Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

This is more of a fantasy article than an actual factual article

Blindly trusting/using any sources(primarily western) as long as they support the genocide narrative, including radio free asia, and Adrian zenz. While continually to ignore any non-western sources and claims that's not in line with this narrative. Hell you aren't even allowed to debunk these claims and narratives, because you aren't allowed to use any sources that's not from the mainstream(western) media. RFA, a literal CIA mouthpiece, is listed as credible but not Grayzone(which is independent).

It doesn't take a genius to see this how flawed this process is. People here only care about their narrative, not objectivity.

The whole uyghur genocide narrative is dying, western media barely talks about it nowaday. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

Even Zenz does not claim that China is committing genocide,but people here continue to insist that China is committing a Holocaust-style genocide against Uyghurs.

There's a good reason why even american trust in their own media is at a all time low. And i hope this trend continue.

DemisJohnson (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If The Grayzone is independent, why have they never disclosed their sources of funding? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

George Soros? TFD (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What could you possibly mean by this, ip editor? Paragon Deku (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, in the leading paragraph it says "Experts estimate that, since 2017, some sixteen thousand mosques have been razed or damaged," but this claim cannot be verified in the cited source. Besides that, Radio Free Asia is a US government-funded source, and has a clear CoI in this matter. Plus, many of their stories cannot be independently verified by third party journalists. The same goes for Adrian Zenz, a member of Victims of Communism Memorial, which has its own list of verifiability problems. ARADPLAUG (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The source ratings have come from extensive community discussion, which has examine things like use of sources by other reliable sources as well as general reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have objection to specific content, please state it, but I don't understand the point of dropping a comment on the talk page that is as vague as this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First, note that Radio Free Asia was determined to be a problematic source when it comes to geopolitically contentious issues, because of its role as an arm of the US government and its history of publishing misinformation on certain politically charged topics (e.g., publishing CoVID misinformation, specifically about the death toll in the original Wuhan outbreak). The conclusion was that RFA's claims must be attributed (making clear RFA's relation to the US government), and that caution should be exercised with the source. The accusations of a Uyghur genocide are extremely politically contentious, and the US government is probably the most prominent accuser. That means that RFA is a very poor source for this topic, and should be avoided for anything other than conveying the views of the US government.

Second, the "perennial sources" list is just a guideline, and does not trump WP:RS. Context still matters, and given the political context of this issue, in which the US has pushed accusations of genocide, why would we even risk using a media outlet run by the US government for the express purpose of furthering US foreign policy? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be misremembering the consensus (you would appear to have substituted the argument you made which was not accepted by the community for consensus), consensus as recorded is "Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use." see the differences? You claim its problematic, consensus says otherwise... You claim that it must be attributed, consensus says that it may be attributed. You say that it can be used to convey the view of the US government, but consensus found that they don't have that level of government co-option. The perennial sources list is not a guideline, its a collection of consensuses which are individually binding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly if anything I think it might be beneficial to have another discussion over RFA. It’s been a few years and consensus seems to have oscillated. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I just checked, and I did not realize there was another discussion last year. Definitely too soon then I would say, mea culpa. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who would accept Radio Free Asia as a source of truth is a blithering idiot. Along those lines, this entire article is garbage, even conflicting with itself, making claims about "uyg(h)ur repression" over things that are universal across all chinese citizens, and last but not least, misspelling uygur. It's garbage with a pretty coat of whitewash, almost all the sources are unverified and unverifiable trash. Unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claims and stories, trash. It's stupid propaganda, credited by stupid people. 203.160.86.227 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not misremembering the RfC result in Radio Free Asia. The RfC result clearly states that RFA must be treated with caution on subjects where the US government has political interests. This result was partially motivated by several clear cases (presented in the RfC) in which RFA engaged in CoVID disinformation. In particular, RFA promoted absolutely wild death tolls for China that were 10 to 50 times the scientifically accepted estimates. RFA's "reporting" was based on things like random interviews with taxi drivers. In other words, it made completely ridiculous claims, which had no credible sourcing and which contradicted what was scientifically known at the time. This is the sort of thing that led to the recommendation that RFA be treated with caution on politically sensitive topics.

As for how RSN should be used, you're mistaken. Reliability depends on context. RSN gives some overall advice, but each individual case may differ in context. Policy is clear on that, and RSN was never intended to be a replacement for Wikipedia's context-dependent sourcing rules. On this particular subject, the US government has extremely strong political interests, and is a major player. Using RFA, which is an official arm of the US government, which receives nearly its entire funding from Congress, and which in its charter is explicitly required to advance US foreign policy interests, to make any controversial claims about this subject is editorial malpractice. I have to question the judgment of editors who insist on using RFA, and I have to ask why they are so set on using a source which is so obviously problematic in this context. I don't see how any editor who believes in neutrality can advocate for using RFA here, and I think this article is a showcase for what happens when editors abandon neutrality and let their political views drive their editing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarify sentence structure

Can someone rephrase the sentence:

"The July 2009 Ürümqi riots broke out in response to the Shaoguan incident, a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory, which resulted in over one hundred deaths."

