Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eisfbnore (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 7 August 2020 (→‎Requested move 30 June 2020: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Huge POV / Synth mess

This seems to be a poorly rehashed version of Xinjiang conflict, Xinjiang re-education camps, China Cables, and Xinjiang papers with an introduction from ethnocide. Most of this content is copied from or already contained in the other articles but with some unclear writing, formatting, and tone. Cleanup needed here, but it's such a massive article created by NPAs that draftification may be necessary. — MarkH21talk 07:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not have been gutted

Significant aspects of the content of the article have been removed by a single user, without any relevant moving of the content to another page on Wikipedia. There were a number of edits that removed information regarding the alleged cover-up of the internals of the internment camps, including the most detailed and thorough analysis of internal documents available on Wikipedia. I am a bit shocked at the level of gutting that has occurred to this article, and I think that we ought to revert the page and more narrowly target our edits than removing chunks wholesale. Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced external analysis of the China Cables and Xinjiang papers from reliable sources belong on those articles, not here. Any analysis not from external reliable sources are against the Wikipedia original research policy. You'll see a whole series of edit summaries explaining each edit, which is not removing chunks wholesale. The article needs to be focused on the actual topic, referenced to reliable sources, not contain original research or synthesis, and maintain a neutral point of view. — MarkH21talk 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is justified

This article relates to the totality of Chinese government policy towards the Uighur minority. Multiple reliable sources discuss the existence of a policy of "Cultural genocide" towards the Uighur people. See, for example, the following news sources:

1) "‘Cultural genocide’: China separating thousands of Muslim children from parents for ‘thought education’" - The Independent, 5 July 2019
2) "‘Cultural genocide’ for repressed minority of Uighurs" - The Times 17 December 2019
3) "China's Oppression of the Uighurs 'The Equivalent of Cultural Genocide'" - 28 November 2019
4) "Fear and oppression in Xinjiang: China’s war on Uighur culture" - Financial Times 12 September 2019

Additionally consider the following scholarly articles:

5) "The Uyghur Minority in China: A Case Study of Cultural Genocide, Minority Rights and the Insufficiency of the International Legal Framework in Preventing State-Imposed Extinction" November 2019
6) "China's crime against Uyghurs is a form of genocide" - Summer 2019
7) "Cultural Genocide in International Law: An Assessment" - 2019 (includes a chapter on Xinjiang and the Uighurs).

You may note that these are all relatively recent articles. This is because there appears to have been a shift starting in mid-2019 in the way events in Xinjiang are being discussed, from merely seeing the policies as being part of the Xinjiang conflict to being a phenomenon separate to it but over-lapping with it. This is particularly because of the coverage in reliable sources of the demolition of mosques and graveyards, and the mass imprisonment of more than a million Uighurs without trial in "re-education camps".
I agree that there are page-quality issues with this page but disagree that this article is a WP:SYNTH piece as the sources themselves discuss the camps, the destruction of cultural artefacts etc. as linked phenomena. I think this article may well have the wrong title, however, as "cultural genocide" appears more common in the sources than "ethnocide". To take one very blunt measure of prevalence, a GScholar search for "Uyghur" and "Cultural genocide" returns 159 results, whilst a GScholar search for "Uyghur" and "ethnocide" returns 74 results. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organ harvesting relation to Xinjiang re-education camps?

@Horse Eye Jack: Minor point about the organ harvesting subsection addition: I see Uyghurs mentioned but I don't see the re-education camps mentioned in either reference for the last sentence? — MarkH21talk 06:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re very right, its probably verifiable but I don’t have the desire to do that. Does "In the 2010s worries about organ harvesting resurfaced” or “Allegations of organ harvesting from Uyghurs continuing into the 21st century have been made” work for you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that should be fine for now. The second one might be a bit ambiguous because it can imply that the allegations came from the Uyghurs or (less likely but grammatically plausible) that the harvesting was done by the Uyghurs. For the first option, I suppose the "worries" should be attributed to someone though. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good addition. That claim does appear in RS cited on the page [1] with relation to Uyghurs, and it is significant. Therefore, it should stay. But the included text does not say anything specifically about Xinjiang re-education camps, and it should not (this is not in the sources). My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkistan Islamic Party's involvement in the attacks in "Background"

@My very best wishes: In your continued separation of TIP claiming responsibility and being blamed for the attacks, you removed the quote from the Washington Post: Tensions erupted in 2009... Attacks by Uighur separatists intensified in the years that followed, with one of the groups that carried them out — the Turkistan Islamic Party — also being credited with having thousands of jihadist fighters in Syria. If you want even more sources, there are plenty more (e.g. The Diplomat: according to Kyrgyzstan state security, the attack was ordered by Uyghur militants active in Syria and carried out by a member of ETIM.). But you cannot just delete quotes from the sources and pretend they don't exist.

The Chinese government has blamed the TIP for some of the attacks, the TIP has claimed responsibility for some of the attacks, and reliable sources literally say that the TIP carried out some of the attacks. You also continue to remove the UN-referenced designation of them being a terrorist organization, replacing it with just A Pakistan-based organization. There is nothing NPOV about removing the UN designation or deleting quotes from the sources attributing the attacks to the TIP.

The attacks and TIP activity in the region are crucial points in the background of these events, as the counter-terrorism efforts are part of the pretext for the re-education camps & other elements discussed in the article. This is both the public justification by the Chinese government as well as what human rights groups and NGOs (e.g. Human Rights Watch, Council for Foreign Relations) present as the pretext used to suppress Uyghur culture. — MarkH21talk 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Providing long quotations in footnotes is generally discouraged (there was even an arbitration case about it), there is no other reason for this removal of quotation in footnote. Unfortunately, the source is not freely available online, so and I can not check it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why you have such an impression, but see the content guideline on citing sources, which literally says:

A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.

