Talk:Id Kah Mosque

No working mosques in Kashgar?

The claim that there are no working mosques in Kashgar is an extraordinary claim. Kashgar is a large city (with approximately 700,000 inhabitants) with a majority Muslim population, which has until recently had thousands of mosques. The claim that not a single mosque is in operation - which means that none of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in Kashgar attend a mosque to pray - is inherently extraordinary. This claim appears to be sourced to a single article in The Independent. Unless there is much stronger sourcing, this claim should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If they’re the only ones who have reported that it should be either attributed or removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, I think I’d prefer attribution to full removal. Lets include it with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is reliable for Chinese government view, with attribution

Moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Id Kah Mosque

 – Dispute resolution related to the content of this page has been opened by Deku link on the dispute resolution noticeboard at 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not move discussion to DRN. Continue article discussion here until a mediator opens the case there. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Noted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: Xinhua is reliable for the Chinese government view, with attribution. The removal of Xinhua's response to claims by Radio Free Asia is not justified by RS policy. It's actually important, from the point of view of neutrality, to include the Chinese government's response to allegations by US government media. Xinhua is perfectly fine for relating the Chinese government's response, and the text in question attributed Xinhua's claims in-line. If anyone wants to suggest a better way to word the material in question, I'm open to suggestions. But the material should be restored to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"According to the Chinese government news agency Xinhua, the still-active imam stated that the plaque had been moved inside to protect it from exposure to the rain and sun.” is a statement of fact not a statement of the Chinese government’s view. Its also covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s clearly a statement on the claims and views of the Chinese government. Or are Chinese sources no longer reliable for stating the opinions of the Chinese government? I’ve held off on editing this article personally because of accusations of edit warring (which I do not want to partake in), but I’d say according to the discussion on Xinhua it’s fine to use for the topic of China’s official response to a situation so long as the statements are not put in wiki voice. Deku link (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement is clearly attributed to Xinhua, with an explanation that Xinhua is a Chinese government news agency. That's how we're supposed to use Xinhua in this sort of circumstance. This isn't a WP:BLP problem - nothing potentially derogatory is being implied about any living person, and no living person is even named.

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to include the response from Xinhua to these allegations, and doing so is in fact in line with WP:NPOV. Do you have a suggestion about how to better word the response printed in Xinhua, or do you want to suggest an alternative source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we can find a WP:RS which discusses this. If no WP:RS has covered it then we don’t have a NPOV issue. Unfortunately it falls outside of the consensus for where we can use Xinhua for facts, especially ones covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is a reliable source for giving the China's response to the allegation. It just needs proper attribution, which the text gave. I'm asking you to be reasonable here. We include RFA's claim, with attribution, even though RFA is a problematic source for this subject area. It would be unreasonable and frankly POV to exclude the response from China. There's no actual question of reliability here. There's even a video of the statement that Xinhua is referencing. So again, let's be reasonable here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

But the statement by the Imam is not China’s response... Its the Imam’s response. I am being reasonable, whats not reasonable is dismissing The Independent’s claim as exceptional while treating Xinhua’s claim as non-exceptional... At least for the first claim we actually had a WP:RS unlike here where we have *no* WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Imam has made the same statement on video, so there's no actual doubt about whether he said what Xinhua says he said. But if you object to using Xinhua to relate what the imam said, the Xinhua article also cites what the Chinese embassy to the US stated on Twitter. That piece of text can, at least, be restored. I think we can attribute the Chinese embassy's statement to the Chinese embassy directly, without writing, "According to Xinhua, ..." It's still attributed, and the fact that the embassy made the statement is not in doubt. I still think the imam's views should be in the article, but we can discuss that later. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We can say “according to Xinhua the Chinese embassy in the US released a statement which said _____.” There is no way we can use them for assertions about the Imam’s statement, there is no room for that in the community consensus on Xinhua’s reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you might be conflating the general reliability of sources with the reliability that sources hold on a case by case basis. We have a 3 minute long video posted by the official account of the Chinese embassy where the Imam blatantly and clearly makes several claims about the state of the mosque. If Xinhua then reports on those statements, and everyone and their dog can clearly see those statements were made, there’s no reason to believe that specific reporting is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese embassy is not a WP:RS, nor is Xinhua a reliable source in this case. We can not do WP:OR and interpret the video ourselves. Also it doesn’t matter whether the statement was made or not, without coverage bu independent reliable sources its simply not WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, you’re conflating general reliability guidelines with case by case analysis. Xinhua is reliable when stating opinions or claims of the Chinese government. Deku link (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not the opinion or claim of the Chinese government, its the opinion or claim of a religious leader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is blatantly a claim made by the Chinese embassy that they are attributing to a religious leader (who is on camera attesting to this). There is absolutely no reason we can't include what the embassy has to say about the matter from a Chinese source. Deku link (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We can include what the embassy says, but we can’t use them as a source for the statements of third parties (especially a living person) as you are asking to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should leave out what the imam of the Id Kah mosque has to say about this issue. There's no doubt that he said it, not least because he said it on video, so the BLP risk that we would possibly misquote him simply does not exist. I just don't think that there is any legitimate BLP concern here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Misquoting is not why we have a BLP policy. If no WP:RS has reported what the imam of the Id Kah mosque has to say about this issue then we can’t possible include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If misquoting is not your concern, then what is your concern? The imam has made a statement on this issue - I don't think you're questioning whether he said exactly what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what is your concrete BLP concern about including a statement that the imam made?

