Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

New information?

What do you all make of this? https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/uyghur-unrest-was-a-cia-narrative-planned-to-destabilize-china-top-us-army-chief-admits-2018.688858/ Not saying it should be an official "source" but it has an interesting perspective. 206.80.128.15 (talk)D — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § "Genocide denial" and Uyghurs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § "Genocide denial" and Uyghurs. - Amigao (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Some governments … … termed it genocide

Recently, EnlightenmentNow1792 made a series of edits mainly to the lead and infobox. These were reverted by Horse Eye's Back giving the edit reason "Lead was better before the OR". I have no opinion either way about the changes made by EN1792 to paragraph 1, which mainly relate to how the Uyghurs etc are described - I don't know enough about these ethnic groups and this is anyhow largely a matter of clear succinct prose rather than sourcing.

The revert caused me however to look more closely at para 3. The bulk of the restored material in that para is certainly not supported by the sources given and quite a number of the claims I cannot find anywhere in the article body itself - which they are required to be. The restored para is itself riddled with dubious or exaggerated claims, CHERRYPICKING and/or WP:OR. The para in question is :

At first, these actions were described as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang, and an ethnocide or cultural genocide. As more details emerged, some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics termed it genocide, pointing to intentional acts committed by the Chinese government that they say run afoul of Article II of the Genocide Convention.

I have little argument with the first sentence except that by using "At first, these actions were described …" it is implied that there are not now WP:RS referring to this as "ethnocide or cultural genocide" or that other terms (human rights abuses? Crimes against humanity?) Or more specific terms (mass detention? forced sterilisation? etc) were not previously, and are not still now being extensively used, even by those sympathetic to the Uyghurs.

The real problems start in the next sentence. I don't doubt that an increasing number of activists and academics use the term "genocide". Though increased awareness of the issue has probably caused the increaded usage of ALL such terms by ALL such groups. But who are the governments? Apart from the US Secretary of State and Presidency, none are mentioned in the article anywhere that I can see. Actually the opposite is true in that several governments have distanced themselves from the term (inc. the UK and Canadian Govts). I would remind that parliaments are not governments and the form of censure issued by many of the parliaments is specifically described as not binding on their respective government. Further, although the number of parliaments censuring China on this issue has increased, (from zero to around a dozen) about half of the parliaments use terms other than "genocide" ie there might be a general tendency towards censuring China, but there is no general tendency toward any specific term of censure as the text claims.

Equally, who are the "NGOs" and "human rights experts" who have gravitated toward the term 'genocide'? I can't find them in the article, except those who are also academics or activists. Further, the opinion of two world recognised human rights NGOs - Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both of which have clearly said this is not genocide, have been kept out of the article entirely and as part of Horse Eye's Back revert described above, the following text was removed: "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both rejected the applicability of the term genocide." Of course, fuller coverage of Amnesty and HRW - and anyone else who prefers another term - should be in the article ITSELF, not just the lead. But at present it is excluded from BOTH.

The sources used (3-5 below) to support the text "As more details emerged, some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics termed it genocide", are truly dire!

Source 3, from the BBC says that a team of UK barristers - who were commissioned by the " World Uighur Congress and the Uighur Human Rights Project" - concluded "There is a "very credible case" that the Chinese government is carrying out the crime of genocide". No mention of Govts, NGOs or anyone but the barristers themselves using the term, no recognition that a "very credible case" is very restrained and qualified use, even allowing for lawyerly evasive speech.

Source 4 is a report of a UK parliamentary debate: "the politicians referred to an increasing amount of evidence showing that members of the Muslim minority in the Chinese region of Xinjiang are being detained, subjected to political indoctrination and forced to work in factories under dire conditions. Throughout the debate the UK MPs speaking in favour of the motion, referred to "human rights violations" or "breaches of human rights" or similar. The single mention of the word "genocide" in the source is one MP using the term in passing. No Govts, NGOs or anyone else are even named, let alone described as using, or gravitating toward, the term "genocide".

Source 5 gives the opinion of the (unnamed) author only: "These alleged practices are egregious violations of the human rights of Uighur women, and in my opinion, constitute genocide of the Uighur people.". It has later an exposition of what genocide is legally, with no mention of the Uyghurs or China, but nothing to support the sentence it follows, ie like the previous two sources, no Govts, NGOs or anyone else are described as either using or gravitating toward the term "genocide".

As I have already said, the lead should be a summary of the article, at present para 3 appears to be a confection, blatantly unsupported by the refs linked to it and seemingly unsupported by the article itself and completely ignoring WP:WEIGHT. People who use other terms, even terms which censure China, don't even get a mention.

I would also point out that - as part of the revert - Islamophobia was restored to the motives section of the infobox, which EnlightenmentNow1792 had also removed. The only mention of Islamophobia in the article is a single attributed claim to a pair of scholars. How does that become an unattributed WP:VOICE, unreffed statement in the infobox? WP:V, OR and WP:WEIGHT seem to be very easily jettisoned when it suits on this article. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the source for Islamophobia? Those aren't the authors and we could put it in wikivoice instead if you want. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the most recent source, yes I have. The author is described as "an Uyghur-American activist" who has been campaigning for her people since the 1980s. Good for her, but hardly a reliable, neutral or qualified source for an unattributed claim. That you welcome this source makes my point better than I could myself. Impeccable sources are disregarded if they don't endorse a certain agenda, while polemical activism is welcomed. As it happens, I have no strong opinions either way as to whether 'Islamophobia' is relevant here. Interestingly the source added does not speak of Islamophobia as a motive, it speaks of it as a "tool" which the Chinese Communist party uses to implement its policies against the Uyghurs. So no, it doesn't endorse the motive it supposedly is used for, but it is at least a source where there was not one before.

How about the rest? Which "governments, … NGOs, and human rights experts" have started to call it "genocide"? Why are the ones that don't simply ignored? And why are such shitty sources used to support this sentence IN THE LEAD of all places? Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not, I mean Tynan's Islamophobia, Terrorism and the Uyghurs: When Minorities in China Find Themselves on the Wrong Side of the Counterterrorism Discourse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: there may be better sources for Islamophobia, as Horse Eye's Back suggests. The new source is one I found after a very brief search, and regardless of the author's activism I'm reasonably content that with it, given that it's published in an established journal, the Brown Journal of World Affairs. It's doesn't look to be a particularly scholarly piece, but at a very minimum it should qualify as a biased RS to demonstrate the view put forward by Uyghur representatives about Islamophobia as a perceived motive. My rationale is that I believe Islamophobia has been discussed widely enough among sources to qualify for inclusion as a motive, and I was looking around quickly for evidence to support its restoration so I wasn't baselessly reverting your removal. If others can replace it with better sources – or, if upon a broader examination of sources it needs additional qualification – I have no objection. Jr8825 • Talk 17:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I think YOUR source is interesting and possibly (attributed) deserves inclusion in the body, ie outside the infobox 'motive'. My point remains that there is stuff in the infobox and in the lead which is neither sourced there NOR anywhere in the body, nor expanded in the body as it is required to be. That would be unforgivable on a more mundane subject, but is doubly so here IMO. When you're targetting a particular religious group, dislike of the culture of that religion is a fairly obvious possible motive, but either we give a balanced account of what WP:RS and the article body itself explicitly state or we don't. At the moment, we aren't AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I am only able to read the first page of the Tynan source (£££). That first page describes the prime motive as being the "Belt Road Initiative" ie economic reasons for the crackdown. Besides, my main point is how does a single attributed claim in the body suddenly become a WP:VOICE statement in the infobox? Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is inappropriate about that? The claim doesn't have to be attributed, its an academic article in a major journal (Geopolitics (journal)) after all. If you want to add "Belt and road initiative" or "economic benefit" to the infobox sourced to the article that would also be appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is inappropriate about that? I'm astonished that you ask the question. The whole point of a lead or an infobox is that they are accurate, WEIGHTed, neutral summaries of the widely/wholly accepted FACTS outlined in more detail in the body of the article. A claim traceable to a single source and attributed in the body of the text has no place in ANY infobox - especially one on this subject which is not only highly contentious, but is also one of the most-covered international stories of recent years. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Attribution makes the statement stronger in this context, not weaker. If the source is a top tier RS (it is) what is the concern? I also don't see this being contentious, we don't have any sources which say otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not over-concerned, as I've already said, as to whether Islamophobia is included as a motive - it's a fairly obvious possibility. But I have never heard the ingenious argument that Attribution makes the statement stronger. Attribution is usually used when only a minority of sources have made a claim. We don't say "according to historians X and Y, Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939", for the simple reason that attribution would be pointless. Every source agrees when and how WWII began. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Every source agrees when and how WWII began." Actually they don't, but thats a discussion for a different day... Most sources break it down with one date for Asia and a different one for Europe. Attribution can be used whenever an editor wants to use it, unless you're saying that the source isn't strong enough for the point to stand in wikivoice you don't have a point to make here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear me! World War II in Asia is not WWII, that's why it adds the in Asia bit! I don't know whether the sources say that China demonises Islam, or this ethnic group or religion in general or ethnic nationalism in general or all of the above. The sources don't seem to pursue this line of enquiry very much, but Islamophobia seems very possible, though it may not be the most accurate and concise description of motives. I confess that my initial edit was a bit WP:POINTY. It seemed any single source will do of it even partially supports a particular narrative, the most impeccable sources can be ignored if they say something different. I haven;t changed that view much.Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So maybe go take a look at our WWII page, specifically WWII#Start and end dates which makes it very clear that there are no universally accepted start or end dates (as does the note in the infobox)... Maybe also take a moment an reflect on whether excluding Asia from your conception of WWII isn't sketchily Eurocentric... On the main point saying something different isn't the same as contradicting them, I've never come across a genocide with a single motive and infoboxes generally operate on the "more the merrier" principle when it comes to describing motivations and ideology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I know about the preludes to WWII in Europe and Asia but Invasion of Poland and surrender of Japan are the most commonly accepted endpoints, not universally accepted, apologies. Strange that you should be so pedantic about dates that are totally irrelevant to this page but indifferent to the quality and number of sources citing motive. I would prefer more explicit coverage of motive in the article body, and that -weighted- would dictate what should be in the infobox - but there are much graver flaws in this article's text and sources.