If it’s a source that other readers cannot check, then it’s especially encouraged to provide a quote. This also isn’t even a long quote.
It should be perfectly fine based on the Diplomat & WP sources to state that TIP/ETIM carried some of the attacks out (perhaps not several), since both sources literally say that. If you want it to be more detailed on the responsibilities of each individual attack, that would be probably a bit too out-of-focus in this article and more appropriate for Xinjiang conflict (where there already are such details). I'd propose either
  1. Some of the attacks were orchestrated by the UN-designated terrorist organization Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkistan Islamic Movement).
  2. The attacks were conducted by Uyghur separatists, including the UN-designated terrorist organization Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkistan Islamic Movement).
There are plenty of reliable sources already given that directly support both statements and plenty more that I haven't listed already that support them as well. — MarkH21talk 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: If you meant this 2008 arbitration case about BLPs, it doesn't discourage quotes whatsoever and says that the usage of them is a content issue in the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes. Since that time, the consensus on the citation guideline encourages quotes in general and especially for not easily accessible sources, i.e. the case here. — MarkH21talk 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I would just like to point our that your edit summary "the reason we needed the multiple sources here is that there are claims for several attacks, whereas that source is for a single one so another editor interprets the statement as not being supported by the lone source” is admitting that the passage is WP:SYNTH as you are claiming the full assertion is unsupported by any single citation... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routine calculations don’t count as original research synthesis (WP:CALC), and “ SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se”. If a source says X did Y in 2005, another source says X did Y in 2006, and another source says X did Y in 2010, you can write that X did Y multiple times from 2005 to 2010 and cite those three references without it constituting original research.
Several reliable sources say that the TIP/ETIM claimed some of the attacks, several reliable sources say that the TIP/ETIM were blamed for some of the attacks by the Chinese government (some overlapping with the claims), and several reliable sources just say that TIP/ETIM carried some of the attacks out. It’s reasonable to just say that they carried some of the attacks out. — MarkH21talk 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely. If you add a date range in there I have no problem with it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, obviously, there is such Pakistan-based jihadist organization. Yes, they commit terror in Syria, China and a lot of other countries. Yes, they include Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Chinese and whoever else wants to join them. China is using that as a ridiculous excuse to justify their ethnocide of millions of Uyghurs who have absolutely nothing to do with this terrorist organization. Yes, all of that should be very briefly mentioned on the page (much shorter than right now). However, I think the current version of this section creates false impression that Uyghurs population (in general) are terrorists, and therefore the actions by China are at least partially justified. That must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's the entire pretext for China's actions that constitute the entire subject of this article, so it should absolutely be mentioned in a little more detail than "very briefly". To describe the pretext does not in any sense lend legitimacy or acceptance for anything after the "Background" section. I don't think it implies that Uyghurs in general are terrorists or anything like that. The article always uses the word "Uyghur separatists" or "terrorist organization" where appropriate and does not make any blanket statements about Uyghurs. — MarkH21talk 20:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that Xinjiang conflict and July 2009 Ürümqi riots should be noted. Turkistan Islamic Party? Yes, it should also be noted, but only as a false excuse by Chinese authorities, and we should clearly say it is false (per sources). All obvious falsehoods must be clearly stated as falsehoods, just as in the case of Antisemitic canards, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The actual actions of the TIP are not false, which are separate from the Chinese government's justification of detention and sinicization. I do think that we should merge in Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism as a section after "Background" and describe how the Chinese government uses counter-terrorism as its justification for some of these policies/actions. Nevertheless, the historical fact about the TIP perpetrating some of these attacks itself is separate and widely reported by reliable sources.
At the very least, we can agree on one of the two proposed sentences above for the Xinjiang conflict section? A section on the Chinese government's campaign and claimed justification can follow. — MarkH21talk 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is easier to fix than explain. See my last edit. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By removing factual historical RS-reported information about who died, changing Uyghur terrorists killed dozens of Han Chinese in coordinated attacks from 2009 to 2016. to The riots were followed by a number of violent incidents and adding Chinese authorities used these terrorism incident as a justification of the cultural genocide of all Uyghurs. which the cited sources do not say? No, that's removing well-referenced information and POV-whitewashing. You clearly have a strong stance on these events, to the point of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You may disagree with what the Chinese government did afterwards, but what happened in those attacks is widely RS-reported. — MarkH21talk 21:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down MarkH21, you also clearly have a strong stance on these events. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only edit to represent what has happened per reliable sources, not to "reveal" what is "obvious". If X happened, and then Y uses X as an false excuse to do some terrible thing Z, one should still report that X happened. — MarkH21talk 03:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sources do not tell this is ethnic conflict Uyghurs versus Han Chinese. They say this is political repression by Chinese government. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, since the source says: In the years that followed, Uighur terrorists killed dozens of Han Chinese in brutal, coordinated attacks at train stations and government offices. — MarkH21talk 04:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is indeed to some degree an inter-ethnic conflict, as described in some RS [2]. OK. But I still believe this page was recently heavily re-edited to favor the Chinese government position. "Critics of China's treatment of Uyghurs have accused...". "Various Chinese dynasties have historically exerted control over parts of what is modern-day Xinjiang...", and so on. That should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was re-edited to restore WP:NPOV by describing and attributing the points of view, not to assert a Chinese government POV. All claims and allegations needs to be precisely attributed, whether to the Chinese government, critics, dissenters, or anyone else rather than stated in WP voice as was previously done.
Are you claiming that Xinjiang was never controlled by Chinese dynasties in the past? The cited source describes at length the extent of control in Xinjiang by the Han dynasty, by the Tang dynasty, by the Yuan dynasty, and by the Qing dynasty for which there are plenty of other reliable sources. Or are you contesting that it’s necessary background to describe the Xinjiang conflict? — MarkH21talk 22:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are you contesting that...". No, I do not contest any facts. I am saying these facts are probably irrelevant on this page, and more importantly, this is a propaganda presentation. Consider something like War in Donbass. Would it be good to start from "According to enemies of Russia..." (this page stars from "Critics of China's treatment of Uyghurs have accused...") or emphasize that in ancient times Ukraine belonged to Russia or that Russia belonged to Kiev. Of course not. Same for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire basis of the Xinjiang conflict is the history of various periods of Chinese control and 20th century short-lived breakaway republics. It’s relevant background
The labeling as “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” are recent and have come from individual critics of the Chinese government; it isn’t a term that has been applied by any nation or major international organizations and so should be properly attributed to maintain NPOV and per WP:OPINION. — MarkH21talk 07:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Xinjiang conflict background

To put it simply, do you have multiple RS which connect directly the subject of this page (Ethnocide of Uyghurs) and the Han dynasty? If not, any mentioning of Han dynasty must be removed from this page, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err it's completely unnecessary to have a direct connection for content in the background section of any article. It's a background section. There's also no policy requiring a "direct connection" between the content in an article and the subject. Plus, half of this article would be gone because almost none of the sources say "ethnocide" or "cultural genocide". For instance, there are no RSes which connect directly Germany's response to the Xinjiang re-education camps and "ethnocide" and "cultural genocide".
There are RSes that discuss the former imperial Chinese control over Xinjiang and the Xinjiang conflict, and RSes that discuss the Xinjiang conflict and ethnocide / cultural genocide. That's sufficient relation for background.
But hey, for good measure your unusual requirement is fulfilled anyways. Here's an article from the Australian, an academic journal article, an article from Le Monde Diplomatique, a University of Gothenburg thesis, an article from The Geopolitics, and UNPO speeches that all discuss the history of Xinjiang dating back to (and including) the Han dynasty and its relation to a modern "ethnocide", "cultural ethnocide", "genocide", or "cultural genocide" (all using one of those phrases). — MarkH21talk 17:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, we absolutely must have connection in RS, or more generally, we only say what RS say. Otherwise, this is going to be WP:OR. Indeed, almost all sources above (only 1st is not available online) start their "background" section somewhere from 1955. So should we. Only one of them say: "It is worth noting that the Uighur territory came under the rule of the Qing dynasty in the eighteenth century; the Qing turned it later into a province and applied Chinese political systems to its management." OK, this is 18th century, not Han dynasty. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with we only say what RS say and that’s precisely what the Background section does here. I never said anything to the contrary, but I was saying that background sections can use an RS to describe an event A that another RS says is relevant to event B. That’s not even the case here though because all of the sources above mention the sinicization / control of Xinjiang dating back to the Han dynasty, in addition to later dynasties. — MarkH21talk 22:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with My very best wishes, this page is Ethnocide of Uyghurs not History of Xinjiang. Per WP:VNOTSUFF just because something is verifiable doesn't mean its automatically necessary to include on every mildly related page on wikipedia. Also I’ve only checked the The Geopolitics article and but it failed verification, the article does mention the Han dynasty but its in the context of Chinese history not Xinjiang’s history "In fact, the history of China shows that this process of Sinicization has been actively pursued since the Han Dynasty in the second century BC.” Like My very best wishes says is most common this article starts in the Qing for Xinjiang history "It is worth noting that the Uighur territory came under the rule of the Qing dynasty in the eighteenth century; the Qing turned it later into a province and applied Chinese political systems to its management. Clearly, tensions and conflicts between Chinese rulers and Uighurs are not new. They date back to the Qing dynasty." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the linked sources mention the history dating back to the Han dynasty in relation to the Xinjiang conflict and sinicization of Uyghurs. You may want to reread the passage you just quoted; it is directly saying that the sinicization of Uyghurs in Xinjiang started in the Han dynasty, since this process of Sinicization refers to the preceding sentence: The Uighurs, meanwhile, seek to defend and preserve their cultural particularism and fight, by all means, to avoid being culturally digested by the Han ethnicity. It’s not talking about general Chinese history or general sinicization of non-Uyghurs.
I can add more quotes from those sources here (in talk) in a bit, but keep in mind that there’s literally only one sentence at the beginning of the section that just states that there was some historical Chinese imperial control over the region, there aren’t any lengthy details. A single sentence mention of the earlier history should be more than reasonable for a topic with complex historical origins. — MarkH21talk 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You probably misunderstood something. Han Chinese does not mean Han dynasty. These sources tell about Han Chinese as an ethnic group, not about the Dynasty dated 206 BC–220 AD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the one misunderstanding here, because the only thing we have been talking about is the Han dynasty. Here’s some bolding to make it extra clear:

Their mission is to ensure that the principles of the Party are applied and to Sinicize the Uighurs so that they blend into the Chinese landscape to attain the elusive ‘harmony’. The Uighurs, meanwhile, seek to defend and preserve their cultural particularism and fight, by all means, to avoid being culturally digested by the Han ethnicity. In fact, the history of China shows that this process of Sinicization has been actively pursued since the Han Dynasty in the second century BC.

The source is clearly talking about the sinicization of Uyghurs by Han Chinese since the Han dynasty. — MarkH21talk 04:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even ambiguous, I’m not entirely sure how you’re misunderstanding this. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I don’t see anything that would suggest to My very best wishes that anyone here is confusing the ethnicity with the dynasty... — MarkH21talk

Chinese state sources

I may add some of Chinese government's claims and Chinese official sources may be used to confirm claim. But should Chinese claim be given equal weight as the accusions, and should Chinese official sources be used in the article? (Personally, it excludes guancha.cn since its nationalism tone and may not represent offcial view. It includes Global Times, Qiushi, People's Daily and other state-run media) Another question is that should we treat "western media"'s report as "claim" rather than "fact"? (This does not mean to view Chinese claim as fact)Mariogoods (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We apply WP:RS without discrimination based on national origin. If a Mainland Chinese source passes WP:RS and WP:verify it can be used, the catch-22 is that none has yet due to a pervasive lack of editorial independence and press freedom. The best Mainland sources are semi-reliable and can be used to source Chinese government opinion but not facts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariogoods: It’s RS in certain contexts. The article should certainly present the Chinese government‘s / Chinese media’s stance and clearly label it as such. Those sources certainly would be reliable sources for saying what the Chinese government stance is. They’re not reliable sources for making other statements in WP voice. — MarkH21talk 04:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think such state-sponsored sources on hot political subjects within the country should be generally avoided. Same would apply to RT, Sputnik, etc. BTW, sorry for accidently removing AfD notice, but I think MarkH21 unilaterally removed huge amount of valid and well referenced text. A lot of that should be restored after closing of the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the cleanup edits on January 27 and 28, then discuss why you want to restore specific parts (i.e. reference specific edits) rather than blanket reverting 56 edits that have careful edit summaries explaining each and every action. Some of it was basic re-organization, some of it was basic copy-editing, and some of it was removing poorly synthesized content / unreferenced content / original research. The edit summaries of each edit will tell you why each edit was made. — MarkH21talk 04:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: Thank you for your answer and other people's answers. Personally, I'd like to cite non-state run sources, but they are good to confirm their views. (Chinese government has also released white papers about "Xinjiang matter" in 2019 and you can find it in both English and Chinese Wikisource since they are official document)Mariogoods (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Mainland-China-based/controlled media is likely to be able to exercise editorial independence on this subject. This means that Mainland-China-based/controlled media should only be used to confirm statements of the Chinese government. In terms of what can said based on other sources, this has to be addressed case-by-case. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ethnocide of Uyghurs → Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs – Since the AFD is now in WP:SNOW territory I think it is time we opened an RM discussion about the title, as many of the "Keep" voters at the AFD referred to this as an issue.

As discussed above, based on a comparison of GScholar hits as well as other indicators, "Cultural genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the Chinese government's present policies towards the Uyghur people. This is also a good pass for WP:CRITERIA, particularly it is concise compared to other suggested titles (e.g., "Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs in China", which is long and also implies that Uyghurs elsewhere are suffering the same issue), it is easily recognisable compared to other suggested titles. It is a natural name for what it is as the term "Ethnocide" is not widely understood whilst "Cultural genocide" is better understood. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I perfer to add the word "Allegation of" in the title since the status of "re-eduction camp" remains uncertain. For the word choice between "Cultural genocide" and "Ethnocide", I think that I'm hard to find the difference of the two terms. Also, I find it is hard to know the difference of the two terms. Mariogoods (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that only the allegations should be covered? I think the denials are likely to be included as well, no? FOARP (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: No. I mean that some of the allegations are proven true (even in Chinese context), but there are allegations which are either proven true or false due to restrictions by Chinese government. For Chinese government's denial, I'd like to say that excluding them is violating WP:NPOV because it is the significant view (no matter if it is minor or major). Also, when there are strong evidences to prove all the allegations, we can change the title again. Personally, I think that it involves Chinese view about the politics, which are different to the western view. Disclaimer: I'm not pushing a point of view, but attempting to include a point of view without excluding another view. Mariogoods (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If some of the allegations have been proven (e.g., mass imprisonment without trial, demolition of mosques and graveyards to name a couple for which there is direct satellite-photo evidence) then clearly "allegations" is an inaccurate title. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral. Neither of the titles is very common. This is just a descriptive title of the page. Based on the content of the page and sources, this is not just indoctrination and destroying national culture. Things like illegal detention of millions, forced abortions, organ harvesting, and mass surveillance go beyond the cultural genocide and would be best described as simply a genocide. However, the cultural genocide and ethnocide mean practically the same, I do not see much difference. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (Updated 16:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
One problem with that is you can’t really define a genocide except in hindsight, up until that point its just acts of genocide and components of genocide but not the whole enchillada if you get what I’m saying. Everything you mentioned is already fully covered on other pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs → Cultural genocide of Uyghurs – Follow-up to the just-closed move, the definite article the is unnecessary here on both a consistency and grammatical basis. In terms of consistency, existing WP articles have titles in forms like Genocide of indigenous peoples or Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. In general, groups of people are usually referred to without the definite article (e.g. Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire as opposed to Persecution of the Christians. — MarkH21talk 17:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This move should be uncontroversial because it does not introduce any sort of POV change and is in conformity with house style and grammatical norms. Jancarcu (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - cleans up my mistake! FOARP (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Facts

The article lacks substantial facts. Most of the article is a collection of assumptions and rumors repeated by newspapers without factual insight. No seems to mention that Uyghur population tripled in the past 50 years or that people don't need to know Chinese to have a decent life. --2001:16B8:31EC:1600:2D57:A54B:1E0:A6E (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 June 2020

Cultural genocide of Uyghurs → Uyghur Genocide – The reporting that came out today caused me to think this page should be moved to "Uyghur Genocide" (perhaps belatedly).