To make it more clear that the deaths occurred in the July 2009 Ürümqi riots, not the Shaoguan incident

Possibly:

In June 2009, a violent dispute occurred between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory. The July 2009 Ürümqi riots broke out in response to this incident, resulting in over one hundred deaths." DanielTheManual (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this achieve the same clarity more succinctly: "The July 2009 Ürümqi riots, which resulted in over one hundred deaths, broke out in response to the Shaoguan incident, a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese factory workers" ? Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've amended. Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Hello! I am writing this here to suggest a change to this article. I hope this change will provide more context to the situation and have a more balanced perspective so that readers have a better understanding of the complex situation in and the human rights violations in Xinjiang.

I would like to change this sentence:

“The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang that is often characterized as genocide.”

to this:

"The Chinese government has implemented policies and programs in Xinjiang that have generated debates and discussions concerning human rights issues. According to the Chinese government, these actions are part of counterterrorism efforts aimed at safeguarding citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, which is supported by various reports and investigations. However, some critics argue that these policies have resulted in human rights violations and potentially amount to acts of genocide against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities. These claims are also supported by various reports and investigations. The situation in Xinjiang remains a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny among experts and organizations, with differing perspectives on the nature and extent of human rights abuses."

The suggested change to the Wikipedia article aims to achieve a more balanced and cautious approach by incorporating different perspectives. It recognizes the significance of including the Chinese government's viewpoint which reveals their intentions and rationale behind their policies. It also allows readers to better comprehend the Chinese government's stated objectives (which they claim are part of counterterrorism efforts aimed at safeguarding citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities).

In addition, the revised paragraph acknowledges the inclusion of claims made by critics and emphasizes their concerns regarding human rights violations and the possibility of genocide. By acknowledging the gravity of these allegations and the necessity to consider these serious concerns, readers are exposed to a range of viewpoints and can form their own informed opinions. This approach acknowledges the vast differences in the claims being made and the significant implications they carry.

By presenting a more balanced account and incorporating multiple perspectives, the suggested change ensures that the Wikipedia article remains neutral and informative. It encourages readers to examine the available evidence and make their own judgments, fostering critical thinking and a well-rounded evaluation of the information at hand. This approach allows for a comprehensive and unbiased exploration of the topic, enabling readers to gain a broader understanding of the issue and form their own conclusions.

Also, the 10 sources I listed here are not necessarily important to be included in the article. Other sources can be used instead, but I thought it would be important to at least provide some sources. Atinoua (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Several of the sources included in the above (such as The Grayzone and CGTN) are deprecated on Wikipedia, and should generally not be used in articles to support assertions of facts. The problem with the proposed rewrite comes in giving these sorts of sources equal weight with more reliable sources, which makes the balance of the article worse in light of the underlying sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the warm welcome and for the helpful feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to write your concerns about the inclusion of certain sources in the suggested revision and I now understand that CGTN and The Grayzone are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia's standards.

The goal of the change I propose is to promote a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the complex situation that exists in Xinjiang, and I agree that it's very important to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing. Using reputable and unbiased sources are very important when asserting facts in the article. There may be a way to acknowledge the different viewpoints in our article without giving equal weight to both sources. By revealing the rationale the Chinese government shares of their policies, it allows the reader to have a more thorough understanding of the complex situation in Xinjiang. We can also include the criticism and skepticism that more reliable sources have of China's rationale to ensure that they are not given equal weight. Please let me know what you think! Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the way 211.63.206.61 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The text proposed reads like a press release from the PRC, it is full of euphemism and obfuscation - there isn't a hope in hell of it being implemented IMO. Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I wanted to clarify that my intention is to share different perspectives in a neutral manner. As Red-tailed hawk pointed out, sources such as CGTN and The Grayzone are not considered reliable on Wikipedia which must be taken into account when making changes. I agree with you that it is important to be transparent and your concerns about obfuscating are valid in light of the deprecated sources which is why we should acknowledge the different viewpoints in our article without giving equal weight to both sources. The reader will have a more thorough understanding of the situation in Xinjiang, and we would have a more balanced perspective, if our article presents the rationale behind these policy changes. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to give both sides equal weight. Including criticism and skepticism of China’s rationale can also be done to ensure we have a balanced perspective. What are your thoughts on this? (I would prefer this change to be a collective effort rather than simply me presenting an idea and people agreeing or disagreeing with it.)Atinoua (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Even though I am among those who think the present article is flawed in some respects, I think the objectives you set out are mutually incompatible. It is no part of our remit to attempt to give China's rationale, other than briefly set out its justification. Doing otherwise would almost inevitably be giving equal weight to the perpetrators and the victims. Regimes, whether of the West or the East always have their reasons and justifications and the PRC has very different values and expectations of its citizenry and rights of the state to most Western countries. By denying Western access to the affected groups and areas, PRC inevitably fuels speculation and suspicion about the nature and extent of human rights abuses there.

Specific edit changes are always up for discussion, but what you appear to be proposing is very unlikely to receive much support here and is not something I personally would have any interest in aiding. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your reply. I agree that we should not give equal credibility if the evidence is not also equal. And I think you make a good point by needing to briefly explain its justification. By providing a brief justification, the situation in Xinjiang will be better understood by the reader. What are your thoughts on this?

“Beginning in 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims without any legal process in internment camps.[2][3][4][5] While the CCP argues that these actions are part of their counterterrorism efforts aimed at ensuring citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, their claims are widely condemned and met with skepticism.”