I repeat the questions Which "governments, … NGOs, and human rights experts" have started to call it "genocide"? Why are no governments and few NGOs even mentioned in any of the 3 sources given and why can't I find any mention of their using the term, or more exactly changing to using the term from 'softer' ones anywhere in the article body itself? And why are the viewpoints of more prestigous NGOs, and equally prestigous academics excluded wholly from the lead?Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about that with other people, right now you and I are talking about the inclusion of "Islamophobia" in the infobox. We can also discuss your edit warring of "alleged" into the infobox before rape. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot say some when referring to only one government. And we should note the opinions of major human rights organizations whatever side they take. TFD (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I share Pincrete's concerns about possible synthesis in the lead regarding who is making accusations of genocide. A couple of things to point out: firstly, the sentence as it stands is qualified by "some", which is uncountable. That means it's not really incorrect (and shows there isn't full agreement), but I agree it would be good to have more precise/clear wording so as to avoid any potential to mislead about the extent of the term's acceptance. The other (main) point is that going off the content currently at Uyghur genocide#Genocide, it looks as though a number of the most reputable authorities making the genocide allegation (e.g. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Essex Court Chambers) are not saying it is genocide, but are effectively saying they "believe it amounts to"/"is likely to amount to"/"may well amount to". For example, the USHMM is quoted as saying the "Chinese government may be committing genocide against the Uyghurs". Perhaps a minor wording adjustment can resolve this, to:

As more details emerged, some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics have said that the abuses may amount to genocide, pointing to intentional acts committed by the Chinese government that they say run afoul of Article II of the Genocide Convention.[3][4][5]

Your thoughts? Also pinging @Mhawk10:, as I'd be interested in hearing an opposing view. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the whole "at first"/"as more details emerged" wording should go. It unduly minimizes the terms following the "at first", when these terms are still used by a wide variety of RS (many of which have been cited in the RfC above). If we can find a wording that doesn't unduly promote "genocide" over these other wordings, it would also alleviate some of the synth issues. BSMRD (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am currently on mobile with limited access to the internet. This Quartz piece provides a handy summary of the changes in and around the summer of 2020, following the forced sterilization revelations, but its publication date precedes the genocide declarations by sovereign states. A 2021 piece from Vox] describes a shift among experts and governments. The Smith-Finley piece notes an emerging consensus among academics on Genocide. The language is justified; there is clearly a point (forced sterilization revelations) that preceded the change in how this situation is talked about, and there are sources that say exactly that. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Vox describes a shift among … governments. Unfortunately the Vox writer doesn't appear to know the difference between a government and a parliament. I don't know about US usage, but in UK usage 'government' refers solely to the executive. Parliament ordinarily examines, criticises, attempts to amend, but ultimately "rubber-stamps" government (ie executive) measures. The parliamentary measure which passed the UK House of Commons recently - a rare opportunity for them to exercise their own initiative - was clearly and very specifically stated as being "non-binding", (as was the Canadian Commons measure and that of several European parliaments) and the British govt made clear that it did not accept the measure - as did the Canadian govt I believe.

This has been said many times already, but Finley speaks of a "growing number" of academics etc, not an "emerging consensus". She gives no indication of how many there were to begin with who accepted the term, nor how many now and it is blatant WP:OR to claim otherwise. Also, in other pieces, Finley is unapologetically an advocate for the charge of 'genocide', so it is hardly surprising that she would want to "talk up" the numbers who agree with her. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Lastly, the Quartz piece mainly talks about increasing numbers criticising China and at one point explicitly contradicts any gravitation towards genocide as the preferred term: in recent weeks … a shift among experts to call the human rights abuses in Xinjiang crimes against humanity—or even genocide—has rapidly gathered speed. "Or even genocide?" Also - I mean no discourtesy to the Jews mentioned in Quartz - but the "those pictures of trains reminded me of the Holocaust" argument may be a very understandable Jewish reaction, but is hardly a rational basis for describing something by a particular legal term, nor does the source say it is, it charts it as an emotional response. Actually the photos of deflated, detained people in brightly coloured 'jump suits' remind me of nothing more than Guantanamo Bay. Neither remembrance is a rational argument for anything very much. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I think the three sources I provided support the notion that As more details emerged, some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics termed it genocide, pointing to intentional acts committed by the Chinese government that they say run afoul of Article II of the Genocide Convention. I could also point you to the extensive French-language discussion in [https://www-cairn-info.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/revue-esprit-2021-7-page-161.htm?contenu=article this piece. The piece mentions that between 2018 and 2019, terms like “Ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” were used to describe the various abuses (of which it gives a list). In 2020, the article says, the reveal of the ongoing forced sterilization program led to scholars and jurists describing the situation simply as “genocide”. It then describes how a number of governments and parliaments have termed it genocide. I think that this is pretty explicit, and it ain’t blatant WP:OR to use sources that have been provided on this talk page before (this one was noted during the recent RfC) in order to support those claims. Perhaps this additional citation could be added to support the current text, but the notion that this is Wikipedia doing some sort of novel synthesis just doesn’t account for the vast academic literature on this topic. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What I say constitutes blatant WP:OR/SYNTH is your claim that Finley's "growing numbers"="an emerging consensus" it simply doesn't and repeating it doesn't make it true. You also don't answer why Vox and WP are using "governments" if they mean "parliaments"? The two are not synonyms in any country I know of. What the sources you give above prove to me is that an increasing number of academics/activists used the term 'genocide', or some qualified version of that, but no one actually disputes that, I don't. As more facts became known more people used ALL these terms, and the Quartz source explicitly states that the main gravitation was toward "crimes against humanity", not "genocide".

No one here has even attempted to give a clear answer to my initial questions. Who are the governments, apart from the US, that now use "genocide"? Ditto NGOs? and more explicitly, who are the Governments, NGOs and human rights experts that changed their mind about which term to use? And why can't I find where any of these governments, NGOs HR experts and their change of heart are covered in the body of the text? Lastly why are NGOs etc who contradict this narrative explicitly (inc Amnesty and HRW) excluded throughout? Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should get rid of "at first" and "as more details emerged." These imply a chronological progression which is not supported by the sources as far as I can tell. These sources never stopped referring to these offenses by a variety of terms. I'd also add that this dispute really has no bearing on whether or not we can refer to the offenses as "genocide" in wiki-voice. We already have the RfC closure which shows consensus in favor of referring to the events as genocide in wiki-voice, a consensus I agree with. But we can also fix these sourcing issues in this paragraph without removing the fact that more and more sources are accepting this as a genocide. We should avoid creating a dispute/discrepancy where there isn't one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should summarise what AI and HRW have said. But saying 'Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both rejected the applicability of the term genocide.' is not an accurate summary so is clearly unacceptable at least from the sources presented.

