Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

RfC on the first sentence of the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is an complicated discussion, made muddy by multiple options presented and participants selecting multiple responses. The discussion almost proceeded as if some form of ranked-choice voting was operating. That, of course, would not be an acceptable way to interpret the discussion. It is very important to look beyond simply counting noses (as one post attempted below) and instead look at what participants said. What was said concerns most importantly two points: Does "Uyghur genocide" get bolded in the first sentence (which per the MOS signifies ...a formal or widely accepted name for the subject? Does the first sentence say "...genocide is the [ongoing series of] human rights abuses..." or "...genocide is the characterization that [the ongoing series of] human rights abuses..." ? Overall, it is clear that the lead sentence as it existed prior to March of this year does not have a consensus for continuing. In fact, almost no respondents favored Option 1 as previously written. Even those that !voted for Option 1 expressed the need to edit it down mostly calling for removing the Holocaust comparison or for "blending" it together with options 4 or 5.
The question of bolding was characterized by arguments about descriptiveness, natural use of language, common names, directness, and sourcing. Read on the strength of arguments as well as number, the voices in favor of bolding were more prominent than the voices against bolding. Even many who do not think that it should be called a genocide in Wikivoice explicitly favored the use of a bolded-text option as more direct or more descriptive of the article contents.
The question of "characterization" was mostly concerned with sourcing and WP:NPOV arguments. That is, almost all participants who voiced opinions on that point of disagreement argued either in favor of the sourcing supporting labeling it directly as a genocide or against such support. While there is a well-argued minority that felt such sourcing supports a direct label, the majority felt that the WP:NPOV policy cannot be set aside. By both numbers and strength of arguments, the discussion below concluded that the lede sentence should not directly label the events as a genocide.
The RfC question presented alternate formats for both versions of the second point of dispute between the wordier "...the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated...in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China" options and the more succinct "...the human rights abuses committed...in Xinjiang." Many explicitly equated these options but where a preference was expressed the respondents favored the shorter versions. The Manual of Style would also suggest that the succinct versions would be preferable and the required context is supplied as MOS:CONTEXTLINK.
There is therefore a rough consensus for Option 5:Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide. The final section of the discussion about further adjustments to address a lack of unanimity and !voters not being quite satisfied with any of the option text should be addressed through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Between the following no-bolded-title and bolded-title first sentences, which should be used at the beginning of the lead? 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No bolded-title first sentence (the status quo pre-March 2021):
  1. Starting with the current second sentence: Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the administration of CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive internment camps without any legal process in what has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust.
Bolded-title first sentence without characterization [...] amount to genocide:
  1. The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.
  2. The Uyghur genocide is the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
Bolded-title first sentence with characterization [...] amount to genocide:
  1. The Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China amount to genocide.
  2. Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide.

23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (first sentence RfC)

Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.

  • Option 1 or Option 5: In the preceding discussion, Goszei made the salient points that the bolded-title first sentence is a bit awkward and unnecessary per MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS, particularly since Uyghur genocide is a descriptive title rather than the WP:COMMONNAME (very few reliable sources use the exact phrase Uyghur genocide, instead preferring more descriptive or attributed mentions). This also aligns with MOS:FIRST, which says that if the article title is merely descriptive [...] the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.
    Regarding options 2-3: in the previous discussion, Thucydides411 expressed WP:NPOV concerns about directly stating that the Uyghur genocide is the human rights abuses as a WP:WIKIVOICE statement about genocide when most reliable sources do not directly give such a description in their own voices. There is some validity to these concerns, particularly since most RSes attribute or qualify (using quotation marks, allegations of, etc.) the term "genocide" for this topic:
Examples of RSes that only attribute or qualify "genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang
There are some RSes (e.g. a news.com.au video clip) that use genocide in their own voice to describe events, but it does not appear that it is close to being the dominant trend. One can also compare it to using the converse "the ongoing series of human rights abuses in Xinjiang is the Uyghur genocide" given the usage of the definite article "the" in options 2-5; such a description may not be justified as a wikivoice statement.
In my judgment, I still find option 5 to be preferable among options 2-5 independent of the NPOV concerns about options 2-3. If a bolded-title first sentence is to be used to define the topic, the use of characterization [...] amount to genocide more precisely defines Uyghur genocide. It is more clumsy to just say that "the ___ genocide is the series of human rights abuses", because the genocide aspect of the name is a crucial aspect. This is the case, even when disregarding from the aforementioned NPOV discussion. Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back also expressed concern in the preceding discussion that defining Uyghur genocide using the words characterization that the human rights abuses [...] amount to genocide would change the scope of the article; this article would still describe both the human rights abuses and its partial classification as genocide with a first sentence that defines the genocide aspect of Uyghur genocide. An article scope including the classification of human rights abuses does not need to exclude the human rights abuses (and this isn't a WP:SPLIT proposal).
Also following MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should be concise (i.e. options 3 & 5 over options 2 & 4). The full name of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (notwithstanding the fact that its official English name is actually Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region) isn't necessary over the shorter common name of just Xinjiang, the mention of People's Republic of China is redundant with the earlier mention of the government of China, and there's no need for in and around since the article and its references focus on Xinjiang. — MarkH21talk 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I find 4 and 5 unacceptable because this article is about the abuses themselves, not their characterization (basically an argument from WP:REFERSTO/the use-mention distinction); we should not make it out to be that way in the lead. Regarding 2 and 3: we should respect naming consensus. HOWEVER, respecting that consensus is complicated here because (as explained by the closer of the most recent RM) there is a bifurcation of rationales that arrive at the current title: one based on this title being the WP:COMMONNAME, and one based on this not being the COMMONNAME, yet still the name that best matches the WP:CRITERIA. I subscribe to the latter view – a COMMONNAME would fit better into the lead, but a descriptive title like this should be expressed pursuant to MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS. — Goszei (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with the comment made below by Aquillion. — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 5, although I would like to question what exactly the Holocaust claim in sentence 2 adds to the lede in the first place, as I do not know how well sourced it is (it is to my understanding that the exact numbers of internment are still uncertain. Either way, I don't think many of the sentences in this article put into wikivoice deserve to be so given what is actually reported in RS's. Deku link (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: The subject of this article is not a characterization of anything, it is a series of human rights abuses. We should not be afraid to call it a series of human rights abuses, or to mention the title of the article in bold in the first sentence as is the case for almost every other Wikipedia article. Loki (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, preferably, or 2. The "characterization" options aren't great, because the article is about the actions, not their characterization, as Goszei said. Describing them as human rights abuses in Wikipedia's voice feels a bit weird—human rights are a nebulous, political concept, so stating that something is a human rights abuse should always be an attributed claim, not a fact, IMO. (For the record, this absolutely is a human rights abuse.) If we do go with one of 2 or 3, 2 reads a little more cleanly to me. (Brought here by the FRS bot.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    On further thought, I'd support 4 or 5 over 2 or 3—the NPOV issue outweighs my quibble with the wording. My order of preference is now 1 > 5 > 4 > 2 > 3; 1 is still the best option by far. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, since the name isn't "formal or widely accepted"—if it was, we wouldn't have any issue calling it a genocide in Wikivoice—we only need to bold the title if it can be accommodated naturally, so that's not a major concern for me. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: The article is fundamentally focused on the abuses detailed therein, whose common name is the "Uyghur genocide". Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, when a common name exists for an article's topic, we should display it as early as possible in the first sentence. It is not the case that most unique WP:RS only attribute or qualify the term "genocide."
Examples of RSes that use "genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang in their own voice
  • Academic sources (Peer-reviewed journals and law review articles)
    • 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
  • Axios (RSP entry)
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Just Security
  • MIT Technology Review
  • National Catholic Reporter
  • News Co. Australia
  • The New Yorker (RSP entry)
  • Society + Space
  • The Taiwan Times