The article currently details an accusation made by US government media about the mosque. You're arguing that we can't include the response that the imam made to that accusation. To me, it seems like we're violating neutrality here. We should either cover this story neutrally, meaning that we include what the various sides are saying (including the imam, who actually runs the mosque), or we should remove it altogether. Either option is fine by me, but covering the issue in a one-sided manner is not acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But we have no reliable source for the imam’s claims, we *only* cover whats been published in reliable sources per WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying variations of "we have no reliable source", but the fact that the imam made the statement that he's reported to have made is actually easily verifiable. There are worries about Xinhua potentially being a biased source for this particular issue, but in this particular case, there is no worry about it being unreliable for the imam's statement - since there is an actual video of him making the statement. Radio Free Asia is also a biased source for this subject, yet we're presenting its claims anyways. It would frankly be absurd to present RFA's claims, but then argue that we can't include statements by the imam who runs the mosque. Either we cover this issue neutrally, or we leave it out of the article altogether. Covering only US government media's claims about the issue is not acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source can I use to verify his statement? Xinhua can not be relied upon for accuracy in this context "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately;” I don’t see a similar consensus existing for RFA, can you point to one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source can I use to verify his statement?. Xinhua published the video of the interview, meaning that there's no question about whether or not it is accurately reporting the imam's words. There's no question about verifiability here, so I really hope we can stop arguing about this issue. If you're actually worried that the imam might not have said what he's reported to have said, then please say so. Otherwise, arguing about this question is a waste of time for both of us. I don’t see a similar consensus existing for RFA, can you point to one? The RfC on RFA found that because of its connection to the US government, attribution is appropriate for geopolitically charged subjects. Xinjiang certainly qualifies as such a subject.

I propose we just remove this entire section from the article. RFA's claims about the mosque are marginally notable anyways, and if we can't cover them neutrally, we shouldn't cover them at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is not a reliable source in this context. I don’t see the linkage, RFA and Xinhua are in different categories vis-a-vis reliability. Even if Xinhua was reliable it would still be an extraordinary claim like the one from The Independent, my position has been consistent... Why hasn’t yours been? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said is not in any way extraordinary. In fact, as you know from the video, it's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If it isn’t extraordinary then you can point to multiple WP:RS which say it. The video is not usable without a reliable source vouching for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it very telling that you're not actually questioning whether the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. The fact that he said what Xinhua claims he said is easily verifiable (just watch the video).

I've said a few times now that I don't want to waste either of our times, and that if we can't cover this issue neutrally, it shouldn't be covered at all. Right now, we only present the view given by one biased source - US government media. The other side - the statements of the imam who runs the mosque - are being excluded from the article on the grounds that we supposedly can't verify that the imam actually made those statements, despite the fact that he made the statements on video. This is clearly non-neutral. To save us all time arguing over this relatively minor story about the Id Kah mosque, I propose we simply remove this section from the article. Unless there's any objection, I'll be doing this shortly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we can’t delete the section, we can however expand it using reliable sources. I think you’re missing the point, even if its true its not WP:DUE because it hasn’t been covered by a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course we can delete the section. This is an extremely famous mosque that's been around for many centuries. Unless you can give a compelling reason why one claim by a US government media outlet deserves a section, the section should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA is not the only source in that section. Do you mean just that line? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Copied Discussion from DRN

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials."