Main reasons for this: The UN definition of genocide specifically refers to "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". We now know that China is forcing many Uyghur women to get IUDs (with no string for self-removal) after they have 1 child, whereas Han women are entitled to 2 children, sometimes more. It's also clear that China's birth restriction policies are being intentionally far more vigorously enforced in Uyghur areas than anywhere else, with sterilization as a primary tactic. Additionally, there are credible reports of systemic coerced marriages of Uyghur women to Han men. This stuff constitutes clear "intent to destroy" "in part" the Uyghurs by "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", so this is a genocide per the UN definition. With the intent to destroy established, the clause "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" is also apparently engaged.

This leads to conclusions such as:

“It’s genocide, full stop,” said Uighur expert Joanne Smith Finley, who works at Newcastle University

Since this is evidently the main landing page for the recent Uyghur oppression, it should likely be moved to "Uyghur Genocide" in line with pages for historical oppressions that resulted in genocide. 2601:547:500:14A0:58BB:365F:7E3E:66C8 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural genocide is a component of genocide, with multiple references have called it cultural genocide. This is probably a WP:COMMONNAME type of thing that will have to be determined. — MarkH21talk 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The genocide convention also includes acts such as killing members of the group and causing severe bodily and mental harm to members of the group (provided the acts are committed with intent to destroy the group in whole or in substantial part). So that, coupled with the recent revelations about forced sterilizations, would seem to satisfy the convention definition of a genocide, and not merely "cultural genocide." As long as we have a lot of reliable sources backing up that assertion, and hopefully some good jurists among them. TheBlueCanoe 22:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBlueCanoe,MarkH21talk: With regards to WP:COMMONNAME, "reliable sources backing up that assertion". Sources calling this a genocide, not "just" a cultural genocide include:
The label of "cultural genocide" for this article now rests only on the quotes from Azeem Ibrahim and James Liebold, which are apparently stale. Zekelayla (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, population containment measures appear to have been widely proven. Doanri (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per OP. — Czello 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The UN definition of genocide is very broad, certainly broad enough to encompass what this article describes. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the first sentence of the article be modified based on these sources? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't move right now per The Blue Canoe. Genocide is a legal category, and I haven't seen any legal experts being quoted in the above. We should wait for them to weigh in. Right now news are saying things like "Some experts take it a step further." (calling it genocide) implying that the other experts consulted by the article did not necessarily use the term[3] and "may constitute genocide" as the headline of another article[4] WaPo editorial board is not a reliable source for legal questions, and Zenz works for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation which is an advocacy group. The ICC case anyway concerns alleged Chinese violations in neighboring countries because China is not a party to the ICC[5]. I don't think this can be put in Wikipedia voice quite yet. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what is most relevant is named experts or authoritative bodies taking a stance one way or the other (though perhaps implicitly by continuing to use other labels than "genocide" such as "cultural genocide"). I don't think the quote from Prof. Byler fully rises to the level of a contrary statement to it being a "genocide", since it is simply a factual description without applying any label. Zekelayla (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Genocide Watch, which is frequently updated, claims that genocide is ongoing is several countries, but not China[12]. (t ·c) buidhe 09:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This should be given due weight. Gregory Stanton is a genocide scholar, and he appears based on this website to prefer a narrower definition of genocide than the UN definition, excluding birth suppression. Though it would be good to find where he states this explicitly. Zekelayla (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact he uses a very broad definition as you can see by the large areas of red on the map despite no internationally recognized genocides currently occurring there. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe He uses a 10-stage model of genocide. The first 8 stages are not actually what he would consider genocide but rather preparatory steps towards (possible) genocide. He depicts all stages on the map, but the genocides he alleges are much fewer. Zekelayla (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zekelayla, The red areas are stage 9 (extermination). They are clearly being used for areas where genocide is not internationally recognized. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you are right that the definition he was using is not "narrower", because it includes mass killings of people due to political identities. To restate my point in a more accurate fashion, the definition he is using appears to exclude birth suppression, making it more conservative than the UN definition as concerns the Uyghur issue. Zekelayla (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FTR none of those RS are dated after 30/6/2020, when the 2 reports on fertility suppression came out. Zekelayla (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which should be irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME is based on the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources), not the name that is most commonly used in the last few weeks. Recency at that level isn't a factor for article naming. It's just about what RSes use more.
But there are recent RSes that use cultural genocide anyways:
— MarkH21talk 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME does speak of weighting recent sources in response to changed circumstances. BTW, each of the outlets you cite has also referred to this as a genocide this month. ABC Newsweek AP (That NYT link is to an AP story.). Zekelayla (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may be premature to title the article "Genocide of/against Uyghurs." But the current title is also imperfect, in that it would seem to limit the scope of the article to cultural genocide, and not to the physical acts enumerated in the genocide convention, or to other examples of persecution. It seems odd that there is no "Persecution of the Uyghurs" article, which would be a more encompassing title. I suppose the limited scope of the title doesn't necessarily limit the content that can fall under it, but it's something to consider.TheBlueCanoe 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Simply because the RS justification (or rather what we have in the article and this discussion) for the name "Uyghur genocide" is stronger than that for "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs". "Persecution of the Uyghurs (2016-present)" would also be an improvement on the current name, but there may be a WP:COMMONNAME issue(?). Zekelayla (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the results here, I think mention of the 'genocide' position should be added into the lead section of the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
"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:
  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Chinese Government's activities in Xinjiang clearly fall under the definition of genocide. Instances of birth control have widely circulated in recent weeks, indicating that as of now there is currently a genocide occurring in China's far western province. As such, a more apt title for this article would be "Uyghur Genocide" or something similar such as "Genocide of the Uyghurs." The current title no longer fits our current knowledge of Chinese activity in the province of Xinjiang. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While you may personally believe it to be genocide, that is WP:OR and should be discounted when considering the correct article title. We consider WP:RS and WP:Article titles/WP:COMMONNAME. Currently, most reliable sources are not calling it genocide in an unqualified manner. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really an opinion. Sterilization, forced abortion, and other methods of birth control cross the border of "Cultural Genocide" and into the territory of simply "genocide." Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's still an opinion. The same actions have been done on Han Chinese as well with some very high-profile incidents in earlier years (before the One-child policy, no one is accusing genocide done on Han Chinese, or any other minorities. An execution of the current Two-child policy, like other population planning policies implemented around the world, does not automatically make it a genocide on a minority race. NoNews! 13:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Han Chinese are the primary ethnic group of China and the Chinese Government and other enforcers of similar incidents were Han. Through that, the term genocide to describe those incidents are more debatable as the enforcers were of the same group as the victims. Also, the Han Chinese weren't being ethnically persecuted and culturally genocide against by the CCP, further rendering that equivalence incomparable. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well, particularly in Xinjiang, so in that regard your point that enforces being the same race as the victims is debatable can similarly be applied to Uyghurs. If I use your initial claim solely using the UN genocide criteria to argue that birth controls/forced sterilizations on Han constitutes genocide, you object to that because it is debatable. Change that to Uyghurs, wouldn't that be debatable as well? Or are you're essentially saying that you need additional evidence beyond the UN genocide criteria to justify calling it a genocide (thereby rebuffing your initial argument)? NoNews! 17:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original sources which that article cites have been deleted, this makes the article no longer credible. NoNews! 02:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the sources cited by the article, the only deleted one that I could find was this[dead link] Jamestown Foundation report which was moved to a new URL. Edelsheim (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen your sources. None of them showed any drone footage. Even in the recent BBC video with the Chinese ambassador, there are no identifiers and it is far-fetched to claim that it happened in Xinjiang, and on Uyghurs (just because the host said so, without proof), not in some other country or city. NoNews! 02:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most sources say "cultural genocide", until such a time as when it is generally accepted as simply "genocide", it should not be changed. Misusing such word devalues its meaning, there is simply nothing to compare this with the genocides of the past. Using a few emotive sources to justify this is a very bad idea. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The genocide is not limited to the cultural realm. See also article in National Review:
  • "How the Chinese Communist Party Has Botched Its Xinjiang Coverup" As evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s conduct increasingly seems to meet the criteria for genocide set out in the Genocide Convention […] Many observers have already applied the term “cultural genocide” to the situation in Xinjiang, but the June report added heft to the case for dropping that qualifier. The images circulating this week will add momentum to that push. Nutez (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources, including quotes from legal experts that describe China's actions as genocide:Shadybabs (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sufficient reliable sources are calling it genocide. Morgengave (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per buidhe above. A genocide is a serious claim, and based on existing sources (as well as most of the arguments above) it appears that the only issue of contention that fits the UN's "genocide" definition is with forced sterilization. Then again we saw this done on Han Chinese as well as a result of family planning policies. Yet no one has been calling for articles on genocide of Han Chinese, or Tibetans, Hui, Zhuang and other ethnics. Therefore it is more suitable to use a narrower term, with regards to restriction of birth rights. Otherwise all future population / family planning policies and implementations, in any country, can freely be given the term "genocide" in the future and that leads to its abuse, just like how the term "racist" has been abused after it was carelessly thrown around. It's the media that's being too liberal in its use of the term "genocide", and so far we do not yet have an authoritative international body definitively saying so. NoNews! 13:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misreading the convention. Forced sterilization and forced abortions in the Han population are not part of a genocide because, although these are among the acts specified in the genocide convention, they are not undertaken with the necessary intent of destroying an ethnic, religious, or national group. The crime of genocide requires that the acts be undertaken with this intent. In the case of the Uyghurs, that intent does appear to be present. TheBlueCanoe 14:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: a large-scale targeted campaign of forced sterilizations, forced abortions and forced birth control implants against one particular minority ethnic group is a genocide under international law. And experts - from lawyers to researchers - agree on this point. It cannot be compared in any reasonable manner to a national "family planning policy". "A new report in Foreign Policy says that China's suppression of Uighurs, Kazakhs and other chiefly Muslim ethnic minorities in northwest China now meets the United Nations definition of genocide. Mass sterilization, forced abortions and mandatory birth control part of a campaign that has swept up more than 1.5 million people and what researcher Adrian Zenz calls probably the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust." [13] Morgengave (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: I disagree with Morgengave and TheBlueCanoe here. I should point out that forced sterilization is something that China has been accused of multiple times as part of carrying out its family planning policy. As taken from from the compulsory sterilization article, Compulsory_sterilization#China:
"The one-child policy was historically much more lenient on ethnic minorities in China than on Han Chinese.[1] Ethnic minorities were exempt from the one-child policy, and have always been allowed to have two children, or even three in rural areas, in contrast to Han Chinese who were only allowed one child.[1]"
It seems that even with the new allegations from this new article from the Associated Press which is where most of the new allegations of compulsory sterilization come from, https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c The alleged compulsory sterilizations only occur in the context of violations of the two child policy.
The article explicitly states that Uighurs are targeted if they violate the two child policy, or three if they live in the countryside. The article admits that Han Chinese are also subject to similar policies as Uighurs in regards to the number of children they have. Given that Han Chinese and Uighurs are subject to the same policy of limiting births to not more than three, I don't believe there is enough evidence that these new allegations of "compulsory sterilization" are enforced with the genocidal intent of destroying an ethnic, religious, or national group. I feel uncomfortable with moving this article to genocide, without an international institution like the United Nations or a similar organization labelling it as such, which has not happened yet. -2601:249:C01:3990:F1D8:65DC:68A6:2182 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. We also cannot discount the issue of media bias with regards to China. Western (European, American, Australian) media have been increasingly anti-China, seen from their double standards on reports on China (e.g. lockdown in China versus in Italy, protests in Hong Kong versus in Minneapolis). Therefore I'm inclined to believe that media claim on "genocide" is blown out of proportion. NoNews! 02:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - revising my earlier position, because the consensus in reliable sources is changing quickly. I believe there is now sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide. TheBlueCanoe 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per OP and others. This is very clear now. RedWales (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (BST)
Birth rate drops in Uyghur dominated areas
Source: Xinjiang Statistical Yearbooks[2]
China's increasing sterilizations in Xinjiang
Source: Chinese Health and Hygiene Statistical Yearbooks & Computed by Adrian Zenz[2]
  • Support - Please note: The Uyghur and Xinjiang studies scholar James Millward (Georgetown University) wrote in The Guardian (James Millward (2020-07-27). "The Uighurs' suffering deserves targeted solutions, not anti-Chinese posturing". theguardian.com.): "Following recent revelations about forced labour, family separation and the repression of Uighur births, there should be no doubt that the policies inflicted by the Chinese Communist party (CCP) on the indigenous central Asians it rules meet the UN definition of genocide." Millward is not just one of many scientists of Uyghur studies, but a leading one. His book "Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang" (Columbia University Press, New York 2007, ISBN 978-0-231-13924-3) still "serves as the standard overview of Uyghur history", according to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (Thum, R. (2018, April 26). The Uyghurs in Modern China. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Retrieved 30 Jul. 2020, from https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-160). Actually I would prefer dealing with this subject wihin the main lemma "Uyghurs", which provides a better context of the whole historical and political evolution of the conflict. But if you chose to use a specific lemma for this topic, the usage "cultural genocide" is a misleading one. It does not cover the recent scientific findings and discourse. Therefore I see no other choice than moving the lemma to "Uyghur genocide" to put it accurately. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one point of view - and it's a subjective claim that this Millward is a "leading" scientist or expert on Uyghur affairs. Is he internationally recognized as such? "Forced labour" and "family separation" do not constitute "genocide", and there is no verified proof of forcing Uyghur children to change their racial identity. The only issue of contention is with Uyghur birth controls, which I have addressed in my opinion earlier. How many deaths are there?
Unless additional information becomes available for definite proof - or an international organization authoritatively declares it so, what is happening to the Uyghurs is in no way similar to, or on the scale of historical genocides. Calling it so at this point would set a bad precedence. NoNews! 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are using this voting chapter for general internal discussion. But since you seem to indend disputing this here, I will answer to your question in detail:
Why don't you refer to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China", by Rian Thum, 2018[3]), I cited above? It shows clearly, that Millward is one of the very few scientists recommended for standard literature in Uyghur studies. His reputation as a leading expert therefore is international, indeed. Don't you agree with me, that this scientific reference is an excellent proof for his international reputation?
Why do you ask for "How many deaths are there?"?. Millward explicitly refers to the genocide criteria cited in the United Nations CPPCG, which lists in section d) of Article II: "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". As far as I can judge, until now all scientists referred to this section d), not to section a). Why do you try to mislead from section d) to section a) then? Maybe you understand it best if you compare the two diagrams (I inserted here now) provided by the independent investigation report published by AP (The Associated Press: "China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization", June 29, 2020, URL: https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c)
In conclusion, what at this point would constitute a bad precedence would be to play down scientific findings, misleading from UN criteria and ignoring the terms which are used in scientific discourse. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Newfraferz87: I just got aware, that you are already preparing (diff) the next step for downgrading the lemma even to Persecution of Uyghurs instead of Cultural genocide of Uyghurs. So if you even don't acknowledge a "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs" where will it end then for en: Wikipedia? I hope you can confirm that the official Chinese narrative - as Zhao Lijian put it - "People of different ethnic groups and religious beliefs in Xinjiang live together as equals, enjoy unity and harmony, and lead a peaceful and stable life"[4] is pure and disgusting propaganda? Do you agree with me in that? --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I concede on your accreditation point, but still the only thing you have proven is part(d). That's what I'm still arguing against, that your points aren't enough to constitute "genocide":
  1. Birth control measures has been done for a long time under the One-child policy and its successor. Nobody called the administration of it to the Han, or any minority ethnicities, "genocide". Based on your sources, only Uyghurs with many children are subjected to sterilization treatment. This appears to only serve the population planning policy goal.
  2. Your data on falling birth rates just shows as is, that there is falling birth rates (various possible factors including migration) and birth control/sterilization, and it is non-ethnic specific so Han Chinese/other ethnics are included as well. Are you going to claim all ethnics in Kashgar/Hotan are genocided? The birth rates don't fall to zero. There is not enough proof to show birth control is being done on Uyghurs with the explicit intention of wiping away their population and/or ethnic identity: thus when your source concludes directly from "sterilization" to "genocide", it is just rhetoric and not objective argument. If you have proof that shows otherwise (that isn't based on any future predictions), you're welcome to show it.
  3. None of the other UN criteria on genocide is satisfied. Other Wikipedia entries with standalone articles attain the scale of massive killings and deaths. This simply doesn't apply to the treatment of Uyghurs given current information.
Lastly, in response to your question, I'm in no way interested to confirm the official Chinese narrative as you put it, maybe that's what the Chinese government is trying to achieve, but anyone who critically cross-checks information would know that there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang, and the government is implementing stringent measures in the name of security. What I do is find the facts amidst bias and rhetoric from media taking different sides, and in this case I believe that talk of "genocide" is blown out of proportion. I don't have any strong opinion on "cultural genocide" since that is so loosely defined, but "genocide" is not suitable. NoNews! 01:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are using the official Chinese Han-centristic propaganda narrative here. Why do I claim it:
ad 1): Ethnic Han women, who "violated" against former OCP or are violating against nowadays birth policy, were not sent into such mass internment camps (and even sterilized). This punishment of Turkic women takes place in todays era, when the Chinese state even desperately has to encourage women of other provinces (in some provincves with financial extra support) to get more than one child. There is absolutely no equal treatment existing towards Turkic minorities in Xinjiang and ethnic Han Chinese. You used this argument here several times. But even as an ethnic Han-Chinese - since you have got free access of information - you should know well that it's not true but in accordance with the Chinese state propaganda of "equality" between all ethnic goups (sensu Zhao Lijian and other CCP cadre officials as cited above).
ad 2): The scientists, and media sources like AP, who refer to the findings of birth rates and sterilizations (published since the end of June, 2020), came to the conclusion that the offcial Chinese figures for the Uyghur dominated areas of Kashgar and Hotan constitute the proof, that ethnic minorities (especially Uyghurs and Kasakhs etc.) are targeted, not ethnic Han-Chinese. The newest official Chinese figures are from 2018. For the years 2019 and 2020 birth rate of Turkic minorities are assumed to drop close to Zero (Zenz 2020). The fact, that you claim exactly the opposite of all these findigs shows, that you are neglecting these scientific findings in total. This, too, is in compliance with the recent official Chinese narrative.
ad 3): I don't know any scientific source which equates the repression of Uyghurs by the Chinese state with executed genocides like Nazi Germany did. Of course we are talking about a state under Xi, not about Hitler. But the UN criteria for genocide are wider. Maybe thats why Joanne Smith Finley put emphasis on that point: "It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide." But "these are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population."[2] If Wikipedia chooses a separate lemma for this topic and deals with the discourse of genocide, it has to refer to the United Nations defintion. Right? But I would agree with you if you say, you generally feel discomfort with regard of using terms like "genocide", massacre", or "terrorists". Such terms often are used as political weapons, rather then proper descriptions. But do we really share this general discomfort? Or do you prefer using such terms by yourself in other cases? (See next point).
ad 4): You claim "there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang". Really? How many years ago there were "turbulences" in Xinjiang for the last time? You said on your user page, you are interested in Counter-terrorism. So maybe you know better then me, that there is no "terrorism" acts in todays Xinjiang existing. What is existing, are mass internment camps, denied for a long time by China. And what exists is a Chinese leader Xi who says, that the Turkic detainees are infected by a “virus” of Islamic radicalism and must be quarantined and cured.[5] That talk of "terrorism" is what is blown out of proportion. But I'm afraid, we have blown out this discussion enough here, too. I gave and keep my voting. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I take serious objection to you putting words in my mouth and participating in ad-hominem attacks. Where did I say in my user page that I am interested in Counter-terrorism, and therefore I am an expert? Just because I'm ethnic Chinese, doesn't give you the excuse to brand me as someone who engages in propaganda. You can criticize me in information or argument if you would but not insult me in character.
  2. There were various high-profile cases of Han women being mistreated for carrying more than one child, despite your unsubstantiated claim that Chinese state even desperately has to encourage women of other provinces to get more than one child. Your claim and sources have not disproved my point that birth controls on Uyghurs or any other minorities are under the context of the Two-child policy -- if Han only have two children, while Uyghurs and some ethnics have more than two children, then you would see a situation where Uyghurs are more targeted/affected! I'm not discussing whether Two-child policy is itself morally correct or wrong, only that your evidence is not enough to constitute genocide.
  3. Zenz's point is just WP:CRYSTAL. Extrapolating a possible trend of birth rates falling to zero is not evidence, but just hypothesis, and that cannot be used as evidence to support you here. Falling birth rates may be the result of various social trends or issues, such as migration as I mentioned earlier.
  4. Finley's words are rhetorically charged, so are yours for trying to bring in the Holocaust which is entirely out of context in this case. If we want to discuss an issue on Wikipedia, we have to step out of such emotive words and look at the facts and objective arguments from all the sources, don't we?
  5. You are bringing in interment camps. What does that got to do with "genocide", is there evidence that definitively suggests aspects of genocide are going on in there? There is dispute even among the international commitee with these so-called camps. Until there is a concensus, that can't be taken as conclusive evidence.
  6. All the talk about infectious "virus" of Islamic radicalism is only propagated by your source. I'm not here to argue with you the morality of the Chinese government's stance or take a stand on that matter. I'm here to argue that there is not enough evidence to definitively prove that there is genocide on Uyghurs.(rephrase: I am amicable with UN article II section(d) on birth restrictions, but disagree that it deserves be called "genocide" given the lack of such terminology on Han Chinese birth controls, and other UN sections are not satisfied.) NoNews! 05:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ad 1) No, Newfraferz87, I did not aim at your person, but at the rhetorical methods and content you used. Instead of that you are putting words into my mouth. I used scientific sources and argumentes taken from scientific sources, while you were using rhetoric, similar to that known from Chinese state media. I never stated, you were an expert. I think one can clearly see from the way you are misinterpreting scientific sources, that you are not an expert. But since you displayed yourself on your talk page (see here) as being "interested in Counter-terrorism" (why do you deny this now?), I said, "maybe you know better then me, that there is no "terrorism" acts in todays Xinjiang existing". And if you know that, why do you state that "there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang"? Or if you don't know about such affairs, why do you make such a claim in a Lemma discussion about such a topic at all? Which recent "turbulence" do you refer to?
Ad 2) You are seriously equating singular cases of Han-Chinese women with the systematic mass detainment of Turkic minority in Xinjiang? Furthermore the single cases of Han-Chinese women you refer to, happened in an era when China desperately tried to reduce its population growth. In that time China treated experts for demography like Yi Fuxian - who were critic of China’s Oone-Child-birth policy - as "traitors".[6] The mass detainment of Uyghur women and their sterilization happens in an era (which began 2016), when China desperateky needs more children, but many Han-Chinese women do not want to give birth to more than one child any more, because of several reasons.[7][8]. There is absolutely no way to equate the situation of the small ethnic minority of Uighur women in the surveillance state of Xinjiang with that of the huge mass of Han-Chinese women in China.
Ad 3) First: I did not use extrapolated data in the WP article, but in the discussion (this is of course not object of WP:CRYSTAL here. Second: Extrapolating a possible trend of birth rates is what you did. You claimed "The birth rates don't fall to zero. Nobody can predict future for sure and China is not providing figures for 2019 yet. So what is your source to make such a claim? I just told you that from the scientific sources you already know, you knew exactly that the extrapolated data can nearly reach zero soon. Third: According to migration: Zenz used for his calculations the "natural growth rate" which is explicitly excluding migration. Why do you pretend not to know that fact if you checked his publications?
Ad 4) First: You tried to define the term "genocide" of being constituted by the presence of killed person ("How many deaths are there?", "Other Wikipedia entries with standalone articles attain the scale of massive killings and deaths)"). Because of that I explicitly answered, that scientific sources don't equate Nazi-Germany under Hitler with China under Xi, but they refer to the term in the context of the United Nations definition and they say it meets one of its criteria. The term "Holocaust" by the way was only used by yourself and two other users in this discussion. So it seems it is you alone who tries to use "emotive words" and change to a personal level. I did not use it a single time, nor did I compare China's treatment of Uyghurs with Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews or other minorities or victims. But it is interesting that - agin - you are just stating the opposite. This is typical, I think, for the way you are misusing data, sources and citations here. Second: Smith Finley is co-editor of the scientific "Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia" and author of "The Art of Symbolic Resistance: Uyghur Identities and Uyghur-Han Relations in Contemporary Xinjiang", both books are recommended in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History for the Lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China". Which source did you use to state that her "words are rhetorically charged". Or are you - this time - an expert yourself?[3]
Ad 5) First: The existence of the internment camps is proven. This is a common scientific sense. That you even try to call them "so-called camps" shows you are using Chinese propaganda narrative. If you want me to cite literature for this, I can procide you not only dozens, but hundreds od scientific publications. Who will believe any word of you any more, if you state these camps are not existing. Second: you really ask "What does that got to do with "genocide"". You are citing sources which clearly say, Turkic women are systematically sterilized within the internment camps. And you ask, what does internment camps got to do with "genocide"? It seems it makes no sense to answer to you any more, here.
Ad 6) Here you are right. You did not refer to Xi's rhetoric of a "virus". And you are right: You don't have to take position regarding the Chinese policy. This discussion is about the evidence, whether China's treatment of the Uyghurs meets UN criterium - Art II, section d) - or not. According to scientists like James Millward "there should be no doubt that the policies inflicted by the Chinese Communist party (CCP) on the indigenous central Asians it rules meet the UN definition of genocide". --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. What do you suppose with looking at past versions of my userpage? It could be that I was interested on the topic back then, and no longer am after some time. I have never suggested I was any expert on counter-terrorism either and am amicable to being corrected. What I have issue with is your mocking tone in talking about it. Fine, you win your mental game, whatever. It's not even the main topic for this discussion anyway.
3. Your source is the one that cites birth rate of Turkic minorities are assumed to drop close to Zero. That means no evidence, that it's just an assumption. I have never claimed any knowledge that birth rates do actually reach zero -- my earlier mention was in response to your two graphs which did not show it.