Notes

  1. ^ Note that this is a piece from the news desk explaining that the New Yorker had translated the below piece into Mandarin
Option 1 would be preferred if the community believes this article to have a WP:CRITERIA-named title for the purposes of this discussion, rather than a WP:COMMONNAME title. Option 4 and 5 are unacceptable, owing to their apparent shifting of the article's scope and the use-mention distinction mentioned above by Goszei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
To add on to my comment, WP:SOURCETYPES states that When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. I've provided a great number of them in my list above that state "genocide" in their own voice. If we're considering how to weight sources for the purposes of this discussion, we should rely upon an analysis of the best and most authoritative sources possible, which generally are the academic sources. I haven't really seen all that much discussion around this point, which is a bit disappointing, but I'll put it down here for posterity sake. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 5: "Uyghur genocide" is an extremely controversial characterization of what's going on in Xinjiang - one which is primarily advanced by the United States State Department, and which is disputed by other parties, including the US State Department's own legal advisors and more than 60 UN member states. Options 2 and 3 make a direct WP:WIKIVOICE claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. I can't think of a more egregious violation of WP:NPOV than to put an unsubstantiated accusation of genocide into Wikivoice. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and we're not in the business of pushing extreme - and extremely controversial - accusations in Wikipedia's authoritative voice.
Above, some are arguing that "Uyghur genocide" is simply the common name for human rights issues in Xinjiang, and that "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses ..." is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide. This is simply an absurd argument, on many levels. Firstly, "Uyghur genocide" is a very specific allegation - it is not the common way of referring to any human rights issues in Xinjiang. It is the accusation that those abuses amount to a genocide, a term that has a very specific legal definition and which has a clear meaning in the English language - one that carries extremely strong connotations. Secondly, regardless of what one thinks about the WP:COMMONNAME argument, a statement such as "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses ..." will be viewed by virtually every single reader who comes to this article as a declaration, in Wikipedia's authoritative voice, that there is a genocide. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not "Uyghur genocide" is a common name, but at the end of the day, we all know that readers will overwhelmingly interpret this as a definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice that there is a genocide.
Anyone arguing for Option 2 or 3 therefore has to show that a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide is acceptable. Unless they can successfully do so, Options 2 and 3 are simply unallowable.
Option 1 does not even define the subject of the article. One cannot name an article using an extremely controversial term, and then completely avoid defining that term in the lede. Options 4 and 5 are the only options that actually explain what "Uyghur genocide" means, and which conform to WP:NPOV. Of these two, Option 5 is more concise, and therefore preferable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have quibbles with all of these options, but broadly speaking Option 1 is the way the opening sentence should be structured: go straight into the facts. Options 2 and 3 are unacceptable because they violate WP:NPOV: they state in Wikipedia's voice that a genocide is happening, a controversial and disputed claim which is not the consensus of reliable sources. Option 4 and option 5 are acceptable, but not ideal, because this article is really about the human rights abuses, not the genocide characterization itself. Between options 4 and 5, I think option 5 is better, because option 4 is overly wordy (there's no need to write out "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" instead of just "Xinjiang", for instance). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t love any of these... Like Mx. Granger I too have quibbles. Of the above I would go with 1. Rather than an either or I think a compromise of having the current second sentence first and then combining 2 and 4 to create a new second sentence along the lines of “The ongoing series of human rights abuses against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) has been characterized as a genocide.” would allay all of the concerns that have been raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Something along the lines of this suggestion seems reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, with adjustments – I think my view is best expressed by Mx. Granger: I'm concerned about applying in wikivoice the contested label of "genocide", something also touched upon in Gaelan's comment, when there isn't unanimity among sources. It's no coincidence that we have an article/list on precisely this issue – most obviously, there's a discrepancy between the dictionary definition of genocide and the 1948 UN (CPPCG) definition. I also agree with comments that the precise subject of the article is the human rights abuses (not their characterisation), and I think option 1 conveys this most clearly. The second and fourth paras. of the current lead provide a suitable introduction to the use of the term genocide in this context, so I think there's no need to open with the term "Uyghur genocide" bolded and in wikivoice. I'm not wholly content with option 1 as it stands as I think it's overly narrow in scope (with its focus on detention as opposed to other human rights violations), but I think it's a better framework to build on than the other presented alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
To expand/clarify my comments above, I oppose 4 and 5 because of the phrasing "the characterisation that...", which I think is unclear because 1) it suggests that the article is about nomenclature/characterisation, 2) it unintentionally conveys a judgement about the accuracy of the term "genocide" by describing it as a "characterisation", and 3) I think it's unwieldy and fails to covey what the human rights abuses are. I oppose 2 and 3 because they state that the events are "genocide" in unattributed wikivoice. This leaves only option 1, which I'm not particularly happy with either, because 1) it focuses solely on internment at the expense of other elements of repression and 2) I think the immediate comparison with the Holocaust is inappropriate editorialisation, given that it's the first sentence. So my !vote is specifically for opening without a bolded repetition of "Uyghur genocide" (per Wikipedia:BOLDITIS) and for the first half of option 1, ideally with slight adjustments to emphasise that this is only one aspect of repression (albeit the most notable/visible aspect). I'll offer some suggestions for the wording in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Mix Options 1 and 4/5, i.e. start with the no-bolded sentence, and then — maybe in the second sentence — follow with a (semi-Wiki voice) assertion, in the vain of "these human rights abuses have been characterized as a genocide". TucanHolmes (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - Per WP:NPOV. STSC (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 - I would avoid 4 and 5 as the characterisation formulation is weaselly. 3 reads awkwardly. Re Thucydides411 :Anyone arguing for Option 2 or 3 therefore has to show that a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide is acceptable. Unless they can successfully do so, Options 2 and 3 are simply unallowable., I believe that Mikehawk10 has shown that pretty compellingly above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Mikehawk10 has shown that pretty compellingly above: I responded to Mikehawk10 source-by-source, showing that most of the sources treat "genocide" as an allegation. Moreover, MarkH21 showed above that the news media overwhelmingly describes "genocide" as an allegation, rather than an established fact. Putting such as extreme - and heavily contested - accusation into Wikivoice would be an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5, maybe 4 - I think I most prefer 5, but you should probably insert "ongoing series", i.e. Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the ongoing series of human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide." like in 4, but without it being as overly wordy as 4. There isn't an adequate level of sourcing that would allow us to describe an accusation of genocide as a fact in wikivoice per WP:NPOV, it needs to be described as a characterization; for that reason I strongly oppose 2 and 3. Regarding 1, that doesn't mesh with the current title – wouldn't make sense for someone to have to scroll multiple lines down to see what the actual title of the article is referring to. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 5 with preference for 5 - As others have stated, it doesn't seem to be WP:NPOV at all in its current state and it seems even the sources and citations characterize it as an allegation not a statement of fact. There isn't a consensus in the sources and option 5 is the briefest and clearest summary of of what appears to be happening. Convocke (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — Convocke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Option 1 or 5, prefer 5 2 and 3 absolutely go against WP:NPOV, while 4 is too wordy for a first sentence. Edit: That Holocaust comparison should really go from the lead, it is extremely inflammatory. Inclusion in the body may be warranted. BSMRD (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose options 4 and 5, leaning toward option 1: This article is about the human rights abuses themselves so options 4 and 5 make no sense given the article's scope. Regarding the other 3, the current article title already states "genocide", so if said title sticks then options 2 and 3 would be fine given the current title of the article. I am neutral on which would be better. If it is decided that the word "genocide" is not NPOV (The content of the article seems to treat it this way), then the page should probably be moved (I am not sure exactly what would be a good title) and option 1 be implemented. Username6892 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC), amended 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC) to make clarifications and add support to an option. New additions in italics.
    I fail to see how they make no sense given the article's scope? There is no difference content-wise between all those options, only in formulation. I also do not understand how you can view options two and three as fine when they clearly violate neutral point of view, as stated many times in edits before your own. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 but amended as per Volteer1's suggestion. As for the remaining options, the second and third option, as stated many times before in this RfC, are violations of WP:NPOV and the first one reads like a piece from sensationalist article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - I don't find any of these options ideal, but a systematic evaluation of sources provided by many editors above shows that most reliable sources attribute the allegation of genocide, which is contested by a variety of governments, organizations and experts. Furthermore, Option 5 is technically accurate, since it notes that this term describes the characterization of a host of various alleged rights abuses as amounting to a genocide overall. Lastly, this option isn't overly long, while option 4 is too wordy. -Darouet (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4/5. "Genocide" is the common name of what is occurring, though it is a POV characterization, per the explanation in User:Thucydides411's comment. I am open to a revised form of Option 1, descibing the actions themselves and clarifying later that "These actions have been characterized as Uyghur genocide, though I agree with other commenters that option 1 as it currently stands is unusual in construction and focus and insufficient to be the lead sentence without revision. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 5 if we absolutely must include "characterisation". Option 1 as is is too wordy for my taste, and its contents can be mentioned not in the defining sentence but somewhat later. The definition must be both informative and at the same time succinct. Which is why I also reject options 2 or 4.
What is most important in this context is scholarly consensus, and, from what I can see, scholars (controversial figures like Zenz and not-so-controversial ones alike) are in at least a rough consensus (from what can be seen from discussions) that we can call it a genocide and not merely crimes against humanity (which is admittedly already a very strong accusation), and personally I find it not unanimous but strong enough to avoid the word "characterisation". As for why the media use wording such as "alleged to be" or "considered" is more to do with potential lawsuits for defamation (from China) and avoiding accusations of Sinophobia or other anti-China bias, which take a toll on the outlet's reputation, rather then their uncertainty as to whether this can be directly attributed to genocide. Which is, in my belief, extensively used by merchants of doubt (Chinese or not) to tone down coverage on China as being unduly harsh when actually this toning down is not warranted by the facts on the ground. Let's call a spade a spade. Any objections and doubts can be mentioned in the body of the article under the appropriate header (e.g. Criticism), and I believe this to be an adequate way to fulfil NPOV and provide balance to reporting.
As an aside, I see too many similarities here with the coverage of Holodomor in the 1930s. Looking at the arguments used, it seems that if Wikipedia had existed in 1933 (and the word "genocide" too), the discussion would end up concluding that we couldn't say it was genocide because Walter Duranty and some Communist sympathisers would rather us believe (and propagate) the official narrative of USSR of the time and not listen to some Ukrainians whom an average American has never heard of (Ukrainians? Is this another Asian tribe?), and not because there is a major scholarly disagreement on the question, where historians are divided 50/50 (as is the case with Holodomor). The latter case can be seen as justification not to call it genocide outright in the first sentence; but I really don't see it here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, 2 or 3 We can call it genocide in Wikivoice. It isn't the controversial or disputed claim that some editors here claim it be. The forced sterilizations of Uyghur women are now resulting in real birth rate decline [1] [2] [3]. This is genocide. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Even the US State Department's own experts advised against labeling what's happening in Xinjiang a "genocide". The Economist has flatly rejected the "genocide" label, said that the label is being used simply for rhetorical escalation and to stoke useful outrage, and has accused the US government of diminishing the unique stigma of the term. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe "genocide" as an allegation or accusation in this case, rather than putting the claim in their own authoritative voice, as MarkH21 has shown above. In other words, your claim that the "genocide" label isn't controversial or disputed simply does not align with reality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The US State Department did not go with those experts in the end [4], so they aren’t relevant here. I read that Economist article and I also the letter from legal experts countering it [5], so that is hardly relevant here either. I saw the above list from MarkH21 but I think the above list from Mikehawk10 is more aligned with reality. What you will need to persuade me to change my vote is a report from a reliable source falsifying the many reports of the PRC’s genocidal activities published in numerous reliable sources over the past few years. CutePeach (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The US State Department did not go with those experts in the end: That's the whole point. The political appointees in the US State Department ignored their own experts. You're saying that we should go with what the US State Department's political appointees say, rather than what the US State Department's legal experts say. What you will need to persuade me to change my vote is a report from a reliable source falsifying the many reports of the PRC’s genocidal activities: It doesn't matter how you "vote". What matters is the policy-based argument you make. You've made it clear that your "vote" is based on your own personal assessment, which means that your "vote" should be ignored by the closer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The political appointees in the US State Department ignored their own experts. No they didn't. They went with a different set of experts. Not all experts agree on everything and a diplomatic corps like the State Department wouldn’t have caved into the political demands of a madman in the last few days of his administration. The closer of this RFC will understand that. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a source to back up that claim? It has been reported that the US State Department's legal advisor's found that the evidence did not justify the claim of genocide. I haven't seen any source stating that there was some different group of experts that advised the US State Department, and you haven't provided a source that says so. Even assuming there were such a group, the fact that the first group of experts advised against using the "genocide" label means this is a contested label, and we cannot put it in Wikivoice. Re: the State Department wouldn’t have caved into the political demands of a madman in the last few days of his administration: The US State Department was headed by Mike Pompeo, who is an extremely outspoken China hawk. Pompeo is the one who made the determination, as it even says in the State Department announcement. What the announcement did not mention was that in doing so, Pompeo was overruling his own department's legal advisors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The link I shared above was from the Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, while the link you shared is a report from Foreign Policy that quotes some experts in the Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser as questioning whether China’s conduct meets the extraordinarily high threshold required to prosecute the crime of genocide. The same Foreign Policy article describes the experts opinions sent from the department to Secretary Pompeo as a "split' memo, so your claim that you haven’t seen a different group of experts advise the US State Department on the genocide determination is false, or perhaps you didn’t even read the article. I sure hope the closer of this RFC does read the article, as well as the other ones from Mikehawk10 above, and the many new reports published since. CutePeach (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Two of the three sources you list (CNN and The Independent) DO NOT ANYWHERE in the linked articles refer to genocide in their own voice - they both use exactly the same quote from Adrian Zenz, who makes it clear that he is specifically referring to one clause of the UN definition "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". Zenz himself elsewhere has specifically said he doesn't mean a REAL genocide (by which I presume he means killing as opposed to suppressing birthrates). Zenz's research has clearly had a huge impact on this subject and has largely been accepted as probable among scholars and news sources, but no one person gets to decide something this momentous - particularly since that one person is employed by an explicitly anti-communist US think-tank. Many RS, including Zenz, are fairly certain that gross human rights abuses are occurring in China, some have a conviction that these contravene one specific aspect of genocide laws - but it is a good deal less certain among RS than you claim is self-evident IMO. All that is before we make clear that we - and Zenz - are using a wholly different definition of genocide to the 'real' one which the reader probably understands, and doing so without correcting any misapprehension. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be mistaken, while Zenz himself did at one point contend that we weren't all the way to genocide he currently contends otherwise based on more complete evidence. Everybody is working from the same definition of genocide, the problem is not people with an alternative definition its people who don’t know the definition at all. If you are arguing that readers are largely ignorant I’m not sure that there is much we can do about that. Genocide is about a conclusion reached with intention (it only needs those two aspects, outcome and intent), how you get to that conclusion is left open to the genocidaires. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: The problem isn't people who don't know what genocide means, or about proving there's a genocide, the problem is that the majority of RS refuse to describe it as a genocide without caveating it as a "claim" or the assertion of others. Since we have to follow the weight of sources, we're therefore compelled to avoid calling it a genocide without attribution. It's potentially a case where moral convictions (the desire to call out an atrocity for what you consider to be) run against the editorial policies of an encyclopedia. But where we don't have to compromise is conveying to readers the seriousness of the allegations and reporting what investigative journalists and academics say they've uncovered. Re: "everybody is working from the same definition of genocide", I don't want to keep rehashing the same point, but that's not the case – there's continued disagreement over the UN definition (too restrictive? too hard to apply? watered down by overuse?), and plenty of influential dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge) don't have definitions that match the UN's, defining it as only the murder/killing of a group. Jr8825 • Talk 17:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per reasons given by Mikehawk10, Loki and BobFromBrockley. Oppose 4/5 per reasons given by Jr8825. Sources clearly show that a genocide is running in the Xinjiang.Francesco espo (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as per Goszei. That being said, it needs adjustment, since it's very, very long and clunky. ¡Ayvind! (talk)
  • Option 3, 2 or 1 (in that order). This page is already named "Uyghur genocide" per WP:COMMON NAME. Now we need to say what it means. Option 1 does not say "Uyghur genocide is ...", but otherwise is a good option. But it say: "he largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust.". Well, that probably should not be in the lead in WP voice as an opinion by Zenz. Options 4 and 5 tells that "Uyghur genocide is a characterization ... that amounts to genocide". This is awkward to say the least. Which leaves only other options. Also, last consensus was option 2, not option 1. This is because there was a consensus on this page to change version 1 to version 2 (or something close) - based on the actual editing of the page (see editing history) and discussion on this page above [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: COMMONNAME only covers article naming, it doesn't cover article content itself and shouldn't be a rationale for stating controversial things in wikivoice. Calling the repression of Uyghurs "genocide" remains controversial/contested, even among experts (as Aquillion's evidence below clearly shows). My view is that stating "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses..." is a NPOV violation and should not stand until the weight of sources is clearly in favour of labelling it as such. I think we can trust the intelligence of our readers in beginning the lead by describing what the repression constitutes, and then ending the lead by summarising the arguments for calling it a genocide, even if the article title itself is "Uyghur genocide". I think readers will still be able to understand what the article is about, and I think it's a good thing to begin by directing readers' attention to the oppression itself rather than the argument over what to label it as. There's no need to follow a formulaic pattern of opening the first sentence with a definition of the title in bold when it presents problems like this, in fact MOS:BOLDTITLE is specifically against this: "if an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold (my emphasis, "genocide", while being the most recognisable name (per COMMONNAME), is not currently the "formal" or "widely accepted" name). That's why I continue to think that something along the lines of option 1, with the comparison with the holocaust removed, is the solution that's best supported by policy. Jr8825 • Talk 17:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my argument. Sure, the term genocide is controversial. But consider specifically version 2: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people...". So we are saying this is the ongoing series of human rights abuses, just as all other versions ("human rights abuses " is not controversial or disputed). This is just a better wording. My point is simply that an article XYZ should start from "XYZ is ...". My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 2 - as title is based on common name we should use it in the first sentence. Also article isn't about some "characterization" but about real repressions happening in Xinjiang.