According to the source used, the BBC

The author of the Amnesty report, Jonathan Loeb, said at press conference on Thursday that the organisation's research "did not reveal that all the evidence of the crime of genocide had occurred" but that it had so far "only scratched the surface".

So Amnesty International clearly did not reject the appliciability of the term geneocide. Instead, they said they did not have sufficient evidence but they had only scratched the surface (which implicitly raises the possibility it's occuring but they don't have the evidence yet).

According to the Guardian, HRW went even further

HRW said it had not yet documented the existence of the necessary “genocidal intent” to make a finding of genocide, as the Canadian, Dutch and Belgian parliaments, the US state department, and legal groups had done. “Nonetheless, nothing in this report precludes such a finding.”

So like AI they said they did not have yet have sufficient evidence, but went further since they explicitly said that nothing in their report precludes a finding of genocide.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would say this is an extremely important distinction. To summarize it so carelessly would also not be NPOV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Would "Based on currently available evidence, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both rejected the applicability of the term genocide, but acknowledged the possibility if further information came too light." be a fair summary in your minds? BSMRD (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the second half (but acknowledged the possibility if further information came too light.)? Isn't it self-evident that any body would/should change its stance if more evidence were available? I'm sorry but while all hesitancy and qualification is being studiously excised from one camp's pronouncements, it sounds extremely hesitant of Amnesty and HRW, and the 'not yet'is the BBC comment on their statement, not their statement itself. I would have no objection to it being said in some fashion that HRW and Amnesty (and others?) think there isn't yet enough evidence to reach firm conclusions. That seems self evident. Pincrete (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The HRW's not "documented the existence of the necessary “genocidal intent” seems fair and accurate and makes explicit WHY they dissent. If we are using legal terms, as we are, we should be clear about why anyone thinks this is/isn't genocide and what sense of that word. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks for bringing out the sourced detail of HRW and Amnesty's positions. I'm not convinced by BSMRD's proposed summarising wording though, although for a different reason to Pincrete, as I think the first half is also overly definite – I don't think the statements reject the applicability of the term, what I'm reading is that they reject the application of the term currently – I appreciate this is what the second half is trying to convey, but I don't think it expresses quite how their statements leave open the possibility that the ongoing abuses are insufficiently documented genocide. I think the better solution is simply to direct quote the HRW statement reported by the Guardian, as Pincrete suggests, as it conveys HRW's stance (and source of caution) best. Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Rejecting the applicability of the term currently is rejecting the term surely? The trouble with a "not yet …" approach is that it simply implies that "but soon we'll agree", whereas surely any enquiry with a modicum of integrity acknowledges that "we don't have enough info" means no more and no less than that. More evidence might lead in one direction or the other. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: To clarify, my point is that there's a distinction between "applicability" (whether the term is relevant/appropriate) and "application" (whether the term should be used). I read the HRW statement above as saying it has not seen sufficient evidence for an application of the term, but that the applicability of the term is still an open question. Jr8825 • Talk 19:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the use of the term "applicability" as it oversimplifies the situation. It suggests the primary dispute is over "applicability" but I'm not convinced this is the case. While there is some dispute over whether genocide will apply to certain actions etc, there's also dispute over whether certain things are enough to show genocidal intent etc. And that may not be a dispute over the applicability of the term but instead the level of evidence required to show it or maybe a more fundamental dispute over whether certain things constitute intent etc which IMO aren't really over applicability.

Likewise, with certain bodies notably the U.S. government's position while we know there was internal dispute over their decision we do not know AFAIK know all of the evidence they used to reach this decision as it may include classified information. And so we do not know whether AI or HRW would agree with the US if they did see the same evidence. Therefore even in one of the most high profile examples, we're not sure if this is just a dispute over applicability.

IMO it would be better to say something like "AI and HRW have stated that the evidence they're seen do not support a finding of genocide but acknowledged the evidence gathering process is ongoing". I do not thinking the last part is unnecessary, while it's sort of implicit in any ongoing situation, both bodies themselves explicitly acknowledges it I assume in part because of the scale of what's going on and the extreme difficulty gathering evidence in China given the extreme secrecy of the Chinese government etc. (Again these aren't unusual even for ongoing events where there are concerns over genocide but they are not always be the case.)

I also feel this whole thing is putting the cart before the horse. Why are we arguing over what's in the lead? We really shouldn't be covering something in the lead which we don't cover in the body and while we do mention body in the body, we don't really cover much of what we're discussing. Let's expand the body first then we can discuss what to include in the lead, it may even make it clearer. (Just for clarity, I didn't start this discussion to encourage a long debate over what we say in the lead but to affirm that IMO we should keep that part out since putting aside us not covering it in the body, it wasn't an accurate summary.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"These actions have been described by (A, B, C ...) as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang and an ethnocide or cultural genocide. They have also been described as a genocide by (X, Y, Z ...), who say certain acts run afoul of Article II of the Genocide Convention." Something simpler like this? CurryCity (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I wholly endorse your "cart before the horse" - (ie lead is currently being discussed before body) argument and also would not want HRW and Amnesty's position overstated. Nonetheless, a more glaring problem at the moment is that we have a para 2 of the lead which says "At first, these actions were described as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang, and an ethnocide or cultural genocide. As more details emerged, some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics termed it genocide". The sources used do not BEGIN to support the claim, additional sources offered here do not support the claim, and one additional source specifically contradicts the implication that everyone is gravitating towards the term 'genocide'. Nor, almost needless to say, does the body of the article support most of this claim AFAI can see. Most blatantly, NO ONE has been able to name ONE government, apart from the US, which currently terms it genocide. I don't understand the division of powers in the US or France, nor US terminology, but in a Westminster model parliamentary system, no one would describe a chamber of parliament as a "government". The Commons' main function is to scrutinise government, but almost its only power is the threat to sack the government of the day. Both the UK and Canadian governments have specifically said they won't be bound by their respective Commons' censuring of China. AFAIK this is approximately true of all the countries whose parliaments have censured China. There are no governments using the term except the US and the rest of the sentence is also highly selective.

Further, while I agree that the nuances of HRW and Amnesty's position should be accurately reported, nowhere in the article is it clearly stated at present that those who endorse the use of the charge of genocide, mainly do so because of claimed coercive suppression of birth-rates. An ordinary reader - unfamiliar with the wording of the UN convention - could read the whole article without ever actually being told that neither the US, nor WP, nor academics and activists are accusing the Chinese CP of mass-murder, nor of what these groups do accuse the CP of. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

An ordinary reader - unfamiliar with the wording of the UN convention - could read the whole article without ever actually being told that neither the US, nor WP, nor academics and activists are accusing the Chinese CP of mass-murder: That's obviously what 99% of people visiting this article will take away. This article is an NPOV trainwreck. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary

Mhawk10 ,User:Shibbolethink, User:Thucydides411, Nil Einne, TFD, User:Jr8825, EnlightenmentNow1792, BSMRD - naming all those who expressed an opinion above.

From a mixture of motives - including the wish to give others a chance to comment or provide sources - I've delayed trying to move this discussion forward to any conclusion. I will attempt to summarise now:

Firstly, almost none of the contents of this third para of the lead, is covered or expanded in the body. This negates the whole purpose of a lead, which is to neutrally summarise the content of the article.

Secondly, most of the content of this third para is NOT in the sources given in the article, nor in those offered in the discussion above. The sources offered certainly endorse a greater awareness of these HR abuses and an accompanying willingness among many sources to use 'stronger' condemnatory terms and specific 'legal' terms, including 'genocide', but the current para is a mixture of falsehood, SYNTH and selective recording. The most blatant falsehood is that "some governments have termed it genocide" whereas in fact the US administration is the only Govt to have done so. Various chambers of various parliaments etc have passed condemnatory resolutions, but these are covered in the para that follows along with details of the resolutions they passed, and there is no indication that any of those parliaments moved from 'softer' to 'harder' terminology as this paragraph's intro implies. The "some Govts" claim is simply a fiction.