This change is an improvement because it does not give equal credibility to both sources, maintaining the balance of the article. It also provides more information as to what China is claiming, while also acknowledging the condemnation and widespread skepticism these claims make. This allows the reader to have a more thorough understanding that certain claims are not supported with evidence, while other claims are. Please let me know what you think.

It may also be necessary to include something about how western access to China is restricted. This suggestion also provides more detail about restrictions to available information in the area and the skepticism that comes from that. This further illustrates the level of honesty of their justification:

“Beginning in 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims without any legal process in internment camps.[2][3][4][5] While the CCP argues that these actions are part of their counterterrorism efforts aimed at ensuring citizens' safety and providing educational opportunities, there has been restricted access by Western organizations and journalists to the region. This has fueled speculation about the extent of human rights abuses and has led to their claims being widely condemned and met with skepticism.” Atinoua (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you are new, I'll post some suggestions on your talk page. TFD (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone has a perspective doesn't mean we have to treat it as valid. The Russian government and anti-vaxxers also have perspectives regarding the war in Ukraine and vaccines, but we don't care about them, because they're varying levels of baloney. If you have a choice between manure and a somewhat charred grilled cheese sandwich, you don't compromise and eat a shit sandwich because one of them is imperfect. AryKun (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point here. What do you think about my proposed edit? Atinoua (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

No opinion on the specific word-change proposed but one thing is certain : the way this is written now is wrong. It should be "there are *claims* that ...." because if you bother to look, there is no proof. All of the studies and papers by special interest groups are weak weak weak, big on conjecture small on evidence. Even within the article many of the claims made are refuted by other statements. If you can't prove something is factual, then you should not make statements as if it were. Amber Heard should have been a lesson to the world.

The "references" above are junk. Look into them impartially. Pure garbage mixed with conjecture and untenable conclusions. They aren't references, they are trash mixed with propaganda. 203.160.86.227 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's possible that there is no proof, but Wikipedia has a policy of WP:PST which means that our article must primarily be based on secondary sources. We cannot use primary sources only. My recommendation is that if there are secondary sources that are reliable (according to Wikipedia's standards of reliability), you share those sources here. Atinoua (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article called 'Uyghur genocide'?

Already the lede shows that the labelling of these policies as 'genocide' is highly contested and not at all generally accepted. Yet, by its very choice of title, the article openly endorses the most extreme position on one side, and then, as a result, we have articles elsewhere on Wikipedia again referring to 'the Uyghur genocide' as if it were an undeniable and established fact that there is such a thing, i.e. that the policies do amount to a genocide. This is even used to label individuals who disagree with the view that this description is appropriate - again, a view that is not even close to being universally accepted, as the lede itself admits - as 'Uyghur genocide deniers'. This contradicts WP:NPOV and seems intended to create a new default view rather than to reflect the currently existing range of opinion - in other words, it seems to emanate more from an activist/propagandistic mission than from an encyclopedic one. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You can peruse the move logs to understand the discussion that led to the naming of the article, and to the upholding of that name later on. You can find those logs in one of the banners at the top of this talk page. UlyssorZebra (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutrality is not what is commonly meant as being neutral. It defines its own Neutrality with respect to only what editors consider as reliable sources. For example, if A, B, and C are considered reliable, then the articles will reflect what they say and not take sides amongst them. However, this does not mean Wikipedia is neutral with respect to all sources or information. Say X is considered unreliable by editors, and Y is ignored by (reliable) sources, then Wikipedia will not include those information. CurryCity (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the FAQ

The FAQ, edited by Red-tailed hawk, has stated since 2021 that: "The current title reflects the consensus established in two separate move discussions (30 June 2020, 1 April 2021) that were created just over three-quarters of a year apart from each other. In these discussions, editors discussed reporting from reliable sources in light of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA, each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title "Uyghur genocide" is an appropriate name for the article."

This sentence in the FAQ makes it seem likes there was a bigger support for the current title than what can be seen by following the two links in the answer. On 30 June 2020 the closing admin didn't even move it at first to the current title and on 1 April 2021 the The result of the move request was "No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is."

That's why I propose it be changed from

"each time establishing an affirmative consensus that the title..."

to

each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title...

181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the FAQ 2

I've removed the following question (written and answered by Red-tailed hawk and then reinstated by himself when I deleted it), mainly because it's just clutter at this point since the article is move protected indefinitely since September 2021 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Uyghur+genocide ). But also because, in my opinion, the way it was worded was biased and unprofessional since it implies that anyone who renames the articles does so just because they don't like the title.

FAQ row|index=2|q=Should I try to move the [[Uyghur genocide]] page on my own because I don't like its title?|a=No. '''Do not unilaterally move the page against consensus.'''

181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There is affirmative consensus to have the page where it is. If you would like to move it, open a move request; don't do it unilaterally, because it's fairly disruptive to do that when one knows that any change will be contested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The point about full move protection is a strong one, though. I think it's unlikely that any admins will unilaterally move the page, and even less likely that the FAQ would influence such a decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, there is a weak affirmative consensus to leave it as is. Red-tailed misrepresented the consensus reached when writing the FAQ. At the time the misrepresentation didn't matter because there was a one year moratorium regardless. 181.164.245.124 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There does appear to be a strong consensus again unilateral moves, thats separate from the affirmative consensus to leave it as is. What do you think unilateral move means in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As for your first statement, I've only clarified that there's a weak affirmative consensus. As for your question "What do you think unilateral move means in this context? " you are either wasting my time by not reading the previous exchanges or you are being sarcastic, either way at this point the first statement is the only one that is relevant.

i.e. the one related to my proposed change:

go from: "each time establishing an affirmative consensus that the title..."

to:

each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title...