4. Stop playing word games. You know exactly what you are referring to when you first mentioned executed genocides like Nazi Germany did in your third point, two posts earlier. You are hinting at a comparison of Uyghurs with the Jews during WWII (from equates the repression of Uyghurs) even if you claim to not want to compare them directly yourself. I can accept your correction on not using the criteria of "deaths", that's it.
5. Where did I ever try to insinuate these camps are not existing? Of course they exist, but what is in dispute is whether they should be called "internment camps", "re-education centres", "concentration camps" or whatever other names, because there is actually no consensus. If you have problems with me mentioning "so-called", fine, I concede that.
Back on topic, the only issue on genocide you have brought forth from these camps is systematically sterilized -- to which I refer to your AP News source claim that it is done for Uyghurs that [Have] too many children, but this still fits the Two-child policy (see below) and is not any additional point aside from what you have already mentioned. You have not showed any information that states forced sterilization is done at the extent beyond the Two-child policy.
2. 6. I am NOT disputing whether treatment of Uyghurs meet section(d)! What I am pointing out is that, what is the justification of straight-up calling it genocide, when previous cases of forced sterilizations on Han women [9][10][11] (which would meet the genocide section(d) criteria too!) are not classified as such? If one argues that forced sterilization on Han women is under the context of One-child policy (and is not enough to constitute "genocide"), is there evidence to show forced sterilization on Uyghur women is beyond the context of Two-child policy for it to be constituted "genocide"? And lastly don't forget that Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well so it's not a Han-to-Uyghur one-way persecution.
7. Rephrased my earlier point to make it clearer. NoNews! 13:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I answer only to your claim that "Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well so it's not a Han-to-Uyghur one-way persecution": again you are using a narrative known from Chinese propaganda. And you are wrong: it's an asymmetrical one-sided and Han-centristic repression of Turkic and Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. You know exactly that it is scientific and encyclopedic knowledge of our time, that the succession of Chinese states gradually transformed Uyghur lands to a closely monitored, assimilationist, settler colony in the 21st century, ruled by a Han Chinese–dominated bureaucracy. So it's not true, that Uyghur practically participate in ruling Xinjiang. And it's not true, that Xinjiang enjoys the virtual status of an autonomous province. This is what CCP wants us to believe. The people in China - no matter which ethnic group - are not to blame. If you want to state, that Uyghur people really participate in ruling Xinjiang, you are not in the right place here. This is not Global Post. This is the free Encyclopedia. If you are living in Singapore, you have free access to information, right. Use it wisely then. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall neither support nor rebuff your underlined comment, but leave you with this link, a Quora answer referencing historical events, seeing that you are so interested in discussing about the history and present of Xinjiang. You'll find that Xinjiang has historically been a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures, and that Chinese dynastic rule long predates the first settlement of Uyghurs. Feel free to cross-check the listed events with the sources you consider unbiased. Perhaps this will give you a different perspective in understanding the region. Cheers. NoNews! 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You first said (diff) you "concede on [my] accreditation point" - that is the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History[3] as reliable scientific source. The author, Rian Thum, is historian and expert of Xinjiang and Uyghur studies (and author of "The Sacred Routes of Uyghur History"[12]). And it's the identical source (which you already knew), the same article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, which I have cited as well known enyclopedian and scientififc knowledge, which says that the: "succession of Chinese states gradually transformed Uyghur lands to a closely monitored, assimilationist, settler colony in the 21st century, ruled by a Han Chinese–dominated bureaucracy"[3]. This means, you knew this source, you even conceded its reliabilty and now - suddenly - because of this citation, you say you "shall neither support nor rebuff" this information. But you don't have to support it, Newfraferz87. Nobody needs your or my support to evaluate, that the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History is an excellent source for us. And now you respond with an online "source" on quora.com (!), written by "Janus Dongye Qimeng", who calls himself "Research Scientist at Dark Matter" since 2019. Are you serious? Do we talk here about Dark Matter or about the history of Altishahr (the old and still existing region of Uyghur majority settlements in Southern Xinjiang)? This history of Altishahr is very well explained by the above cited expert of Uyghur and Xinjiang history, Rian Thum, in the above mentioned Lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China" of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History,[3] as well as in many other scientific sources, published since 1998. If you just want to stick to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, you can add Drompp (2017)[13], Brose (2017)[14], Kim (2018),[15] and Brophy (2018)[16] e.g. But I certainly appreciate your quora.com source for learning more about Aladdin, Ali Baba, Mickey Mouse & Co. As a gratitude I recommed you reading the sources cited in Thum, 2018. If you really do, you will learn what I call scientific sources. Enjoy you freedom of information. I do, too. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is clearly more than a cultural genocide. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I feel that the difference between accusing China of "cultural genocide" vs "genocide" is hair-thin to most. Most arguments that can applied against the move could also similarly apply to having an article accusing China of "cultural genocide" in the first place. The fact that there's been birth control doesn't seem very much contested either: then it meets the UN definition of genocide without question. 2001:240:2406:1A0D:EDF0:951:281E:2030 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportive information from 2018: Uighur leaders warn China's actions could be 'precursors to genocide' (Genocide Watch) "Uighur leaders have called on democratic governments to confront Chinaover its treatment of ethnic minority Uighur Muslims, saying the government’s actions against the ethnic minority group are “precursors to genocide”.
    {...}
    Louisa Greve, director for external affairs for the UHRP, said: “Academics believe that when you look at the progression of policies that dehumanise ethnic groups, you have to say that mass murder cannot be ruled out. We see many, many of the precursors of cultural and possibly physical genocide.”Thomas Cliff, research fellow at the ANU college of Asia and the Pacific said what was going on in Xinjiang was “a form of genocide, although it’s not killing everybody”." Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been going on for years! (If we don't have a Tibetan genocide page we certainly should too.) GPinkerton (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization". apnews.com. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-07-31.
  3. ^ a b c d e Thum, Rian (2018-04-26). "The Uyghurs in Modern China". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.160. Retrieved 2020-07-31.
  4. ^ Xinjiang documentary shows necessity of anti-terrorism effort: Foreign Ministry, cgtn.com, June 20, 2020
  5. ^ Austin Ramzy, Chris Buckley (2019-11-16). "The Xinjiang Papers: 'Absolutely No Mercy': Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims". nytimes.com. Archived from the original on 2019-11-16. {{cite web}}: Invalid |url-status=1 (help)
  6. ^ Didi Kirsten Tatlow (2016-03-23). "Yi Fuxian, Critic of China's Birth Policy, Returns as an Invited Guest". nytimes.com.
  7. ^ Linda Zhang (2020-02-28). "China's Declining Birth Rate and Changes in CCP Population Policies". jamestown.org. Veröffentlicht als: China Brief, Volume 20, Nr. 4.
  8. ^ Adrian Zenz (2020-07-01). "Argument: China's Own Documents Show Potentially Genocidal Sterilization Plans in Xinjiang". foreignpolicy.com.
  9. ^ Zhang, Junsen (2017). "The Evolution of China's One-Child Policy and Its Effects on Family Outcomes". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (1): 141–160. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  10. ^ Gietel-Basten, Stuart; Han, Xuehui; Cheng, Yuan (2019-11-06). "Assessing the impact of the "one-child policy" in China: A synthetic control approach". PLoS ONE. 14 (11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220170. Retrieved 2020-08-01.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  11. ^ Settles, Barbara H; ShengYuan, Xuewen; Zhao, ZangJia (2012-09-01). "The One-Child Policy and Its Impact on Chinese Families". International Handbook of Chinese Families: 627–646. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  12. ^ Rian Thum (2014), The Sacred Routes of Uyghur History (in German), Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-59855-3, JSTOR j.ctt9qdt35
  13. ^ Michael R. Drompp (2017-03), "The Uyghur Empire (744–840)", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.53 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).
  14. ^ Michael C. Brose (2017-06), "The Medieval Uyghurs of the 8th through 14th Centuries", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.232 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Kwangmin Kim (2018-03), "Xinjiang Under the Qing", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.13 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ David Brophy (2018-09), "The Uyghurs: Making a Nation", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.318 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Support. The consensus on this is obvious at this point. There is no need for me to rehash what has already been thoroughly demonstrated. Any reasonable person would agree. Swmpshield2 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Buidhe and Hzh, and note the refutations below
  • Any conclusions drawn from Zenz, who has continued to double down on his In 2018, 80 percent of all new IUD placements in China were performed in Xinjiang false claim (see citation to footnote 38), despite his own cited government source demonstrating an 8.7% ratio (see page 228 in the document, the statistic in question is "放置节育器例数"). This is a central factoid in Zenz's Jamestown Foundation report, yet it collapses in a far more flimsy fashion than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge did in 1940
  • Another glaring lie from Zenz's report is the reference (before footnote 42) to Tursunay Ziyawudun, with the report quoted as either underwent surgical sterilization or were given medication that stopped their menstrual periods, yet Ziyawudun was quoted in a Feb 2020 Buzzfeed News piece that The hardest part was mental. It’s something I can’t explain — you suffer mentally. Being kept someplace and forced to stay there for no reason. You have no freedom. You suffer. This is in reference to her second confinement in a higher-security compound. So someone, either Zenz, his media collaborationists, or Ziyawudun herself, changed her story.
  • Another farcical story is that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per others. StellarHalo (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per above. I also note that the most vocal opponents of the page move happen to be tankies with some sort of Chinese connection. I've had it with their prevaricating nonsense and genocide denial. See also Wikipedia:No Nazis. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading hate. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs balance, current state is massively whitewashed in favor of China.