--Staberinde (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 per BoBFromBrockley. Volunteer Marek 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, 5, or 4 in that order as the most neutral wordings. Yes, it is true that sources exist that use the term genocide in the article voice; but given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of calling something a genocide in the article voice, it requires not just some sources using the term, but either near-unanimity, a demonstration that the sources using the term are higher-quality, or at least that the term be uncontroversial among high-quality sources; in this case it plainly is not. See eg. the BBC, accused of genocide, Washington Post, careful use of quotes and even "scare-quotes" to avoid putting it in the article voice, AP news, attributed as "what some experts are calling...", etc. This is not the sort of treatment among WP:RSes that justifies using a term in the article voice. Even some of the academic sources cited above, when read carefully, do not actually support using the term "genocide" in the article voice, since they present it as an ongoing debate within academia in which the authors are making an argument; eg. Finley says One year ago, not all scholars in Xinjiang studies agreed that the situation could or should be called a genocide, asking e.g. whether high levels of unjust incarceration of African American males (and the impact this has on birth rate) was also a “genocide.” Others worried that using this historically loaded term would put China on the defensive and do nothing to persuade China to desist from the abuses. In recent months, however, more have shifted closer to this position, and others beyond our discipline have joined them. Keep in mind that this is from a scholar arguing for using the term genocide; even for him, the strongest statement he feels he can make is that the ongoing debate is shifting in his direction. And, as Finley implicitly acknowleges, there are still plenty of recent academic sources remain more cautious; here, while it certainly treats it as serious and compares the situation to genocide on several points, cautiously writes around the legal definition of genocide and avoids using the term directly in order to establish an argument that does not rely on it. This paper takes a similar tack, saying that Whether China’s actions against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang deserves the label genocide or not has garnered significant debate in recent years. ... More urgent than the question of whether it is a genocide or not, however, is the question of how can the critical mass that has emerged in support of the Uyghurs be used to stop China’s action?. See also [7][8] for more papers that plainly use similarly cautious wording. --Aquillion (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with some pruning (eg the holocaust comparison seems poorly sourced and difficult to justify since there has been so little investigation at present) per Aquillion's excellent summary. I am very much in sympathy with Thucydides411's argument that it is inherently NPOV and WP:OR to name an article "ZXY genocide" when there is neither near-universal agreement YET that what is happening actually IS genocide and when the WP:COMMONNAME has not YET been established as "ZXY genocide". I sympathise wholly with that argument, but that is a reason for finding a better article name IMO, not for "characterising" the opening with clunky phrasing. In so far as it is relevant, the main thing we DON"T know at present appears to be the scale and extent of abuses. But we do readers a disservice by pretending we DO know - even when - as in this case suspicions appear to be extremely well grounded. When the likes of Amnesty are cautious in their pronouncements, we should doubly be so (and Amnesty are explicitly campaigners - which we explicitly are NOT). Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If the name of article is problematic, then it should be renamed. But it seem to be the most commonly used name per Google seraches including Scholar. A common name is NOT a statement fact, but just that: a common name. None of the versions above suggests to say: "Uyghur genocide is a genocide..." (that would be statement of fact). Instead they say: "this is a series of human rights abuses". My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses... is a Wikivoice claim that there is a genocide. The idea that it's only a Wikivoice claim if we write the word "genocide" twice is simply ridiculous. As for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, I'll point out that:
  1. "Uyghur genocide" is not the common name. The exact phrase "Uyghur genocide" is not used by most articles that discuss Uyghur human rights issues, and the accusation of "genocide" is almost always attributed or heavily hedged in news articles about Xinjiang.
  2. Even if we were to grant the erroneous claim that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for this subject, the average reader will not care. They will interpret the opening sentence as a definitive declaration by Wikipedia that there is a genocide. We can't simply pretend to be oblivious as to how readers will actually interpret what we write.
-Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. By simply looking at the title of this page (no matter what version of the lead), an average person will conclude there is a genocide. And she/he will come to the same conclusion by reading publications about it [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
A COMMONNAME, is not simply a name often used, nor even the name most often used - if many different terms and descriptions are being used - as is frequently the case with an unfolding situation, and is the case here IMO. A COMMONNAME is THE NAME which is used, or at least recognisable to sufficient numbers of readers to justify any simplification, confusion or inaccuracy which may be inherent in the name itself. 9/11 imparts no information, but is sufficiently established for us to use it, this duck is fish, not fowl, but they are both COMMONNAMEs. I think that most people reading the sources on this page will come to the conclusion (and will often find it explicitly stated) that very serious human rights violations are almost certainly occurring in China and these might very well be genocidal - but that no-one knows with certainty, for the simple reason that access is very difficult/impossible. Most readers reading our title would come to the conclusion that 'genocide' - which they would understand to mean mass ethnic murder - is an established and verifiable fact. I think it's a bit disingenuous for anyone to pretend that the clear inference of the title is mass ethnic murder, not simply cultural 'wipeout' or other grave human rights violations is verifiably occurring. Even Amnesty is explicitly saying that it CANNOT say how serious the violations are. What do we know that they don't? Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • But genocides are not necessarily a direct mass murder. According to UN definition, they are acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. According to Webster dictionary [10], this is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. That is what COMMON NAME suppose to reflect. And the mass incarceration and indoctrination of a specific ethnic and/or religius group (this is something we know as a fact) obviously fall under the definiton. Sure, this is a policy to intentionaly destroy the targeted ethnic group. Same would be with Stalin's deportations of ethnic groups, etc. I am not an expert and think just as an average Joe. So I do not see any problem with using such name for this page (or with calling it genocide in the lead) at all. And in any event, if this is not a common name or a good descriptive name, then what is? My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you prove intent to destroy? You mentioned Soviet deportations [11] (you can click through all the individual articles yourself, theres like 20 and I'm not going to link them all), but the strongest term we use in anything approaching wikivoice is "crimes against humanity" and even that is qualified with a "Contemporary historians classify"[12] [13] These are the most "genocidal" and only the Crimean one uses "Cultural Genocide" in wikivoice(notably the reason these two get the closest to a genocide designation is due to their high mortality rate, something lacking in Xinjiang). If these events fall under the same definition then either all are genocide or none are. Genocide is a very strong accusation, and we must be careful making it. If we won't make it for events a century ago we shouldn't here for an ongoing event. The same logic used by WP:SILENCE applies here as well, if Amnesty felt comfortable calling it a genocide, they would havbe done so, but they clearly don't. As for a better title I would use "Sinicization of Xinjiang" as it includes the whole region and all it's ethnic groups (which the article does despite being named "Uyghur Genocide") and matches Sinicization of Tibet. BSMRD (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Quick check shows that Sinicization of Xinjiang frequently refer in books to an older history, i.e. "the Sinicization of Xinjiang in the 1880s was a critical step leading to its full integration with China after the fall of the Qing.". This is probably an overlapped but a different subject. Besides, such policies usually refer "just" to the enforced cultural assimilation, mass incarcerations goes far beyond that. For the same reason, something like Russification of Crimea would be very different from Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: "Mass incarceration and indoctrination of a specific ethnic and/or religious group ... obviously fall under the definition [of genocide]" – I disagree, I don’t think mass incarceration/indoctrination "obviously" or unambiguously fall under the definition of genocide – that's why I think it's inappropriate to call it genocide in wikivoice. You pointed out definitions that describe genocide as "destroying" a group, I could equally point to the Oxford Reference definition, which says it’s "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation". I know I made this point in a comment a bit further up this discussion, but there's disagreement over what genocide actually means, and consequently there's a clear disagreement among experts over whether it's the correct term and a corresponding unwillingness by RS news to call it a genocide in their own voice. There are also influential RS such as The Economist explicitly arguing against the term in this context. For what it's worth, my personal view is that the repression of Uyghurs constitutes cultural genocide, and therefore I personally agree with calling it a genocide per the UN's definition (under international law). However, I'm not an expert – that’s my personal opinion. In terms of following policy, I think we need to avoid saying "the Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses", because, without contextualisation or attribution, it's effectively the same as saying "the ongoing series of human rights abuses is a genocide" in wikivoice. It’s not about verifiability – calling it a genocide is no longer an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim as there's been a significant shift in its usage over the last year or so (hence it being the COMMONNAME, according to the previous consensus). It’s about NPOV, ("if there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution"), opening with a neutral, encyclopedic tone that makes no judgements itself, other than echoing what the authoritative sources say. I think jumping to use the term when there isn't scholarly consensus for it cheapens the authority of the article, we can still outline fully the arguments put forward for it being a genocide in the rest of the lead and body. Jr8825 • Talk 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not really object to anything you said above. But the differences between options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as posted in the RfC are very minor. All say essentially the same. Furthermore, option 1 (not the one I prefer) makes a comparison with the Holocaust. I will leave this discussion to others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I am fully aware of Lemkin's and UNGC's and legislative definitions of genocide - all of which are somewhat broader than the commonly used "ethnic mass murder". But, AFAIK there is not a single instance in all of history in which "XYZ genocide" has become the established name, either among the public, nor among scholars, which has NOT involved mass killing of a specified, social, and usually ethnic, group. IMO it's disingenuous to pretend that the primary understanding and use of the word among both readers and scholars is other than targetted mass killing. In some theoretical world in which we all go back to primary sources to understand terms, genocides are not necessarily a direct mass murder is true - in real world use of the term, especially for naming events, it is patently untrue. One should not have to have read Lemkin to understand or justify an article title. I think we have both made our positions clear - I won't clutter the space by responding further here. Pincrete (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 5 Although the phrasing is inelegant, it is tendentious to refer to something as a genocide when it has not and may not ever be proven. Contrary to what some editors may argue, saying "The Uyghur genocide is" without qualification implies that it is a genocide. TFD (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Are you implying that the editors who disagree with you here are engaged in tenditious editing? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I am saying that wording of the article that is "partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole" is tendentious. You should read explanatory supplements before you link to them. Unless you read them, you won't know what they say. TFD (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A comment only (no vote at all!). I find it odd, that a current event (somewhat of a Wikinews candidate) is being classified here in so certain terms already. For example, Holodomor, that many historians rightly consider as a "terror-famine" (a term often used in Ukraine), is not really classified as genocide in the relevant pages on English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is being very cautious there. Why such a hurry here? One aspect is the purely human compassion which editors feel, this is fine, but we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. I think more caution would be warranted. Is there really a consensus for such a title? Western governments' declarations alone aren't indicative of that. Potugin (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is simply because the common name is "Holodomor" rather than "Ukrainian genocide". Indeed, if you check Holodomor in modern politics, it was actually recognized as a genocide in many countries, but the "Uyghur genocide" was not. Nevertheless, we have an already rather common naming "Uyghur genocide", even in Google book searches. I am not sure why, but this is the case. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (first sentence RfC)