As far as I understand, the usage of Xinhua in this particular claim is about the statement of the "still-active imam". Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Xinhua is reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. In my opinion, there's a good reason for thinking that Xinhua's reporting on this subject might entail the propaganda of the Chinese government, due to the political situation in Xinjiang. In that case, Xinhua is generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, however, an active imam in the Id Kah Mosque, whose statements are being conveyed by Xinhua, is not a member of the Chinese government nor its official. Therefore, Xinhua is not used in this case to report on the views of the Chinese government and its officials and it might contain propaganda of the Chinese government. In conclusion, I think this particular report of Xinhua shouldn't be used in the article about Id Kah Mosque. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The actual report is to be used to report on the Chinese Embassy's claims as presented in a video (where you can clearly see and interview with the imam) with in-line attribution, not to make claims about his life. Specifically these claims are being presented by a part of the Chinese Government, so I don't see how referring to those claims would be an issue. Deku link (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are due weight concerns about the inclusion of the content, not just sourcing concerns. There's also a community consensus that Radio Free Asia (RSP entry) is generally reliable for this sort of reporting (although attribution may be appropriate), whereas there is also community consensus that Xinhua is not reliable to report dispassionately when the Chinese government has a stake. It's not clear to me that including Xinhua's reporting on this would constitute due weight if reliable sources aren't covering the Imam's statement.

Additionally, there are a multitude of sources that describe the transformation of the mosque into a tourist location, aside from the generally reliable Radio Free Asia. These include The Independent and The Globe and Mail, each of which are currently cited in the article. AFP (via Arab News) also describes the Mosque as having been closed to prayer, with entrance to the mosque requiring the purchase of a tourist ticket. The Christian Science Monitor (RSP entry) also reports that the prayer times for the mosque are "just for show", that prayer at the mosque was forbidden for foreigners, and that the mosque "is largely deserted apart from Chinese tourists". In light of this, the inclusion of Xinhua's reporting seems less and less worthy of inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is not reliable for this story. The RfC result on Radio Free Asia was that attribution is appropriate for geopolitically charged issues, noting that RFA is US government media. One of the issues that that motivated this decision is the fact that RFA has pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan. RFA has pushed speculation that as many as 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province (the scientific estimate is that approximately 4500 people died of CoVID-19 in the province).

The Christian Science Monitor piece you quote does not claim that the mosque is closed for prayer. It says that an anonymous foreign businessman claims he was told the mosque is closed for prayer. There's a difference there (reported speech versus a factual claim by the newspaper). The Arab News article that you quote likewise does not claim that the mosque is closed for prayer. It says that one anonymous tourist claims he was told that he had to purchase a ticket to enter the mosque and that as a tourist, he wasn't allowed to pray during his visit. Again, this is very far from a newspaper making a sweeping claim that prayer is banned at the mosque. That would be an extraordinary claim, and there's absolutely no support for it in either of these two articles.

Xinhua has published a video interview with the imam who runs the mosque. He responds directly to Radio Free Asia's claim that a plaque has been removed by showing - on camera - that the plaque is still displayed at the mosque. There's no doubt that the imam actually made these claims, because he made them on camera. It's fine to attribute the claims to the imam and note that he made them in an interview with Xinhua, a state media agency. However, presenting only US government media's claims, but censoring a refutation by the guy who actually runs the mosque, would be ridiculous.

This is a minor enough story that we don't have to present it at all. But if we do present it, we cannot do so in a one-sided manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP and Memet Jume

It's not appropriate to claim that any information about the Mosque's imam, Memet Jume, cannot be added, even from Xinhua [1], because the information would be a "BLP violation" [2]. It's not. BLP is meant to protect living people from defamation. WP:CRYBLP specifically states,

Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject.

CRYBLP explains that if the material in question does not clearly cause harm to the subject, BLP should not be invoked:

While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute.