Some academics and activists have certainly moved towards stronger terms and some activists and academics have undoubtedly moved specifically from 'cultural genocide' to 'genocide', but no indication is given of how many "some" is and more importantly, no reason is given why notable HR organisations - specifically HRW and Amnesty, or legal scholars who dispute this legal label are excluded, not only from the lead, but also from the article.

Thirdly, whilst it does not involve directly this paragraph, the lead implies, but never actually states what the Chinese CP is actually accused of - what 'genocide' means in this context - which (approximately) is forced suppression of birth rates with intent to destroy the racial/religious group. At present only readers familiar with the UN convention wording would understand that to be the accusation.

Sorry, but while I acknowledge that there may be a case for making SOME of the claims made here, the only way I see of fixing this is removing most of the para, 'fleshing out' the body and then including a more nuanced account of what the journey to particular terminology has been and/or laying out clearly what the various 'labels' have been, (and what they actually mean). Pincrete (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that it is a "blatant falsehood" that the U.S. admin is the only Govt to have termed it genocide. The other examples are non-binding votes by legislatures. For example, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously with one abstention to call it a genocide. The one abstention was a cabinet minister who was present as the representative of the government. Later, the Senate voted against a similar resolution with opposition coming from government supporters. Consider the wording in Public Radio of Armenia in Canada's recognition of the Armenian genocide: "The Canadian Senate recognized the Armenian Genocide in 2002, followed by the House of Commons in 2004 and the Government of Canada in 2006."[1]

It could be that you have a different definition of the term government. To me, it is the executive, even though it is called one of three branches of government. But even if we consider an act of parliament to be an act of government, these were not acts but resolutions of single legislative chambers.

TFD (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you chose not to tag me? You asserted that you were "naming all those who expressed an opinion above" and I expressed an opinion above... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

HEB, accidental oversight only, apologies. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. My suggestion for going forward would be to split the different changes into different discussions. I think when we address so many at once we get bogged down in side issues (what is a genocide? Are these sources biased against China? etc) which could hopefully be avoided with short tight on topic discussions about specific changes to specific sentences. I agree with what I think is your core argument, that people have put the horse before the cart and have prioritized editing the lead over editing the body. I think in a normal situation we would be looking at a full re-write, unfortunately the rather tortured consensus process that has gotten us to the current state puts a number of roadblocks in the way of that (aka some of the most awkward language to work around is the result of a consensus which would have to be re-litigated just to change a word or two). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, for the time being I've removed the worst excesses of the para pending some agreement here and hoping that my (admittedly flawed and incomplete) para is a framework for moving forward. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You do not have agreement, I would not make any changes based on this discussion as it is clear that you do not have sufficient support for them (largely do to the confusing discussion format). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I had already made changes which I hope are relatively neutral - as a basis for moving forward. Lack of consensus is a pretty desperate argument for retaining patently untrue statements in the lead. I've many times asked people to name the governments and NGO's who've changed their position or even those who use 'genocide'. No answer has been supplied, none is in the body of the article. I know that there are key academics and activists who have done so. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TFD, The UK source referring to this UK House of Commons resolution makes the same distinction as I do. Govt=executive=Johnson and his ministers, whereas Parliament=the two debating chambers of the HoCommons and HoLords. Neither chamber at Westminster has the power to draft legislation (except very rarely private members bills - one or two per year), and neither 'governs' anything. The HoC's principle power is to support or sack Johnson and the government. The two chambers of the UK parliament are a legislature only in the sense that they pass - or attempt to amend or attempt to stop- bills and measures handed to them by the Govt. The income tax office and the rest of the Civil Service are also branches of government, they are not THE Government. No schoolboy or girl in the UK would refer to the HoC as "Government". AFAIK this is also true of other Westminster model parliaments. The UK resolution and those of several other parliaments are specifically referred to as 'non-binding' ie they don't bind the UK govt in any way, they are an expression of disapproval certainly, but no more.Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the conflict there is between American and British english, in American english "the government" is a really really broad term which applies to all levels and all parts and is a term for the overarching political structure. In British english is seems to most often be synonymous with "ruling party" (aka "X made a coalition with Y to form a government). I would note though that you guys *also* use it in the American sense of "overarching political structure" for instance in the phrase Her Majesty's Government (term). It seems that on wikipedia we use the broad Government with the ruling party sense being located at Executive (government). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We in the UK can refer to government in the broader sense, lowercase and without any definite/indefinite article, but as you say "a/the (Illyrian and Ruritanian ?) Government(s)" always refers to a/the incumbent administration(s) - who actually govern! Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a misunderstanding by TFD of what User:Pincrete actually said. As far as I can tell, both Pincrete and TFD agree the US government is the only government to have termed it genocide. But TFD seems to think that Pincrete said it's a blatant falsehood that the US government is the only government to have termed it genocide. Yet what Pincrete actually said is "some governments have termed it genocide" is a blatant falsehood since only the US government did so i.e. if you wanted to make an accurate statement you can only say it's one government, not some governments. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That may be partly my fault, I ammended and clarified my text and TFD may have seen an earlier version, there were some edit conflicts. You are right though that we appear to substantially agree that US is the only govt to use the term 'genocide', but TFD should speak for him/herself on that Pincrete (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Using the broader definition of government we seem to have about a dozen of them which call it genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Using the broader definition of government we seem to have about a dozen of them which call it genocide Actually we have ONE - the US. As soon as you add a/the/some/Illyrian before Government, and capitalise it, you are talking about specific administrations in UK use (ie Macron + ministers, Johnson + ministers, Trudeau + ministers, Biden + senior appointees etc). I don't claim to be expert in US political structures or terminology, but assume Pompeo and Biden/Blinken would be what is ordinarily meant by "the US Government".

Lowercase government is simply the abstract process, it isn't even countable and - even in the tortured world of political language - you need to actually govern something to be called a Government. Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This page does not seem to use the minority variant of english which is British english. You assume wrong about US political structures and terminology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You assume wrong about US political structures and terminology So Pompeo, Biden and Blinken etc aren't the US Government? This page does not seem to use the minority variant of english which is British english. Firstly I don't accept that most US readers would not understand "Canadian/French?British Government" to mean "Trudeau/Macron/Johnson and their respective administrations" as the obvious intended meaning, but even if I am wrong about US readers, are you really arguing that you are happy to make statements which you know would be substantially misunderstood by much/most of the English speaking world simply because the Engvar is American English? Wow! Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I accept the explanation. The current wording in the lead says, "The United States was the first country to declare the human rights abuses a genocide." I would change this because it implies that other countries followed. In technical terms, the executive may speak for the country since the laws allow them to do this. The legislature may only speak for the country through legislation. In the example I provided, Canada's lower house passed a non-binding motion calling declaring a genocide while the upper house voted down a similar motion. The government meanwhile abstained from the vote and has made no declaration. So it would be misleading to say that Canada had declared a genocide.