  • Posting comment: This RfC is based on a preceding discussion of the first sentence at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 8#Restarted discussion. — MarkH21talk 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The options are insufficient: This RfC actually concerns two underlying issues: (1) the stylistic issue of whether to bold the article's subject in the lead and (2) the editorial/POV issue of whether China's human rights abuses should be referred to as a genocide in Wikivoice. The current gamut of choices is insufficient because it is missing an option that refers to it as a genocide in Wikivoice but doesn't use bolding.--DaysonZhang (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's preferable to leave "The" out, as its omission specifically highlights the phrase, which is then described in the remainder of the sentence. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It corrupts the sentence format, “Uyghur genocide” the phrase isn't the characterization, thats just genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not really sure why the "The" was taken out, especially given it's the same sentence structure as in option 4 which does have the determiner. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back, Darouet, and Volteer1: The formulation of option 5 without the definite article "The" was based on the first sentence of Black genocide. I don't really have a preference with or without the definite article. Option 3 should probably include ongoing series of like in Option 2 (otherwise it's a singular-plural mismatch), and Option 5 can include that too. — MarkH21talk 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Omitting the definite article effectively recognizes that this is a term that needs attribution. If you add the definite article, it lends credence to the idea that Wikipedia is not just reporting allegations of genocide, but endorsing them as certainly true. The same phrasing that omits "the" is used not only at Black genocide but also Maafa. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense actually. Yeah, omitting the definite article is probably a good thing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: How do editors who indicated support for Options 4/5 feel about what TucanHolmes suggested above?
Mix Options 1 and 4/5, i.e. start with the no-bolded sentence, and then — maybe in the second sentence — follow with a (semi-Wiki voice) assertion, in the vain of "these human rights abuses have been characterized as a genocide".
As an editor who supports number 1, I would support a variation on this as well, and I think there's room for a compromise here so we don't head towards a no consensus split. Many editors voiced support for Options 1 AND Options 4/5, so I am wondering if this is what they are looking for. — Goszei (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Goszei: Yeah I think the HEB/TucanHolmes suggestion is also acceptable. It's basically what's currently the very brief second paragraph, so some more reorganization of the first two paragraphs may be needed to avoid redundancy. — MarkH21talk 18:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone actually write out the proposed text in a talk quote box? -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Depends on what the "mix" actually means. I personally do not think that sensationalist additions like secretive internment camps without any legal process in what has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust. are fitting for a Wikipedia article, especially its lead sentence. Furthermore, the sources for the secretive internment camps without any legal process part are not the greatest either, the Washington Post article doesn't mention anything about the "lack of legal processing". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the source itself also says It appears to be the largest imprisonment of people on the basis of religion since the Holocaust. (emphasis my own). The source itself is using hedging language but the article states it definitively. The source is also a slideshow. Convocke (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC) — Convocke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
In light of these two points, I think the entire phrase "secretive internment camps ... since the Holocaust" should be removed from the article lead quickly. Both claims are sensationalist and mis-representations of sources. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This option addresses the concern I have for options 4 and 5, though the part about it being characterized as genocide is already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Will the content be duplicated or moved assuming this option is chosen? Username6892 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The content would be moved. The desired outcome would be for readers to first get an impression of the facts of the situation (mass-internment and documented human rights abuses), at which point they would presumably ask "Why genocide?", which would then be immediately addressed by the second sentence (characterized as genocide, though contentious). This way, we avoid a full Wiki-voice assertion about the genocidal character of these human rights abuses. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the point TucanHolmes makes about starting with the facts. I disagree with starting with a discussion of whether or not the human rights abuses are genocide. Please see my comments above for a fuller explanation of why I think this. I understand Goszei's suggestion of merging options 1 and 4/5, but I think this is unnecessary because the second and fourth paragraphs of the lead discuss genocide more fully. In my view, discussing genocide in the first paragraph would be overly repetitious and come at the expense of brevity/clarity about the article's subject. As I mention above, I'm not happy with any of the RfC's options. Here's a tentative proposal for an adjusted version of option 1: "Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of general secretary Xi Jinping, has carried out a series of human rights abuses in the region of Xinjiang, leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive internment camps without any legal process." I think the comparison with the Holocaust is inappropriate for the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST it should be a simple, clear statement of the facts. I think the comparison belongs in the second paragraph of the lead, as it's relevant to labelling the human rights abuses as genocide. Jr8825 • Talk 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What about phrasing it something like this: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses....Although allegations of genocide remain unproven, it has been described as a genocide by the U.S. government and other sources." TFD (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. We are rather deep into this RfC now, but perhaps the Holocaust clause should be stricken from Option 1 to show that it isn't a package deal with the option. Comments above have shown that this clause is contentious, and it is extraneous to the RfC question (i.e. an entirely different discussion about specific wording and claims, separate from this RfC's question of basic lead format/structure). — Goszei (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that would probably invalidate the entire RfC (and it already looks as "no consensus"). I too can see an issue here though. If you follow a link to "consensus version" by the initiator of the RfC, it tells "WWII", not Holocaust, and I do not think it was the previous consensus version. Sure, "WWII" in such context clearly implies the Holocaust, and the filer was free to suggest any versions. But again, modifying the text after people already voted is "no go" for RfCs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. This RfC has been open for a while, but I just wanted to raise the question over whether or not Wikipedia might end up playing a role in Uyghur Genocide being solidified as COMMONNAME. YouTube, Twitter, and even Google are already linking directly to some of these related pages as sources for their searches and state media tags placed on videos and tweets, and considering how fewer and fewer editors are getting access to these pages now that they are extended protected, it potentially worries me how public perception could be shaped by a few editors. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Amnesty report Relevant discussion from mid-Junish, relating to the Amnesty report has been archived slightly prematurely: here. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Counting of "votes"