181.164.245.124 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want an honest answer to your question, the reason why the article is titled "Uyghur genocide" is because there are editors who want to state in Wikipedia's authoritative voice that there is a genocide. They know that there's insufficient reliable sourcing for that claim, so they've gone a different route and argued that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for this subject. It's a clever way of making a claim without having to clear the threshold of establishing that reliable sources agree with the claim. If you press them, they'll claim that they're not making any factual claim with the title, but everyone knows that readers will view it as a factual claim. That's the whole point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2023

Uyghur genocide → Uyghur ethnocide – Uyghur genocide is not a neutral term and possibly incorrect, but the persecution is a clearly ethnocide. Sharouser (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor changing from its current title, which is not consistent with article naming policies. There are many labels used to describe China's maltreatment of Uyghurs, with various characterizations including persecution (a word you use), suppression, crackdown, human rights abuses, and forced assimilation. Unfortunately, the current article title reflects the most contentious and contended choice, one not accepted by enough RS to be the article title.

Characterizations from recent academic sources which I have readily accessible include Gerstl, 2023 (people of Xinjiang are "suppressed"), Dubravčíková, 2023 ("a policy of forced abandonment of religion, sinicization, and reeducation"), Tuscanyi, 2023 ("persecution" of religious minorities in Xinjiang), Shinn & Eisenmann, 2023 ("Uighur crackdown").

While ethnocide strikes me as "less wrong" than the current title, I am also not convinced it is a proper title.

Ultimately, I think this is a discussion which to stay organized, needs to be made with reference to the body of reliable sources on the topic. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding further to my list of recent academic sources, Murphy 2022 ("crackdown in Xinjiang" ... "The extreme manifestation of this interest is China's extrajudicial incarceration of over 1 million Uyghurs in camps in Xinjiang") JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would you consider a book about China's foreign policy (Dawn. C. Murphy, China's Rise in the Global South 2022) relevant to the subject, particularly when it doesn't refer to this incarceration as genocide? The issue is not what China is doing, but how we describe it. Genocide is an emotive term that should only be used when there is consensus in reliable sources for its use. TFD (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You write, "Genocide is an emotive term that should only be used when there is consensus in reliable sources for its use." I agree.

Implicit in your comment is that "genocide" should not be in the article title. I agree with that too.

That's my purpose in identifying a sample of recent reliable sources that do not use the "genocide" label. "Genocide" is a minority view which should not be in the article title.