Also, I don't accept the argument that since government can mean different things, technically we would be accurate in saying that many governments have declared a genocide. We should use language that is unambiguous.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We should use language that is unambiguous. Wholeheartedly agree. Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Pincrete and TFD on the some government's point. We shouldn't say some governments as long as it's only one and non binding votes from legislatures are not governments calling it genocide. Also first would lead people to think there's another one unless we make it clear there isn't. IMO we shouldn't even say governments even if it's two since while it may be more technically correct, "some" tends to convey the impression of more than two. Even for three I'd say it's better just to list them in text although when we get to four or five it starts to get a bit many, we probably should list them in a foot note but I can see some or several being a better wording than four governments etc. I am fine with also mentioning the non binding motions in the lead. So perhaps 'the US government has termed it a genocide and non-binding motions in the .....' or something. If any legislature passes more than than a non-binding motion like legislation somehow calling it genocide, we can discuss how to include this depending on what sources say they did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the various parliaments and assemblies which have declared either 'genocide' or 'crimes against humanity' are already listed in the final para of the lead. From " Legislatures in several countries have since passed non-binding motions describing China's actions as … ". AFAIK, the assemblies are all named clearly. The US Govt's use of 'genocide' is also detailed in that para. So any mention of Govts in para 3 is redundant at best. Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to repeat stuff, but it seem fine to discuss the entire lead. Perhaps it's best to discuss it in paragraph 3, perhaps it's best to discuss it earlier. I have no specific opinion but if we are discussing removing something we should consider whether one of the issues is that there's a desire to discuss things earlier. I admit though, I'm fairly confused what we're discussing since AFAICT, some governments isn't in the lead anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, some governments isn't in the lead anyway I've recently removed "some governments" and the other worst offending claims as nobody seemed able to come up with any reason to keep it/them. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Before anyone make these outrageously untrue accusations, they should first read this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_women_under_Qing_rule 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:9CC2:F904:9D43:644A (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The beginning of the article is completely weasally worded: "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang that is often characterized as genocide." North Europeans and Hispanic Europeans are peoples who have genuinely committed true genocides against other races. In fact take north America, the majority of so called native peoples are now genetic hybrids with Europeans. In other words, the white man have all but wiped out the natives. Just look at what the white man has done in the Americas and Australia; the truth is only recently coming out. This is totally the opposite for Uighurs in China. Uighurs in China are allowed to prosper. Furthermore, the Uighurs are not a native people of any part of China, they are descended from immigrants, very much like the gypsy peoples of Europe and the Middle-East, but yet the Chinese have allowed them to prosper. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:A5DD:F72A:1281:6DEC (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If the uighurs call their lot a genocide, what would they call what the British did and do, as in following article? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10832547/Prince-Charles-swerves-demands-apologise-assimilation-genocide-Canadas-schools.html 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:E572:9DEF:5771:3E87 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to discuss other articles on their talk pages. FYI, the Uyghurs were living in Xinjiang before it was annexed by China, hence they are not immigrants to China. TFD (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything is relative, so it is right to answer the subject here. Of course the present generation of uighurs in China are not immigrants, but it is clear that their ancestors were, just like the gypsy peoples of Europe and the Middle-East. China did not annex Xinjiang. The area now called Xinjiang had in the past been in various Chinese polities. The ancestors of the present uighurs arrived around 1200 to 800 years ago, mostly from Anatolia. The original Uighurs were a Mongoloid people. The present day uighurs were mislabelled as uighurs by russians, rather like Native Americans were called Indians by the white man. The present day uighurs should be technically called pretender uighurs to distinguish them from the original true uighurs. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:D428:AF4D:E494:C7FB (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Chinese position is that since the area was controlled by the Tan dynasty 2,000 years ago, the Uyghurs, who entered in 840 AD, are migrants. The Uyghurs incorrectly claim they are the descendants of the Old Uyghurs who inhabited Xinjiang before the Tan Chinese. Turks incidentally originated in East Asia and arrived in Anatolia - China does not make the claim you do.

Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the Chinese claim in relation to the accusations of genocide? If not, we cannot mention it in the article.

I anticipate your argument is that since the Uyghurs are migrants, China has no obligation to recognize their rights, hence cannot be accused of genocide. But there are lots of problems with that. Xinjiang did not become part of China until the Manchu dynasty. Being migrants does not mean someone cannot also be aboriginal. Many North Amarican Indians for example are both. And as your example of Gypsies shows, migrants can also be victims of genocide, as they were in Nazi Germany.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming China has no obligation to recognise their rights? If that is the case, then you are totally wrong. China recognises the rights of all her minority peoples. In fact, in China, the minority peoples have more rights than the majority Han people. Recognising people's rights is part of communism, unlike the philosophy of the mindset of the white man. Please don't call the Native Americans, indians, because they are not. Native Americans migrated throughout the American continent as internal migrants. The ancestors of the present day pretender uighurs migrated as external migrants. To the communist Chinese governments, where the present uighurs came from is not important anymore, they are now in China, and therefore are part of the Chinese Nation. That is a part of their brand of communism. The uighurs do not suffer from genocide in China, unlike that of the Gypsy peoples in europe, that is the difference between the mindset of the Chinese and the white man. As for your claim that China does not make a claim where the uighurs came from, there was an occasion when Turkey tried to interfere by claiming the uighurs are turks, and the reply was that China was happy for turkey to take them back. The subject was quietly dropped and not raised by turkey again, afaik. Understanding where the present day pretender uighurs come from is only of interest to people who are interested in true history, and not by western politicians and propagandists. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:19F3:E1B0:6DCE:EBFF (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@4 deuces. Your claim that turks originated in East Asia and came to anatolia is false. The present Turkish language of turkey came from East Asia, but the Turkish peoples have always been from anatolia. They may well share genealogies with Greek and Semitic peoples, but that is to be expected as they are neighbours. The present turkish people adopted the East Asia Turkic language, because they were once ruled by East Asian peoples. Prior to the Turkish people in Turkey adopting the present day turkish language, they used Greek, and no doubt before that the semitic languages, and than a long time before that, the now extinct anatolian languages. This is rather like Black African-americans, whose native language is now English, and don't know or use any African languages. However, just because their language is English, they are still genetically Africans, and not Anglo-Saxons. 4deuces, you have confused biology with linguistics. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:19F3:E1B0:6DCE:EBFF (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You said that Turkic people originated in Anatolia and emigrated to Xinjiang. It's not clear what you now claim, but do you agree that that the people in Xinjiang did not originate in Anatolia? Look it up. China does not say that, so you have the wrong end of the stick.

I said the ancestors, that is the majority of them, of the present day pretender uighurs came from anatolia. You said turks (ie turkish turks) of Turkey came from East Asia. You are clearly the one who has got the wrong end of the stick. You have confused language with geography. It is written in their DNA. The DNA of modern turkish population of Turkey is almost identical to their neighbours, the Greeks. Are you also claiming that Greeks, and other modern Europeans are also from East Asia? Why should China say anything? You don't hear the american or canadian or australian governments say continuously that their white population came from europe. It is taken to be understood by all those with a reasonable amount of knowledge. Therefore anyone who knows anything about the modern pretender uighurs knows that their ancestry is in anatolia. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:F0C0:5EC:54EA:C92 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, China claims to respect minority rights. As such, their claim that modern Uyghurs are migrants and false Uyghurs is confusing. Whatever their origins has no impact on their current rights.

You have a very white man's attitude. That is stealing from other races. The Chinese just don't have that mentality. The white man thinks if they label something, then it is something. That is call the Native American indians, then they are indians. Just because the white man labelled the current people known as uighurs, uighurs, does not make them uighurs. The current pretender uighurs are not of the same stock as the original uighurs, just as Native Americans are not indians, no matter what the white man call them.

After the establishment of the U.S., some tribes migrated from the U.S. to Canada with the permission of the British Crown, while some Canadian tribes migrated to the U.S. with their permission. Also, the U.S. recognized Canadian Indians as having a right to live in the U.S. Yes I know they were not really Indians, but that is what they were called.

Exactly. Why should the Native Americans have to ask where they can travel and live in the North American continent. It was their land to start with. It is the white man who should ask the Native Americans for permission to travel and settle.2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:F0C0:5EC:54EA:C92 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a paradox in Chines propaganda. On the one hand, they say that they respect the rights of Uyghurs. On the other hand, they claim they have no obligation to do so, since the Uyghurs are migrants, not aboriginals.

Where do you get the information for the propaganda you propagate here? The Chinese government have obligations to all Chinese citizens. The uighurs in China are Chinese citizens. They have no obligations to people of Chinese descent (uighurs, Hans, and any other Chinese tribes) who are not citizens of China. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:F0C0:5EC:54EA:C92 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with whether there is a genocide. But the Chinese claims that the Uyghurs are migrants hurts their position.

Don't really understand what you are trying to say, as this article is specifically titled "genocide". As in reality there is no genocide, and that such a claim is propaganda and opportunity for others to make mischief and malice. Time and time again, no real evidence have been put forward to support claim of a genocide. It is simple to see, such claims are put forward by uighurs who have left China. Had any of their claims been true, do you think they would be able to leave China in the first place? 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:F0C0:5EC:54EA:C92 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

China does not say anything about uighurs are migrants. Anthropologists say that. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:F0C0:5EC:54EA:C92 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Change "the Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs found 1,546 of cases Uyghurs being detained and deported" to "the Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs found 1,546 cases of Uyghurs being detained and deported." Citizen127 (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating "Reactions at the United Nations" following Bachelet's visit

An update is necessary to the "Reactions at the United Nations" subsection following the visit by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet. The possible visit referred to here -- " In January 2022, unidentified sources told the South China Morning Post that UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet had secured a visit to Xinjiang, not to be framed as an investigation, some time during the first half of the year, as long as her office doesn't agree to the U.S. request of publishing its Xinjiang report ahead of the Beijing Winter Olympics.[336]" has now occurred. UN Human Rights Commission Statement following Bachelet visit to Xinjiang. The statement was measured, noting "questions and concerns about the application of counterterrorism and de-radicalisation measures and their broad application," while also praising China's "'tremendous achievements' in alleviating poverty, and eradicating extreme poverty, 10 years ahead of its target date."