I think it is hard to see a strong concensus so I have done some counting of the "votes". The counting is complex because it is possible to mention more than one option and it is also possible to oppose.

I counted 33 users that have made a statement where they support at least one option.

Option 1 2 3 4 5
A: Only positive 17 8 5 8 16
B: Sum 17 4 1 2 10

In the first count (A) I counted the number of users that more or less mentioned the option as acceptable. I ignored comments against the option and those that did not mention the option.

In the second count (B) I gave a support the value +1 and an oppose the value -1 and those that did not either support or oppose I ignored. So if three users said support and one user said oppose the result would be 3 minus 1 = 2.

Some users mention an option without a strong statement of support or oppose so in my count I ignored them. So even if I tried to be neutral it is possible to question my counting.

As mentioned there is no clear concensus. But 24 of the 33 users are willing to accept the word "genocide" in the article and only 9 users do not accept the word. However most users is against option 2 or 3 where the article say that it IS a genocide.

Some users have suggested alternative versions where options 1, 4 and 5 is combined. Perhaps that is what is needed to get a concensus? --MGA73 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In these sorts of situations, aren't we not supposed to count votes but instead examine the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy? If there's no consensus, then surely we should close as no consensus and move on to discussing finer tweaks in light of the arguments presented here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: Yes :-) But if I or someone else close the RFC with option 5 (that only 5 users could support) with the rationale that "User NN made the best argument" then someone might argue that NN could not have made the best argument since only 4 other users agreed. You could perhaps argue that the best argument is that most users support. Anyway I just noticed that this RFC have been open for a long time and noone seems to be comfortable closing it. So I decided to count a bit and see if I could find some sort of concensus (or demonstrate that there is none). I hoped it could help someone conclude. --MGA73 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
You cannot assume that because an editor did not say they opposed an option that they did not oppose it. So strike out B.
While it may be difficult for someone closing the discussion to weigh the various arguments, they can eliminate some votes before counting. For example, if an editor says they chose one option without providing a reason or citing a policy without explaining its relevance, or saying ignore policy, then it should be discounted. One editor for example said that although policy does not support calling it a genocide, they have decided that it is. TFD (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. That we cannot assume that no oppose statement means that someone does not oppose. But if someone bother to explain why they oppose something you could argue that it is worth more than if someone does not mention an option. My rationale for mentioning both methods was to illustrate that no matter how you look at it there is no strong consensus. --MGA73 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Building on what TFD said about assumptions I would like to note that my wish for a hybrid solution should be counted as a “vote” against all five, but doesn’t seem to have counted for anything in this arithmetic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Well as I wrote there does not seem to be strong consensus for any of the options so perhaps the solution is a hybrid. So your wish may not fit in as a “vote” but as the conclusion. --MGA73 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

Shawntr1211 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Propose addition of "Ukraine" under "Reactions by country" > "Europe", as noted below:

Ukraine had originally signed onto a June 22, 2021 statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council which called for independent observers to be provided immediate access to Xinjiang, but withdrew its signature two days later. Ukrainian lawmakers later stated that China had forced the policy pivot by threatening to limit trade and block a scheduled shipment of at least 500,000 COVID-19 vaccines.[1]

 Done Thank you 60minfreshbreath for your contribution.Thomas Meng (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Solonyna, Yevhen; Standish, Reid (28 July 2021). "China Used Vaccines, Trade To Get Ukraine To Drop Support For Xinjiang Scrutiny". Radio Free Europe. Archived from the original on 28 July 2021. Retrieved 28 July 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China/Archive_10&oldid=1210656544"