It is not remarkable that a foreign policy text like the Murphy one I cite here is relevant to the topic. The issue of China's policies in Xinjiang have significant foreign policy ramifications both with regard to China itself and other countries reactions and merit discussion in that context. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common way this is referenced in reliable sources is as a "genocide". As our article on genocide points out, the definition of genocide can be very broad. The UN definition of genocide can easily encompasses ethnocide. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"The most common way this is referenced in reliable sources is as a "genocide" Is that true? For example see a recent NYTimes story about Xinjiang, which does not refer to genocide, but instead human right violations: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/business/economy/solar-xinjiang-china-report.html?searchResultPosition=11 . In this piece from the Guardian "genocide" is only used to refer to the term used by some governments and is not the term used by the newspaper itself: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/xi-urges-more-work-to-control-religious-activities-in-xinjiang-on-surprise-visit Dhawk790 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ethnocide is even less the WP:COMMONNAME than genocide is and has all the same disadvantages, including implying that mass killing is occurring. Pincrete (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This mean that you would support changing the language to something other than genocide, right? I agree about the problem of both terms being associated with mass killings, which no is even contending in the case of Xinjiang. I think the Persecution of Uyghurs suggestion below addresses this issue. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Change to Persecution of Uyghurs or Persecution of Uyghurs by the Chinese government I think either of these titles would be better, due to the fact there is no consensus in this article to describe the actions of the Chinese government in wikivoice as a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Either of these would work in my view, and be much better than the existing title. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Change to Persecution of Uyghurs Genocide is an extremely contentious term to use and requires thorough investigation before it is used. In cases where the term is widely applied, such as Rwanda or Yugoslavia international prosecution of those help to be responsible has taken place. That is not the case with Xinjiang. Additionally, international human rights bodies, which have been critical of China such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch have not deemed what is being alleged in Xinjiang to be a genocide (see over 100 page report from AI which does not use the term genocide other than in a footnote to a reference: https://xinjiang.amnesty.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ASA_17_4137-2021_Full_report_ENG.pdf also see a report from HRW where they explicitly say that genocidal intent cannot be determined: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting) The United Nations report about Xinjiang also does not use the terminology of genocide (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf). Furthermore, the governments that have used the term genocide are governments with contentious relations with China, so right now the usage can be best seen as a political claim. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please also see this article, which argues that genocide terminology is not helpful: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word-for-the-horrors-of-xinjiang Dhawk790 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to Persecution of Uyghurs as others have suggested, easier to understand than ethnocide and not as loaded of a term as genocide. Killuminator (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, the name we have is sufficient. The common name for something that isn't occurring in an English speaking country is always going to be a bit messy, its never going to be perfect but what we have now is close enough. Persecution of Uyghurs doesn't work because thats a different and broader topic than the one described here which is only about a modern episode of persecution and not about the hundreds of years of persecution which came before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Change to Persecution of Uyghurs. Posting this to make my position more explicit, and I laid out some sources in response to an earlier comment. I strongly oppose the current title. While I believe there are numerous other formulations which would be acceptable, Persecution of Uyghurs has emerged as the most favored alternative at this stage of the discussion and I would certainly be willing to join in that result. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. "Persecution" of Uyghurs could refer to numerous events stretching back in time. That's not exactly what this article is about. - Amigao (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  To the extent this is a problem, it is a problem already existing with the current name as well. The article uses a disambiguation link to address the issue, and a similar approach can be adopted after move. The article currently says, "For the 1750s genocide that occurred in the same region, see Dzungar genocide." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Moving to a title that is more imprecise still goes against WP:PRECISE and more disambigs just seem like a workaround to cover for needless imprecision. Amigao (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think we could deal with the problem by adding years. For example "Persecution of Uyghurs (2014 to Present)". Dhawk790 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is a good suggestion, but I think "Persecution of Uyghurs" is probably fine too. For example, the article about the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine since 2014 is simply titled Russo-Ukrainian War (instead of "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to Present)"), even if there were historically other wars between them. --Wengier (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree and prefer the simpler title. Good point about the Russia-Ukraine article. It looks like there is a growing consensus for Persecution of Uyghurs, but if enough people think lack of specificity is an issue, then adding the years might be a good compromise. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  There are just a handful of editors in favor. That's not a growing consensus. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the more important point is not the title, but the clarification of the term usages. As discussions below have shown, I don't think the title is considered the main issue any more, although the related discussions do reveal important points that can be used to improve the article. --Wengier (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Change to Persecution of Uyghurs (or Persecution of Uyghurs (2014 to Present)) Update: As the discussions below have suggested, I think the more important issue is the clarification of the word "geocide" used in the article, as this will make readers more clear about the sense in which we use the word 'genocide'. This will also make the content more neutral. Indeed, neutral point of view (NPOV) is a core principle of Wikipedia. --Wengier (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Previous RfCs found that the current title meets WP:AT. In fact, since the 2021 RfCs, the current title has become more common, not less. Thus, more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, is there any new evidence or new arguments being put forth since the last RfCs? Amigao (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  However, "Persecution of (the) Uyghurs" is quite common (as well), probably has become increasingly more common than before. Things all change, and this is a regular move request. Of course neutrality is also very important for deciding the article title (as stated in that page). --Wengier (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  So, what exactly has changed? No new arguments or evidence are being presented in this RfC that were not covered in past RfCs. Amigao (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is a regular move request, and people can all vote and/or express their opinions as they wish. Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. If you have a problem with the move request itself, you can also request it separately (and I am not the one who opened the move request). --Wengier (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  With resect to Comment on content, not on the contributor, please, where in his replies to you is he talking about the contributor? He seems to be talking about the content (i.e. since the 2021 RfCs, the current title has become more common, not less and So, what exactly has changed?). I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Right before my above comment he sent me a message in my talk page with a notice saying "You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, ..." etc [1], and also tried to change some contents that I previously edited in some other pages. I was simply voting in this page following the regular move request, and apparently people can all vote and/or express their opinions as they wish (and in good faith). Indeed, Wikipedia's editors should all treat each other with respect and civility, and be in good faith. --Wengier (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  The note on your page is a standard no-fault general sanctions notification, to ensure that you're aware that this is a GS topic area. Please also note that RfCs are not votes in the strict sense; they're more like formal threaded discussions than anything else. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and it is well-established among reliable sources:

Examples of RSes that use "Uyghur genocide"/"genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang in their own voice