Ironically, refusing to quote from Jume suggests that Jume is himself a part of the campaign against his own mosque, faith and people. It would be Orwellian to argue that you're protecting someone by silencing them, or that you're defending Islam or Uyghers by making sure that statements by the representatives of their communities can't be reproduced even in articles about those communities. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t even read all of WP:CRYBLP (an essay)... If you had you would have come across WP:CRYCRYBLP: "Referencing this essay in a discussion may be taken as an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor’s view before responding with a link here." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read the whole essay in the past, and every policy or essay contains caveats. However, I did more than link CRYBLP: I explained how citing Jume doesn't harm him, but refusing to cite him (in an article about a mosque he runs!) is, indeed, harmful to him. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that refusing to quote from him harms him or suggests what you are suggesting it does. We simply can’t use quotes that come from unreliable sources. If the quote was from a reliable source you would have a point, but it isn’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Jume runs this mosque. You don't think he's harmed if

1. a US government news service says the mosque is only a tourist site, not a place of worship,
2. that allegation is displayed prominently in an international enyclopedia (as a fact by the way, not as an allegation!), and
3. Jume isn't allowed to respond that the mosque he runs is real, and has some purpose?

His response in Xinhua is obviously calibrated to his own community [3] and answers this point:

Today, the mosque is bright and tidy, warm in winter and cool in summer. It is very comfortable for devotees to attend religious service in the mosque.

Again, it's offensive not to include his response, but doubly offensive to say it can't be included for his own benefit. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"but doubly offensive to say it can't be included for his own benefit” I haven’t said that. Remember that WP:BLP says it always applies regardless of whether its positive, negative, etc: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” notice theres no mention of harm being necessary, rather the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also on points 1,2, and 3 you are fundamentally mistaken, the sources that say the mosque is "only a tourist site, not a place of worship" are The Independent and The Globe and Mail, we do not source that statement to RFA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Independent is a great paper (The Globe and Mail far less so), but this is an extraordinary claim. Do you dispute these basic facts of Jume's life - that his father was the imam of the same mosque - that his father was killed by separatists or extremists - that Jume is now himself the mosque's imam - and that he contradicted assertions made about his mosque, in comments that were reported all across Chinese media? -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If multiple WP:RS make it then its not a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. We can only use whats been published in WP:RS, it doesn’t matter how widely they’ve been covered by unreliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

To comment a characterization of one of the sources: The Globe and Mail is the newspaper that has the largest circulation in Canada on all days but Sunday, and it's widely considered to be a paper of record. It's a highly reliable WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually like the Globe and Mail in many ways, but its editorial line towards China has been extraordinarily hawkish in the last few years. We need to be sure that it's universally understood that the Id Kah Mosque is merely a tourist attraction and not a mosque if we're going to put this statement in Wikivoice, and not attribute it. The fact that the mosque's imam is stating that the mosque is functional leads me to doubt the veracity of this statement, and it will be really abominable to write something so inflammatory in Wikivoice that doesn't have sufficient sourcing to do that, and may be false. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that statement from the imam? Without one we can’t include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is a reliable source - they interviewed Memet Jume on video. There's no doubt that he said it. Unless you're actually questioning whether he said what he plainly said on video, please do not raise this transparently spurious objection again. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is not a reliable source when it comes to Xinjiang. The current consensus is "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” now I understand that consensus is being challenged but for now it stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The imam stating that his plaque was being cleaned, and that his mosque is functional, is not an "extraordinary claim" unless we decide to approach this topic from the perspective of a fanatic. Am I missing something? Why is this an extraordinary claim? -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if we ignore that part its still a clear no, this is clearly an area where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. We can not trust that Xinhua has accurately and dispassionately conveyed the views of the imam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If you truly fear that, you can simply attribute the interview — that's what we do now for the claim made by the Globe and Mail. That's standard practice. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Globe and Mail is a WP:RS in this circumstance, Xinhua is not. Thats apples and oranges, we only cover whats been published in reliable sources. If its not published in a reliable source a BLP statement simply can not be made, per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What we're actually discussing is whether or not the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque will be kept out of the article about the Id Kah mosque on the basis of what is clearly a spurious objection about reliable sourcing. The fact that he said what he said is reliably sourced - it's on video. Memet Jume made the statement in question. We can note that he made the statement in an interview with a Chinese state news outlet. Readers can judge for themselves what they think of the imam's statement, but censoring the imam's statement entirely, based on conjectures about whether the imam meant what he said, would be inappropriate, in my opinion. I think readers are smart enough to take into account what the imam said, and what medium he said it in, and to form their own opinions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Videos are sources in their own right? I didn’t know that, can you cite the policy that says that? If the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque has been published in a WP:RS or a source covered by WP:ABOUTSELF I would have no objection, but it has not been as far as I am aware. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there an actual justification for censoring the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque? The transparently spurious objections about sourcing are getting tiresome. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Respecting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is not censorship, either find a high quality reliable source or move on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