No other article on genocide begins like this. It's not just "critics accuse", but widely reported, investigated and proven that China is undertaking mass internment and Sinofication that qualifies at least as cultural genocide, and more and more the consensus by impartial observers is that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. My proposed lead drops the whitewashed passive voice in favor of direct language that is in line with other articles about genocides and massacres:

China's treatment of Uyghurs, based on a policy of sinicization in Xinjiang in the 21st century, amounts to ethnocide or a cultural genocide of Uyghurs.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In particular, China's concentration of Uyghurs in state-sponsored re-education camps,[9][10] suppression of Uyghur religious practices[11][12] and human rights abuses including forced sterilization and contraception all indicate a pattern of cultural genocide of the Uyghurs.[13][9][14]

Shadybabs (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2020

Move tag removed — can't have two move requests running concurrently. Please feel free to refactor. El_C 16:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural genocide of Uyghurs → Persecution of Uyghurs

I was thinking this article's title might be better titled as "Persecution of Uyghurs" in vein to similar articles, such as Persecution of Hazara people, Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, etc. --2601:249:C01:3990:F957:2B9:72B5:2F89 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, as this would undermine/downplay the severity of what's happening to the Uyghurs. There's currently a debate above to rename this article "Genocide of Uyghers", however. — Czello 07:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all persecution is genocide, but all genocide is persecution. — Czello 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I would agree that "persecution" would be a much more suitable term than "genocide" in this case, we should still settle the earlier move request first. NoNews! 10:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not the scope of the article, which focuses on the genocidal aspect of the persecution. Cfr. Persecution of Jews and Holocaust Doanri (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China&oldid=971628480"