Academic sources (Peer-reviewed journals and law review articles) Salcito, Kendyl (11 July 2023). "Automotive Supply Chain Links to the Uyghur Genocide: Reversing a Growing Crisis". Business and Human Rights Journal. 8 (2): 265–270. doi:10.1017/bhj.2023.15. Procurement has historically been a department focused on efficiency and cost-cutting; the Uyghur genocide mandates that this corporate function (as all other corporate functions) become embedded in the business and human rights agenda. Hayes, Anna (2023). "Collateral Damage in Sino-Arabic Cooperation: Assessing Middle Eastern and North African Silence and Complicity in the Uyghur Crisis". In Kim, Young-Chan (ed.). China’s Engagement with the Islamic Nations: A Clash or Collaboration of Modern Civilisation?. Springer Nature. pp. 181–206. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31042-3_10. ISBN 978-3-031-31041-6. Many of the accounts on the Uyghur genocide come from: the Chinese government’s own sources; Chinese media reports; the testimony of Uyghurs; nationals of other countries who have been wrongfully detained by Chinese authorities and later released, usually Kazakhs; and the testimony of those who have loved ones wrongly detained, like the Pakistani husbands and fathers. These accounts are not, as Beijing’s letter claimed, “unconfirmed information”, nor are they “distortions” or Western media “hypocrisy” as Beijing frequently claims via its diplomatic corps. This has become even more evident following each leak of internal Chinese documents, all of which demonstrate a genocide is occurring in XUAR. Fiskesjö, Magnus (16 February 2023). "Chapter 9: State strategies to implement (and hide) genocide in China and Myanmar since 2017". In Simon, David; Khan, Leora (eds.). Handbook of Genocide Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 123–141. doi:10.4337/9781800379343.00020. ISBN 9781800379336. In 2017, two new genocides were launched in Asia by the neo-nationalist regimes in China and in Myanmar (Burma). The first, in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region, targets the Uyghurs and other indigenous peoples1 who are predominantly Muslim... Turkel, Nury (2022). "High-tech surveillance for religious persecution: Technology enabled and facilitated Uyghur genocide in China". Notre Dame Law Review. 97 (3): 310–316. The Chinese Communist Party has employed their best and brightest in pursuit of designing the most innovative, well-oiled genocide on religious grounds the world has ever seen.24 For years, the CCP has worked to develop an integrated technological, diplomatic, and logistical approach to oppressing Uyghurs, depressing Uyghur culture and religious practice, and repressing information about the genocide from reaching the outside world. ... [T]he Uyghur genocide drags into its fifth year... Kanat, Omer (Fall 2021). "The Uyghur Genocide and International Policy Response". Brown Journal of World Affairs. 28 (1): 221–235. China has already reacted strongly to state actions in response to the Uyghur genocide... The Uyghur genocide is entangled in global concerns like supply chain security, transnational repression, and authoritarian influence operations. 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. Mucha, Sara (19 May 2021). "Scoop: Bipartisan bill pushes Biden to act on Uyghur genocide". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (14 December 2021). "Exclusive: Jewish groups urge Biden to take action on Uyghur genocide". Axios. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (2 Jan 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. Foreign Affairs Coca, Nithin (10 September 2020). "The Long Shadow of Xinjiang". Foreign Affairs. Foreign Policy Scott, Liam (28 February 2023). "Western Academics Are Fighting for Disappeared Friends in Xinjiang". Foreign Policy. Amy, Mackinnon (20 March 2023). "The Witness". Foreign policy. The Guardian Gambino, Lauren (24 March 2023). "'Like a war zone': Congress hears of China's abuses in Xinjiang 're-education camps'". The Guardian. i Hockaday, James (7 December 2022). "'I hope they feel solidarity with us': China eases Covid restrictions but Uyghurs remain under surveillance". i. Hastings, Rob (21 April 2022). "The faces of China's Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang and the brave researcher uncovering their cases one by one". i. 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. WION Singh, Abhinav (6 August 2022). "China invites Turkey to visit Xinjiang, the ground zero of Uyghur Muslims genocide". WION. World Politics Review Ferguson, Kate (7 September 2021). "Genocide Designations Aren't Enough to Stop Mass Atrocities". World Politics Review. Notes

The academic consensus has become even stronger about the situation in Xinjiang, and the arguments to simply move the page to omit the word for which there are frankly unconvincing. The arguments to keep this page at its current locations, as stated in the prior well-attended move requests remain salient. Arguments to rename this to "persecution" likewise are unconvincing, particularly in light of the balance of academic sources that write about this issue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A great deal of the last debate focused around whether 'genocide' was actually the commonname for the recent mistreatment of Uyghur's by the Chinese state, and I acknowledge that SOME of the sources above do treat the term as though it IS the acknowledged/accepted name for that mistreatment, but those sources aren't necessarily 'mainstream'. A huge percentage of the above sources however prove the opposite to my mind. When commentators say things such as "all of which demonstrate a genocide is occurring in XUAR" … "The regime with its inhuman policies is currently carrying out genocide" … "All of these are acts of genocide which meet the Convention’s definition under article 2(b) and 2(d)" - those from among the first few refs only. Clearly in these instances the writer is trying to persuade me as reader that what is happening is genocide or that what is happening meets some or all of the legal definition of genocide. To analogise, if I believe, or I try to argue that the attacks on the Capitol on January 6th 2020 were a deliberate attempt to overthrow the US govt in order to impose a totalitarian governance, that is clearly a million miles from "January 6th US Totalitarian Coup attempt" being the commonname for those events.

FWIW, my own assessment during the previous name discussion was that 'genocide' was the commonname among activists and academics seeking to argue that sufficient evidence existed to believe there WAS a genocide, but the very act of arguing that the mistreatment was genocide, or met some of the legal definition of genocide, constituted an admission that the term wasn't generally the accepted one - ie wasn't commonname outside the circle of activists.

Due to partially contradictory discussions, we have the anomalous position that we call the article 'genocide', but cannot assert in WPVOICE that such a deed has occurred or is occurring, we merely claim that the mistreatment is sometimes/often referred to as 'genocide'.