How does censoring the imam's statement respect BLP and NPOV? He made a statement directly responding to allegations about the mosque. You're arguing that we should keep his statement out because he made it in the wrong media - not because he didn't make the statement. And then you're claiming that keeping his statement out of the article, while including the allegations about the mosque he was responding to, somehow advances BLP and NPOV. That's simply not a credible argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. " WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” You are more than welcome to present any policy which you feels supports your position or a reliable source which we can use. I found a reliable source for the general claim that the sign had been moved inside, I was not able to find a reliable source for the specific claims of the imam. Are you able to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are you still talking about this interview as if it possibly didn't happen? This is getting surreal. The interview is on video. I'm trying very hard to maintain the assumption of good faith, but you're really trying me here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Video is no more reliable than any other form of media. Unless a video has been published by a reliable source we can’t use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, Thucydides411, and Darouet: I think that it would be wise for us all to wait for the WP:RSN thread to conclude before conversation continues here. The discussion here seems to be at an impasse for now, with fundamental disagreement over whether a particular source is reliable and with additional disagreements relating to the applicability of particular other sources (including The Globe and Mail). A formal close of a WP:RSN discussion regarding the particular Xinhua source could give a community consensus that would supersede any local consensus that we could establish in a discussion on this talk page, so I don't see the point in continuing discussion here regarding the Xinhua source until after the WP:RSN thread is resolved. Regarding The Globe and Mail, I am going to open up a separate discussion on WP:RSN, and I invite you all to share your thoughts when I put it up. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Given as that RfC is only for the claim about the plaque and not about the other claims I think we will still need to hash things out here no matter which way consensus goes. In hindsight we should have made a broader Xinhua RfC but we didn’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I am at least not certain that the language in those sources justifies the current lead wording describing it as a former mosque. What does that mean, precisely? To me it implies to me a degree of formality, like it has been officially deconsecrated or whatever the term is, which isn't what the sources say - even if it has become a tourist attraction and few people are able to worship there, it remains a mosque. eg. the Globe and Mail says At the Id Kah Mosque, visitors in the past few years have reported that the religious site has been transformed into a tourist destination where people at Friday prayers now number only in the dozens. More recently, the mosque’s main entrance has been padlocked. On Tuesday, no one answered calls made to three listed numbers. That's not the same thing as it ceasing to be a mosque - to use that exact wording, I'd want to see either a source saying it was deconsecrated, or a source specifically describing it as a former mosque rather than just one people are prevented from using. More broadly I feel like this is tiptoeing around the crux of the issue - we should summarize what the Chinese government has done (and what different sources say about it) specifically in the lead, rather than vaguely saying that it has become a tourist attraction and ceased to be a Mosque without saying why. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind me breaking this out. I agree that we need to do a better job with the lead, currently we make it sound like it closed one day as a mosque and opened the next as a tourist attraction which I’m just not seeing in the reporting, it seems to be inordinately clear that for most of its modern history the mosque has been *both* a tourist attraction and a place or worship (as many grand mosques are). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