I don't have enough edits under my belt to make the change myself. But someone should bring the entry full circle on this point now that the visit occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"80% of new Chinese IUD placements" is misleading

Please change "Zenz reported that 80% of new Chinese IUD placements (insertions minus removals) in 2018 occurred in Xinjiang, despite the region constituting only 1.8% of the country's population." to "According to Zenz's report, Xinjiang accounted for 8.7% of IUD implants but has only 1.8% of the country's population." The rationale for the change has been laid out in the following discussion. Thank you very much. Cycw (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Zenz reported that 80% of new Chinese IUD placements (insertions minus removals) in 2018 occurred in Xinjiang, despite the region constituting only 1.8% of the country's population."

I question whether this statistic should be cited, because it's just a bad statistic.

The issue is Zenz calculates "newly added IUDs as insertions minus removals." [2] This leads to all sorts of nonsensical figures, because some counties will have net negative (more removed) and some counties will have net positive (more added). As an example, let's say I have three counties A, B, and C.

A - 1 IUD added

B - 1 IUD removed

C - 1 IUD added

I have a total of 1 IUD added across my country, and both counties A and B have "100% of newly added IUDs" which is pretty silly.

Looking at the statistics Zenz cites confirms that this is what's happening. [3] On page 228 of the document (page 242 in the PDF) we see the table Zenz uses to arrive at his figure. Column 2 (放置节育器例数) is implanted IUDs and column 4 (取出节育器例数) is removed IUDs. The first row has the totals, while the last row on the page has figures for Xinjiang. From this we see that in 2018 Xinjiang had 328475 IUDs implanted and only 89018 removed, for a "newly added" total of 239457, while nationally there were 3774318 IUDs implanted and 3473367 removed for a "newly added" total of 300951 so Xinjiang is indeed 80% of the "newly added" total.

To reinforce my point, it's worth noting that for example Hebei (4th row) accounts for 60% of the "newly added" total and suddenly we total to 140% because there are counties that have negative percentage contributions to the "newly added" total (are percentages even valid to use at this point?).

So I would recommend removing this figure since it's just... silly? And there's plenty of other less misleading ways to note that there's a disproportionate amount of IUDs being inserted in Xinjiang (e.g. the region accounted for 8.7% of IUD implants and only 1.8% of the population). Above post left unsigned by Pasta Enjoyer

Conclusion: Zenz can't be believed. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:A5DD:F72A:1281:6DEC (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the statistical analysis is misleading and ought to be changed in the article.2600:4040:2A04:DF00:168:4AB1:59B9:73F4 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we make an edit request based on this? Cycw (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Another case of article content not matching content from source

In the Denial section, the source attributed to the sentence "In 2020, during an interview with Andrew Marr of the BBC, the Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming denied any abuse against Uyghurs despite being shown drone footage of what appeared to be shackled, Uyghur prisoners being herded on to trains during a prison transfer" mentioned that the shackled men "appeared to be Uighur and other minority ethnic groups", but the sentence on Wikipedia only mentions the prisoners to be of the Uyghur ethnicity. Please make any appropriate edits. Thank you very much. Cycw (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The citation is verified, because uighurs were part of the group being shackled. The sentence does not claim that only Uighurs were present. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge that, but I still believe that the sentence in the Wikipedia article lacks clarity and does not fully reflect what is written in the source. I would suggest the part of the sentence in question to be changed to "shackled prisoners of Uyghur and other ethnicities". Cycw (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Why ethnicities instead of minorities? It would seem to strip "minority ethnic groups" of its actual meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already made such a change. I chose 'Uighur and other minority ethnic, prisoners' as plain 'minority' can refer to sexual and other minority groups. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Grammar and syntax-wise, I think "Uyghur and other ethnic minority prisoners" reads a bit more smoothly. Also, "on to" should be a single word, "onto". Cycw (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Article content does not match content from source

In the Human rights abuses—outside internment camps—Forced labor section, the source attributed to the sentence "After Apple and Samsung condemned the Uyghur genocide, it underwent boycotts in China, causing sales throughout the country to decrease significantly." does not mention Apple and Samsung at all. Instead, the source mentions Nike and Adidas, whose statements themselves did not mention the word "genocide". Please review this sentence in the article and I would appreciate any appropriate edits. Thank you very much. Cycw (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have enough edits under my belt to make this change, but Cycw is correct. Another source should be found or it should be deleted. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have enough edits and agree, the content is a mess, with little relationship to the sources used - apart from anything else, Samsung, Nike and Adidas appear to have condemned the treatment of Uyghurs - they don't mention genocide AFAI can see, so it's SYNTH to say they do. The only source to mention Apple is NYT, which I can't access ($$$). Does someone have NYT access to tidy the whole thing? I'm real world very busy at the moment. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see if I can access the NYT source tomorrow. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the archive.org save page function will circumvent the paywall (and importantly prevent broken links in the future)

https://web.archive.org/save/ JArthur1984 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wayback archived NYT content - it doesn't appear to support claims in the article. Pincrete (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we perhaps go for consensus on the change now? Cycw (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Modify two sentences?

Considering the following two sentences—

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

and

"These actions have been described as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang, or as an ethnocide or cultural genocide, or as genocide."—

It seems to be inappropriate to have one sentence only describe one characterization while another describes multiple characterizations as I read this as an inconsistency in the article, although it is not factually incorrect. I suggest we possibly remove "that is often characterized as genocide" and leave the introduction of the characterizations until later. Cycw (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I also thought the previous version of the first sentence was accurate, so please let me know why it was changed as I wasn't here when the change occurred. Thank you. Cycw (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a long RfC not too long ago that came to consensus around something substantially identical to the current first sentence. There was an extended discussion and it should be in the talk page archives if you're interested in digging it up. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Cycw (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

European Parliament

The European Parliament has passed a non-binding measure recognizing "crimes against humanity" and "a serious risk of genocide" against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. This has been reported by Nikkei Asia, Radio Free Asia, Agence France-Presse (via Barron's), and others. I would have added this to the article, but I am unable to add it as this article is extended-protected. Would it be possible for someone to add it? Dankmemes2 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. — Czello 18:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you care to read recent news, you will find that the french government/police commit many "crimes against humanity" and are "a serious risk of genocide" to ethnic peoples, like muslim North Africans and Black Africans. The non-binding statement should be seen as what it is, non-binding, does not hold water, pure slander and malicious political play that has no place in Wikipedia. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:C073:D443:11C5:3DD4 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This is a strange bit of whataboutism — Czello 07:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Yes it is, isn't it. The white man commit all sorts of atrocities against other ethnic peoples in their countries, and then say "whatabout" China; why not make a few things up about China, and then go on the attack, to divert attention from the white man's atrocities. Go on, show us the piles of dead bodies of the genocide. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:BCB4:C7E0:5F37:3491 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) If you're here to engage in genocide denial then I'm going to point you to WP:NOTAFORUM. — Czello 21:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC) @Czello, please stop making things up. I do not engage in genocide denial. To deny a genocide, there must be a genocide to deny in the first place. Please show us the genocide referred to here. In all incidents described as genocides, piles of dead bodies were seen; the Rwandan Genocide, the vietnamese genocide of the Chinese, the indonesian genocide of the Chinese, the Holocaust, the Serbian genocide and so on, and to go back further in history, the genocide of native peoples everywhere the white man went. Please show us the dead bodies, otherwise stop making something into something that it is not. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:BCB4:C7E0:5F37:3491 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I do not engage in genocide denial. To deny a genocide, there must be a genocide to deny in the first place. Astounding stuff. Anyway, if you're not suggesting any changes to the article itself then I will again direct you to WP:NOTAFORUM. — Czello 07:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, it's astounding how nothing can be turned into something. No wonder it is said that the pen is mightier than the sword. As you ask for suggestion for change to the article, my suggestion is, "...it is an astounding allegation, as there is no allegation of murders or killings, nor was there any evidence of dead bodies, unlike the genocides committed by the white man." 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:7104:94C5:8066:8170 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Alrighty, I think we're done here. — Czello 18:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of Policeman Testimony