One particular aspect of this naming dispute has always concerned me, namely that those who argue for 'genocide' being the apt term - either here or in the real world - are reliant on a little-known and never previously used part of the general 'legal' definition and a little known part of Lemkin's writings. The part of both that relates to making the group unviable by - in this instance - obstructing reproduction, rather than physically destroying the group (ie killing). I obviously cannot prove that the general reader does not know that 'genocide' does not necessarily involve intentional mass killing, but what I believe is true is that there are simply zero instances of "ZXY genocide" being the commonname for any historical event, in which significant numbers of the ZXY population were not intentionally killed. Why would the general reader NOT assume that genocide=intentional mass killing and therefore be perplexed to discover that no intentional killing is even claimed in this instance ? Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a really important point. I wonder if there are any examples of other articles on Wikipedia where the term genocide is used to refer to an event that did not include some form of mass killings, even if other crimes might have been a part of it. In contrast, in instances where the crimes are not mass killngs, the specifics are used. See for example: Sterilization of Native American women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women; Sterilization of Latinas: Sterilization of Latinas Internment of Japanese Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans . These historic cases of persecution match claims about Japan, but they are not referred to as genocides. In the case of sterilization of Latinas and Latin American immigrants, the alleged crimes persist to the present, but you basically never hear the terminology of genocide used. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A cultural genocide (or ethnocide) is still a genocide. What claims about Japan do these examples match? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The two main relevant claims about Xinjiang seem to be sterilization and mass internment. I was providing examples of other historical times when those activities happened, but they are not widely labelled genocide. You can in the sterilization case, some people have claimed that they are genocide, but Wikipedia still does not use the label genocide. Also, if you look at the list of Genocides on Wikipedia, Xinjiang is the only case where no death toll is listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides . If you go through the Cultural Genocide article you can see that the main articles discussing the events do no label them as a genocide in their title. See one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%ADs . Dhawk790 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with claims about Japan? If we're talking about Xinjiang and you said Japan for some reason you don't consider the claim of cultural destruction to be relevant? The sources seem to treat those as the strongest claims. Also note that your example of mass internment doesn't match, thats wartime internment and this is peacetime interment. You also don't see the widespread physical and sexual abuse thats been reported in the Xinjiang situation in the WWII internment of Japanese Americans on the west coast. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that these are the same thing. I don't see the relevance of wartime vs not war time either. If China was at war would that change how you would define the events? Many diffinitive genocides happened during war time. I am saying that in other historical times when similar actions have been done they are not labelled as genocide on Wikipedia even when in some cases there are credible sources that label them as genocide. There was also alleged sexual abuse during interment. See here for a helpful source: https://densho.org/catalyst/sexual-violence-silence-japanese-american-incarceration/ . Dhawk790 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet you have not presented similar actions (the scale of sexual abuse for example doesn't match up, the source you just provided looks nothing like the organized mass rape-torture in the camps in China), nor have you touched on articles like Black genocide where we use genocide in the title despite that being contentious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There are similar actions accusations of mass internment, sexual abuse sterilization. My point is that in most cases these events are not usually labelled as a genocide. If you look at the main article that lists genocides, it lists the numbers believed to have been killed. The only exception is the Uyghur Genocide. It is clear that the term genocide is almost always used when referring to deliberate mass killings of a particular people group. The Black genocide example is an interesting one. I think if the we moved the current Uyghur Genocide article to a less contentious title (like the persecution example) and used the Uyghur genocide article to discuss the contentions about genocide, as is the case in the Black genocide article (the undisputed atrocities against Black Americans like mass incarceration, slavery, sterilization etc. have their own articles), that would be a good compromise. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't appear similar, they appear to differ by orders of magnitude in terms of scale and in almost all other ways. You appear to be trying to use whataboutism but your argument is crippled by your inability to find similar cases which aren't acknowledged genocides or use genocide in their title or description. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the claims is the same. Mass internment. Sterilization. Sexual abuse. Scale is not the relevant point. In cases of genocide, the relevant factor is intent. For example, Srebrenica is frequently labelled a genocide, despite the number of dead being significantly less than other cases of mass killing because the belief is that there was intent to eliminate the Bosnian population of the city. For example, the 2003 Iraqi War, which involved many more dead civilians, is not labelled a genocide because the belief is that there was not deliberate intent to eliminate the people killed. To you point about finding similar cases--I think the important question is to find another article describing a historical even that is described as genocide without evidence of mass killings. If there are no other such cases, I think it is inconsistent to label what is describe in the current article as genocide. List of genocides is a good place to see what I mean. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

A cultural genocide (or ethnocide) is still a genocide. Well if I was Lemkin, I'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but all those editors (and many of the sources they cited) who changed this article title from 'Uyghur cultural genocide' to 'Uyghur genocide' back in June 2020 clearly wouldn't. The most frequently argued comment is that the situation had worsened/become clearer and that this was no longer merely cultural, but now actual. We can not either of us know with certainty what a hypothetical 'average' reader thinks, but 'cultural genocide' is a great deal less open to misunderstanding than 'genocide'.

I think that this 'misunderstanding' issue is actually peripheral. Were the COMMONNAME established in the way some editors claim it is, any ambiguity would at most require a sentence or two of clarification. At present IMO, we aren't even clear in the article about the sense in which we use the word 'genocide'. We rather assume that the reader is familiar with the writings of Lemkin and/or the provisions of international genocide law - which are both different from the ordinary English usage of 'intentional mass killing of an ethnic group'. The subjects are clearly very different, but The Rape of the Sabine Women is explicit from the outset that 'rape' is not used in the ordinary sense of that word. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