At the very least we can accurately say that it is a mosque and tourist attraction, so we should have a sentence saying that much - I don't think that part is controversial; a quick search shows extensive tourist guides mentioning it, plus sources like eg. [4]. However, that leaves half the dispute unsettled, since we probably still need an additional sentence or so summarizing what the Chinese government has done. I would avoid combining the two topics - it seems to have been a tourist attraction for a long time. There are some sources, eg. [5] - which sadly only mentions Id Kah Mosque in passing - that discuss the implications of religious structures becoming tourist attractions, but it's not generally treated the same as or as part of the government crackdown; my reading is that Independent, at least, mentions that it is a popular tourist attraction just for the stark profane-vs-sacred contrast resulting from people no longer worshiping there. I also think that it might help to spend some time searching for additional sources unrelated to recent controversies - that isn't to say that we can omit it, but there is a lot more to say; adding more about the mosque in general will make it less undue to mention the closure (or however we describe and source it.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion and Horse Eye's Back, the phrase former mosque has been repeatedly added by User:MalakiTT, but I have not seen any source stating that it's true. Western sources state there are still worshippers who use the mosque for prayer, and the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media. -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media.” they implied it but I don’t think they explicitly said it, from the reporting they don’t seem to be aware of the allegations at all. Personally I don’t think something built as a religious building ever really stops being that so I object to the phrasing of former mosque. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, here (or here, same article) is a recent source (published just yesterday) that might help - note that it's from the Associated Press. It says: A decade ago, 4,000-5,000 people attended Friday prayers at the Id Kah Mosque in the historic Silk Road city of Kashgar. Now only 800-900 do, said the mosque's imam, Mamat Juma. He attributed the drop to a natural shift in values, not government policy, saying the younger generation wants to spend more time working than praying. That is plainly enough for us to mention Mamat Juma's opinion (attributed to him, since the AP does so), but it also makes it clear that he does acknowledge that there has been a sharp decline in the number of worshipers over the past decade, though he doesn't agree that it's to the point where the mosque is totally or almost-totally unused, as some other sources have stated. At the same time it also says Its imam toes the official line, and he spoke thankfully of the government largesse that has renovated the more than 500-year-old institution and places the whole story in a broader context that might be worth discussing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include Memet Jume's (I wish the sources would use a consistent Romanization) statements to the AP, with attribution, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, I knew it was only a matter of time before we had a reliable souce for his statement! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If anything this goes to show the Xinhua source was honest about the testimony this entire time, which I hope is taken into account the next time a discussion starts about its usage. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated additions of synthesized material by MalakiTT

It is clear that several active editors of this article object against these additions, either per WP:synth or for going into excessive detail. @MalakiTT: should be aware that they are violating the WP:3 revert rule, and risking a block. Despite warnings on their talk page, they haven't replied to other editors. This is their final opportunity to attempt to reach a consensus. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient attribution for the "Uyghur Human Rights Project"

Opinions voiced by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) need sufficient in-text attribution. As the UHRP was founded using funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the US government, and continues to be funded by them, "sufficient" attribution in this case means that the connection of the UHRP to the US government has to be mentioned. Describing an organization founded and funded by an arm of the US government as "US-based" obscures this connection. It is a "US government-funded" organization, not merely a "US-based" organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be the same as Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry#Uyghur Human Rights Project description please do not duplicate discussions across talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly a duplication if both articles are failing to use proper in-text attribution of the same source. Would it be a duplication if two discussions were made about two pages having issues with syntax or grammatical constructs? Paragon Deku (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If we'd like to have the discussion in two places at once, I would point towards how WP:RS typically attribute UHRP statements. I've laid out a long list of these sources at Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry#Uyghur Human Rights Project description, and I would encourage you to read them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a clear requirement to present issues neutrally. When we quote an organization founded and funded by the US government, we have to note this affiliation. I don't see how any Wikipedian who wants to uphold WP:NPOV could object to this. The only possible reason for leaving out such an attribution would be to obfuscate the connection of the organization in question to the US government, and I'm sure that's something that none of us here wants to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason to attribute the source just as reliable sources do is to ensure that we reflect coverage of the article's topic in line with how coverage is provided by reliable sources. This is what WP:NPOV and calls us to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not "a clear requirement to present issues neutrally” its a requirement that we write from a neutral point of view. In the context of wikipedia this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Unless you can show WP:RS which attribute UHRP in the way you wish to then there isn’t an NPOV argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to attribute biased sources. The RS policy you've cited above does not say anything about leaving out in-text attribution for biased sources. I don't see why you'd want to cite an organization that's closely connected with the US government without noting this connection in-text. Can you explain why you think that concealing this connection advances NPOV? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We already attribute it, nobody here is arguing against attribution. You appear to want to go above and beyond how we normally attribute sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is moot at this page, as the content in question was undue anyways. The comment was published on a US government website (share.america.gov), and is merely the opinion of one person working for a US government-funded entity. Without significant secondary coverage, I'd consider this material undue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Beijing Review may be an unreliable source

The Beijing Review is operated by the CCP's China International Publishing Group, so its use on this article is questionable. Although it is not a perennial source, I think that the nature of the source as a state media outlet means that the same problems affecting Xinhua, CGTN, and China Daily also affect the Beijing Review. It might be good to swap it out for another source. --DaysonZhang (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We should probably take www.topchinatravel.com out as well. We also seem to have a Frommers from 2003 being used to make a statement in the present tense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Eid celebrations are forced