I would like to suggest a review of the authenticity of the policeman testimony as written in the Torture subsection of the Inside interment camps subsection within the Human Rights Abuses section. Internet sources included below, albeit potentially biased, have given credible suspicion that the supposed policeman is actually not who he claims to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW4mScFurc4 https://twitter.com/thomerz24/status/1445734789575688193 Cycw (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A random YouTube video and a random tweet are not reliable sources (see WP:RSPYT and WP:TWITTER). If you have reliable sources that dispute CNN's reporting that the individual is a former policeman, then feel free to present them, but I really see no reason that the tweet and YouTube video would move the needle on this whatsoever. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I fully understand the policy that the sources that I presented may not be viewed as reliable; therefore I will try to present the points of suspicion myself. However, compiling the original sources may take significant time and effort, so please understand my potential slowness to reply. Thank you! Cycw (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:BLP and WP:FORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Cycw (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

RS is only an issue for adding content, not for removing it. A more important consideration is however weight. Jiang's interview on CNN has only been repeated in the New York Post and Sky News Australia, Jutarnji list, Central News Agency (Taiwan) and a few obscure publications.

The interview is I agree questionable. I do not think that Jiang's disguise - a covid mask and sunglasses, while wearing his uniform - would be effective. I do not believe that Chinese police lack facial recognition technology or other advanced police techniques. That's probably why no other major news network commented on it.

TFD (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That the interview's been covered by major publications in multiple countries (Australia, Taiwan, Croatia) seems to contribute positively to its credibility and the extent to which it is WP:DUE. I would also not refer to The Times (of London) and The Telegraph as obscure publications, and I imagine that most editors here would reject that characterization as well. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that coverage is restricted to those reliable sources? Do you genuinely reject the reliability of The Telegraph and the Times of London or where you simply unaware of the coverage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I used Google news search and got 10 hits, which did not include The Times and The Telegraph.[4] Even with those publications however, the coverage seems to fail weight. Mhy general approach with high coverage news stories is that unless they have widespread ongoing coverage among major media, they lack weight for inclusion. Otherwise, how could we decide what among thousands of pieces of information to include? TFD (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your general approach appears to be unique. Generally the bar is coverage in two WP:RS with coverage in just one being borderline. What you're describing is much closer to the coverage needed for a stand-alone article (especially the "ongoing coverage" part). Are you perhaps getting confused with the WP:GNG criteria? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I raised the issue at NPOVN. I would also mention that the final clause of the sentence in the article ("as he had feared his own arrest had he dissented") appears to be incomplete. Presumably it explains why he went in disguise, but that's not mentioned in the sentence.

TFD (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe we are considering the video from the same link as a source as well? Cycw (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the grammar issue. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I've opened up a discussion on RSN to discuss the reliability of the source, since it has been questioned here and not quickly resolved. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe we would at least need to add a failed verification note in the second paragraph in the same section as well, as it uses the same source. Cycw (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That other publications report or copy what was published by CNN does not add to the credibility of the CNN interview because mere copying does not constitute additional sources. News organisations Longitude2 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is true for some of the other publications, although some of the other sources also interviewed the person themselves. Cycw (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Term usage.

I am a bit concerned about the usage of the term "genocide" here, since only less than ten countries have used this word to describe the events in Xinjiang. Is there a more widely agreed word? The193thdoctor (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't Chen Quanguo be mentioned more?

He is described as one of the key people, if not THE person responsible for this situation by numerous sources, but this article has only three passing references to him. Shouldn't his role be described further? The Account 2 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me generally, want to suggest a specific edit and a place for it? JArthur1984 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions: one would be to put "Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo (2016-2021)" to the perpetrators part in the infobox with one of the source I've provided. Second would be to add "Between 2016 and 2021, the policies were spearheaded by CCP Politburo member and Xinjiang CCP committee secretary Chen Quanguo, who dramatically increased the scale and scope of the camps and the crackdown." (possibly could be better worded) to the lead after the sentence "Since 2014, the Chinese government...". Third would be to put how rapidly the camps expanded after Chen's appointment (The internment camps in Xinjiang expanded rapidly after the appointment in August 2016 of Chen Quanguo, a zealous new party boss for the region...), how he ordered shoot to kill orders in the camps, how he called on to "round everyone who should be rounded up" and how he said "exercise firm control over religious believers" (in the Al Jazeera source) to this part . The Account 2 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on Adrian Zenz's 80% Statistic

Since the previous discussion on this topic has been archived and the overwhelming opinion on the statistic of editors is negative, I thought we should bring it back to finally make a change. The original discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_14#%2280%_of_new_Chinese_IUD_placements%22_is_misleading. Thank you. Cycw (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I Support Cycw's suggestion. In the most generous interpretation, Zenz used an unhelpful statistic ("net" IUDs) and then gave it a label that created widespread confusion ("new" IUDs). In the least generous sense, it was intentionally deceptive. In the archive link, @Pasta Enjoyer provided a detailed explanation that is persuasive. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think a blatantly incorrect statistic should be used. I get that Wikipedia policy is to cite sources, but since very few people have gone out of their way to address this incredibly specific point so it hasn't been "accepted" as an incorrect one.

I guess the real solution is just to contact Zenz directly and ask him politely to retract the statistic? Pasta Enjoyer (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Why should we reach a consensus between a lie and reality? Zenz is a liar, this whole thing is anticommunist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.236.74.185 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is used to amend the article. If we don't reach consensus, we can't change the article. Cycw (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• No sources have been presented which say that Zenz's 80% Statistic is misleading, only after you find those sources can we have this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Here is one from an RS. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  This one, also from SCMP, is the "volley" about the accuracy or labeling of 80%.

  Also here is China Daily's discussion. Not an uninterested source of course, but then again neither is Zenz himself. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

China Daily is not a WP:RS and the SCMP does not say that Zenz's statistic is misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point to clarify. I'm not suggesting we write in the article that the Zenz number is misleading and I didn't think that was @Cycw was suggesting that. "Misleading" was your word choice and I replied without parsing that.

I was focused on Cycw's suggestion of making a "change." One way to do that would be with an addition like, "In her assessment of Zenz' analysis of IUDs in Xinjiang, Xinjiang University Professor Lin Fangfei argues that the appropriate proportion is that 8.7% of IUD operations were performed in Xinjiang."[citation]

I am not set in stone on that particular language, but I do like it. @Cycw or others, was there specific language you had in mind? JArthur1984 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I like that language as well.