So an important point in the comment is that the word "genocide" as used by some sources (including some of those who tried to persuade that what is happening is genocide) is used in a very different sense than the ordinary English usage of 'intentional mass killing of an ethnic group'. Thus, if the word is to be used in the title as the common name, then the article should make clear about this very important point in the article, since ordinary readers may simply not know about such a usage. --Wengier (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that there does not appear to be objections about this in the discussion, I have been thinking about a sentence like "The word "genocide" as defined in the Genocide Convention does not necessarily involve intentional mass killing (unlike the ordinary English usage)". --Wengier (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It would almost certainly be WP:OR to make claims about the 'normal' understanding of 'genocide'. I have had another editor argue here that most people understand that it does not necessarily involve killing. Whether they or I are more right, it would almost certainly lead to WP:OR to presume what the 'normal' meaning is IMO. We could only be clearer about what the meaning is when used HERE. Pincrete (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I see what you meant. It would be even better if you had pointed out this earlier. There is no doubt that you have a good understanding about such terms, and indeed I have been trying to learn from you. In any case, I am sure you can handle things related to such concept(s) better than me. --Wengier (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that Uyghur ethnocide is the only logical solution to achieve neutrality and accuracy. Cultural genocide or "persecution" may blur accuracy, but ethnocide is not. Sharouser (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

'Ethnocide' is probably even less the WP:COMMONNAME than 'genocide' is, but might be justified as a descriptive title. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think "ethnocide" may indeed be justified as a descriptive title, but I do not think it is used by many sources. --Wengier (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not the common name in sources. Admittedly, this page was at Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China when the page was first created, but that was done before the mass sterilization campaign had been reported. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Can the title incorporate quotation marks around genocide? The word is controversial because how it is used by sources, what it means under different laws to different analysts, and what it means in common language are all different. CurryCity (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We aren't allowed to use scare quotes (what you just described) on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Red-tailed hawk, the WP:BESTSOURCES show "Urghur genocide" to be the WP:COMMONNAME. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Concur the current article title is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Path2space (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  By my estimation, about a third of Red-tailed hawk's sources are not using 'genocide' or 'Uyghur genocide' as the name they use to refer to the repression being suffered by Uyghurs. They are either arguing that what is happening amounts to genocide and some are simply reporting the use of the term. Joanne Finley's article is called “Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang” in it she says “The 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”.

  Clearly Finley is arguing that the possibility that China is implementing genocidal policies is very real and is increasingly feared to be the case by “Scholars and Activists” - but she does NOT refer to those policies and practices as “Uyghur genocide”. Indeed her argument implies that neither she nor her readership accepts that term as the usual name for the events. If it were, who and why would she need to persuade that this WAS possibly/probably a genocide?

  The Guardian puts the term in quotes “Pair tell of witnessing or experiencing torture and brainwashing, as Republicans and Democrats vow to document ‘genocide’ and otherwise only uses the term ‘genocide’ in quotations from various parties. To claim that the Gdn is endorsing the existence of a genocide, or using the term in its own voice as the COMMONNAME is patently false. Reporting what others claim is happening isn't endorsing anything.

  Many other sources are arguing for the reality of a genocide or reporting that some are calling it that, or that some legal conditions of a genocide have been met. These are all the polar opposite of endorsing that the generally accepted term understood by sources and readers for the mis-treatment of Uyghurs is “Uyghur genocide”. Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• oppose based on RS provided above—blindlynx 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME, per Red-tailed hawk clear source analysis.  // Timothy :: talk  17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Opinion. Do significant majority sources support genocideness of this article? Per Wikipedian policy, it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Sharouser (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you look at one of my comments above, the two major human rights organizations (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) do not label it a genocide and AI cites a source that argues against calling it a genocide. Major news outlets (like the New York Times and Guardian) only report on certain governments considering it a genocide and do refer to it in that way. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  My assessment is that sources don't sufficiently endorse “Uyghur genocide” as the commonname. Other editors disagree. It is my estimation that there probably ISN"T a COMMONNAME and that we should use an accurate 'descriptive title, especially since the present title is contentious. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Especially as the label of genocide here is sometimes used as proof of genocide. For example, see this article written by a prominent public health professor: https://sandrogalea.substack.com/p/on-engaging-with-colleagues-from . Dhawk790 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, somewhat anomalously, although the article is called “Uyghur genocide” - a seperate RfC here established that we cannot say in WP:VOICE that a genocide is occurring or has occurred, but rather must say (as we do now) that the mistreatment of Uyghurs by the Chinese govt "is often characterized as genocide". To my mind this is truly bizarre and AFAIK doesn't happen on any other 'genocide' article, namely that the name of the article is merely "often characterized as" something which we cannot assert exists (ie genocide), rather than something that practically all WP:RS accept is happening, (persecution of, and HR abuses against Uyghurs). Even if those RSs disagree as to how to characterise the persecution or on what scale it is occurring, they almost universally endorse that Uyghurs are being incarcerated and otherwise persecuted in various ways as a matter of Chinese state policy. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a persuasive view consistent with your earlier comment about the need to use an WP:NDESC title. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree this is persuasive. There is no doubt that you have good understandings of such terms. --Wengier (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  The reason we're in this absurd situation is that there are editors who really want to label this a genocide in Wikivoice, despite the sources not supporting that claim. The WP:COMMONNAME argument is then used as a way to do an end-run around WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and to put the disallowed "genocide" claim right in the title. Everyone knows that readers will interpret the title as an endorsement by Wikipedia of the claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs, and that's the indeed whole point of naming the article "Uyghur genocide". We can all be polite and pretend this isn't happening, but it's obvious to anyone who goes back and reads the talk logs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No new arguments versus previous move discussions. Uyghur Genocide is still the common name. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the title is considered the main issue any more in recent discussions, and in fact I am not sure why the move request is still open. But the related discussions do reveal important points that can be used to improve the article. --Wengier (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)