Are we giving undue weight by including this claim? There's no reason to believe given the video footage RFA provides that this is a forced mock celebration rather than a genuine one. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As Polygraph.info points out, a French journalist working for Le Monde documented video evidence that the celebration was staged. The journalist later wrote a story in the French newspaper, where the journalist notes that there was a mock celebration the day before Eid (during Ramadan). In short, Radio Free Asia's reporting seems to be supported by reporting by a reputable and independent WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This is… shaky evidence at best. There’s no evidence this isn’t just a practice session for a community event. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon reading the linked sources I would argue including the claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the articles do nothing but incestuously refer to each other and the entire claim is rooted in vague posturing by the WUC rather than any evidence of it being coerced. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it would be that devout Musliims would be practicing ceremonial dancing in the daytime during the month Ramadan, I agree. But, the sourcing's there; Le Monde is unquestionably a French newspaper of record. When combined with another reliable source in the topic area, I don't see a reason that such a statement is improperly sourced. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There’s video footage of Uighurs dancing during Ramadan in the 70s, don’t be cheeky. The claim that these celebrations are suddenly forced is based on nothing more than the statement from WUC and the claim is extraordinary. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats a random tweet... Not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just above Mikehawk also linked a “random tweet.” Nevertheless the video is clearly from an NHK documentary. If you cannot put two and two together and come to the logical conclusion that these celebrations are normal in the region and that the idea that they are suddenly coerced is extraordinary, I can go dig up the documentary for you. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't link a "random tweet" alone; I linked a tweet that was related to the story. I used the story in my analysis above when I wrote that Radio Free Asia's reporting seems to be supported by reporting by a reputable and independent WP:NEWSORG, not the tweet. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The tweet itself doesn't even say that the video is from Ramadan... it's a celebration of Eid, which takes place after Ramadan ends. Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't support the statement that there's video footage of Uighurs dancing during Ramadan in the 70s. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The claimed coerced celebrations are also Eid celebrations… the only reason I claimed “during Ramadan” is because you were the first to snarkily remark that this behavior would somehow be unusual despite the source you cited mentioning Eid specifically. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Paragon Deku

The video evidence captured by a reporter of Le Monde is of people dancing the day before Eid, don't they? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim and original topic here is about the dancing during Eid. How does some cooreography and direction to a few dancers a day before somehow proof of coercion? At the very least this claim needs to be attributed Paragon Deku (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Its already attributed, perhaps even overly so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In 2021 at the first day of Eid al-Fitr, a staged mass celebration took place outside Id Kah Mosque, as reported by Radio Free Asia and World Uyghur Congress was part of a propaganda facade by Chinese authorities to coverup the ongoing mass Uyghur genocide campaign by China as it currently stands pretty much puts the claim in wiki voice. I amended this (as well as it being grammatically incorrect), but my edit was reverted. I don’t even think it belongs in the article in the first place still. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It most certainly does not put the claim in wikivoice. Would you prefer that the sentence start with the attribution rather than having it in the middle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

”As reported by” does not dodge putting it in wikivoice. It simply asserts that it is a fact while listing the sources within the article. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I thought you were arguing that it was "pretty much” a wikivoice claim... Are you now arguing that it actually is a wikivoice claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia… are we actually supposed to be incredibly pedantic? Paragon Deku (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m asking you to clarify your position in the face of contradictory statements, thats very reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A phrase in the format of "X news agency reported that Y happened" absolutely constitutes attribution of the claim. If it's an RS in the topic area (and there's a community consensus that it is), this seems to be fine, especially since other news agencies have reported similarly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Except it’s clearly not in the format or “X news agency reported that Y happened.” It’s in the format “Y happened (as told by X news agency.” The average user would interpret this as wikivoice. When I changed it to a proper attribution it was edited out. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of mosque defacing

It is strange that this is being debated, so here is an additional source: a photograph I took in March 2018. You can find the original Facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/gene.bunin/posts/2129132367318611, or the archived version here: https://archive.ph/2VydU. It should be pretty clear from this photo that the crescent moons are gone (they were removed around December 2017 and were returned around the summer of 2018, in what people believe was a reply to international pressure and foreign tourists). The sign above the entrance is also missing (it was still there back in November 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeuDRenais (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)