit the extensive unqualified descriptors of genocide listed in my collapsed thread above. It seems that this is broader than "Uyghur cultural genocide". — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I, and I suspect most readers, would not know what a "demographic genocide" was anyway. My best guess is that it means suppressing the birth rate of a group, so just as that might not fit a "cultural genocide", it doesn't fit most definitions of 'ACTUAL' genocide either. Certainly no known examples in human history. Why would this not be seen as a "crime against humanity". I think the argument proves nothing other than that some sources characterise this as genocide, or some qualified variant of that word, others use other, less extreme, terms. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A but the term "ongoing" should be replaced with something better: the Uyghur genocide isn't just happening now, but also includes past abuses. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, then Option B - A seems to me the most succinct and clear way to start of the article. The term "Uyghur genocide" has more than enough traction in reputable source to be used outright, without many unnecessary qualifiers. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• A per User:Mhawk10's solid and convincing literature review and also MOS:LEADSENTENCE. --Nug (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Who wrote "A or B, in that order ... " above? Also, would a better sub-section heading above be "Voting" since it seems to be where editors are casting votes? Burrobert (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That was me (sorry for not signing earlier). I've also changed it to be labeled "survey" in line with the common way RfCs are structured, and also since consensus is not determined by a vote, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Rightho. Good choice. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Mhawk10: could you include option B + "Since 2014," as one of the choices, as I suggested in the above discussion? Possibly option B2 or something? Jr8825 • Talk 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Jr8825: I’m currently on mobile, so formatting will be hard for me, but feel free to add it as an option. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an article in Project Syndicate, "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified" by Jeffrey D. Sachs and William Schabas. Whether or not there is a genocide is a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an opinion piece to me not an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think TFD meant to say (also explained previously) that the authors themselves have enough credentials even though their piece might not be the publisher's position. CurryCity (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does C feel intentionally poorly constructed? It's a tautology that misspells Uyghur, you could make the same effective sentence with something like The Chinese government has allegedly committed a series of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, characterized by some Western academics as genocide. while avoiding the poor grammatical construction. It feels like a subpar option has been chosen to represent this sentiment in comparison with the other choices. BSMRD (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s verbatim from a suggestion in the discussion above the RfC. If you’d like to put the thing above in as an option, feel free to add it to the top as its own option (Option F) or to advocate for it as a sort of Option D (say, Option D1). — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think option C is helpful myself, and it seems rather silly to include it. I would suggest linking the previous RfC on precisely this sentence in the brief though, as it's relevant. Jr8825 • Talk 06:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to mention a couple points. First, FormalDude has said that per WP:YESPOV, factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. But is calling something genocide or not a factual assertion, or at some level a judgment call, in this particular case? CurryCity (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're implying that the labeling of something as a genocide is always subjective. If so, I don't think that's true at all. ––FormalDude talk 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It almost always has subjective components. I wouldn't lump it together with factual assertions. CurryCity (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Genocide is a pretty measurable claim, considering how hard it is to hide the effects of one. Could you explain what the subjective components are? ––FormalDude talk 23:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Second, a popular topic always gets a lot of coverage, and you may find say a hundred sources using "genocide" without qualifiers, but if an equal or greater fraction of all coverage couches the term "genocide", uses "cultural genocide", or "ethnocide", how is it fair to pick only one wording for the first sentence? CurryCity (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is decent point. The classification of the abuses is described in the body (Special purpose tribunals, scholars, commentators, journalists, governments, politicians, and diplomats from many countries have labeled China's actions variously as genocide, cultural genocide, ethnocide and/or crimes against humanity.) and therefore the terminology should probably be described in the lede section as well. I'm not sure it needs to be in the first sentence of the lede though. ––FormalDude talk 22:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that already in the third paragraph of the lead? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I wonder if that will satisfy CurryCity's concerns. ––FormalDude talk 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)