I originally suggested to change "Zenz reported that 80% of new Chinese IUD placements (insertions minus removals) in 2018 occurred in Xinjiang, despite the region constituting only 1.8% of the country's population." to "According to Zenz's report, Xinjiang accounted for 8.7% of IUD implants but has only 1.8% of the country's population." from the archive, but I now think the sentence is not precise enough. Cycw (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we have anything other than SCMP? Consensus is that for topics like this additional considerations apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with the notion that sources to determining whether the statistic is misleading must be news or scholarly articles. Sufficient and convincing rationale has already been provided in the corresponding archived section, so I suggest that you provide your position in direct relation to the rationale outlined in the archived discussion as we proceed. If you do not believe that the rationale in the archived discussion was valid, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you think so as well. Many thanks. Cycw (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That "notion" you disagree with is our WP:RS policy. We simply don't consider rationale which aren't published in WP:RS, we will *always* choose whats published in WP:RS over original analysis by wikipedia editors (we're not actually given an option on that one). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, but as shown above, there is already an RS for this. Two different SCMP articles, in fact. And I agree we should cite the SCMP over China Daily. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that for controversial topics involving the CCP that additional considerations apply for SCMP so it is not a RS in this context although generally it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue in this context, since I propose to cite SCMP for a proposition like, "In her assessment of Zenz' analysis, Xinjiang University Professor Lin Fangfei argues that the appropriate proportion is that 8.7% of IUD operations were performed in Xinjiang." But we could cite her research paper directly too, if we didn't want to cite SCMP or the Chinese media articles. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We could not directly cite a paper published by an academic at Xinjiang University about this topic, we couldn't directly cite *any* Chinese academic as dissenting on the genocide issue is a crime and China lacks academic freedom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would first like to point out that the 80% vs 8.7% statistical controversy is not necessarily original analysis; Adrian Zenz himself claimed that "The allegation that [he] calculated a 80% IUD insertion share when it should be only 8.7% was first invented by the Global Times & widely repeated in far-left circles". Now, this does not disqualify the validity of the 8.7% interpretation just because the GT preferred it, because the rationale against the 80% interpretation and for the 8.7% interpretation has been clearly laid out both by wikipedia editors in the archive (which I acknowledge is not acceptable by policy despite sound reasoning) and published analysis (whether this is a reliable source will be discussed later) in addition to what has already been laid out in this discussion. Cycw (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Zenz himself does provide this characterization of the statistic as being "net added placements". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, was there any consensus that this statistic should be put here in the first place? If so, when was it established, and if not, why is it here? Cycw (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. Even Zenz does not dispute the 8.7% number, he just argues that it doesn’t invalidate his own “net IUDs put In vs IUDs removed” approach. Which is why my proposed sentence is not “Zenz is a misrepresenting” it’s that another academic argues that 8.7% is the appropriate proportion. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• We can say "net added placements", which is the term that Zenz uses to characterize the same statistic here. It seems to more clearly distinguish what the number is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"full scale of forced sterilization ... unknown", "public reporting continued to indicate"

Staring a discussion for transparency and feedback on my changes (diff), and Red-tailed hawk's subsequent revert (diff), which I myself reverted. Please review the our edit summaries for our justifications.

I removed the phrase "public reporting continued to indicate that large-scale compulsory sterilization was being carried out" as I believe it's weasel wording that implies there are more reports than there are. I expected the sentence to be supported by a secondary source indicating that multiple reports were appearing, instead it was supported by a news article about Pompeo referring to Zenz's research (Pompeo isn't DUE, Zens is already covered), and the AP article (fully covered separately in the second half of the sentence, the investigation is based on interviews with victims saying large-scale sterilizations were occurring, but it doesn't discuss other reports).

I also added an article in Just Security by an author from a rights advocacy group commenting on Zenz's research, as I felt her statement that "the full scale of forced sterilization in China and around the world is unknown, in part because of governments’ failure to collect or share relevant data, authorities’ failure to adequately investigate allegations, the stigma and trauma that may prevent victims from coming forward, and justified mistrust of law enforcement or governmental authorities among affected communities" was informative, demonstrating that the number of victims remains to be determined. Red-tailed hawk seems to have felt this was trivialising/minimising the issue, as in their edit summary they said that "framing this solely as "unknown" without qualification is not exactly what most sources do". I think this is an incorrect criticism, Zenz's analysis appears to have uncovered Chinese documents stating intent, demonstrating funding, and showing declining birth rates, but they do not state with any certainty how many victims actually suffered forced sterilization (as opposed to other coercive methods of birth control). The Just Security article is accurate, supportive of victims, and points out an important fact, I don't believe it needs any qualification as Zenz's investigation is detailed further above in the section. Jr8825 • Talk 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Change any occurence of "Chinese Government" to "The government of the Peoples Republic of China." if it is preferable, PRC would work better. Lobx10 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's article is at Government of China, it is not needed to say it is PRC. --Mvqr (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Change "often characterized as genocide" to "increasingly characterized as genocide, though this label is still debated within academia. Even with the qualifier "cultural genocide", such a claim requires evidence of intent. Something that is notoriously difficult to prove given the lack of cooperation from Beijing."

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109

Change "that incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims in internment camps without any legal process" to "that has detained an estimated 1.5 million Turkic Muslims (predominately Uyghur) in internment camps. However, the author that engendered this estimate acknowledges some level of speculation surrounding this estimate due to information and data constraints. Furthermore, the study that produced this estimate is not without criticism."

Sources: [1] https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/jeacs/article/view/7336/7290 [2] https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/credibility-and-the-xinjiang-police-files/ Chppedlettuce (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"more than an estimated one million"

The estimate of "more than one million" was made by Gay McDougall. The source quoted as authority states that McDougall did not cite her sources, and that other advocacy groups - Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International had made much smaller estimates (10% or less of McDougall's). I see no reason why McDougall's estimate, with no supporting material, should be given greater prominence than estimates by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Picking an outlier from a set of estimates strongly suggests bias. Whoever is able to edit the page should correct this. Longitude2 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you post RS with other estimates please? I'm not unsympathetic as McDougall did not provide sources and only spoke in her individual capacity, but we need some other comparators so we're not having the discussion in a vacuum. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should maybe remove the non-reliable number for now as we wait for a RS on this. Cycw (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The number is cited to multiple reliable sources in the article. Numbers in the range of >1 million are the consensus estimate that's reflected along scholarly sources. Here are three publications you might find interesting:

1. Roberts, Sean R. (2020). The War on the Uyghurs: China's Internal Campaign Against a Muslim Minority. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. IX. Between one and three million Uyghurs have disappeared into this dystopian prison estate.
2. Waller, James; Salazar Albornoz, Mariana (Spring 2021). "Crime and No Punishment? China's Abuses Against the Uyghurs". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 22 (1): 100-111. The repression against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims is both widespread and systematic. Its widespread nature can be seen in the large number of victims and targets involved: over one million Uyghurs detained since 2017 in nearly four hundred "re-education" or "counter-extremism" camps; an estimated eighty thousand Uyghurs forcibly transferred to factories for forced labor; and sixteen thousand mosques destroyed in Xinjiang.
3. Caskey, Gregory W.; Murtazashvili, Ilia (2022). "The predatory state and coercive assimilation: The case of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang". Public Choice. 191: 217–235. doi:10.1007/s11127-022-00963-9. Upwards of one million Uyghurs have been detained arbitrarily by CCP authorities and sent indefinitely to a network of reeducation and forced-labor camps...
4. Raza, Zainab (October 2019). "China's 'Political Re-education' camps of Xinjiang's Uyghur Muslims". Asian Affairs. 50 (4). Taylor & Francis: 488–501. doi:10.1080/03068374.2019.1672433. It is currently estimated that 1.5 million are being incarcerated, which is approximately one of every six Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

If you have issue citing the news sources currently in the article, there's plenty of scholarly literature to go off of for this. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

to (1) Not academic literature.

to (2) They refer to studies from the ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) thinktank and the Guardian.

to (4) They refer to Adrien Zenz studies. 77.173.168.87 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

(1) is a scholarly monograph published by a subject-matter-expert through Princeton University Press, which is an academic press. It's quite clearly academic literature; and I'd suggest you read it and get back to me after you finish if you still disagree.

(2) is a peer-reviewed journal article that cites reliable sources.

(3) I guess there's no objection here.

(4) is a peer-reviewed journal article that cites reliable sources. If you don't like that it cites Zenz and directly supports the credibility of Zenz's well-accepted studies, please consider reading WP:UBO. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources here take their 1.8 million detained number from the same source which is Zenz's research. I think he's done one initially and has since updated that estimate with a newer paper here: https://www.jpolrisk.com/wash-brains-cleanse-hearts/

Some important notes:

1.) He acknowledges some level of speculation

2.) He gives an upper bound of 1.8 million and a lower bound of 900,000 but this interval is not based on statistical theory (e.g., 95% confidence interval) and is very ad hoc. Chppedlettuce (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I found another reference for the 1 million estimate, in Professor Dawn Murphy’s top notch book “China’s Rise in the Global South.” I think this edit could just involve replacing the lower quality source with one or more of these academic sources. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It is important to mention the uncertain nature of this whole topic.

The way that this article reads seems to convey to readers that the information being presented is accurate beyond reasonable doubt. However, there are several points of contention that still exists in academic literature on this matter. First involves the usage of "genocide" and whether the issue in Xinjiang can be accurately described as such. This article explains why there is an increasing number of academics who are beginning to favor the use of the word "genocide". However, this article also explains why others are still very reluctant to adopt that term.

Second key point of contention is the quality of the estimate on the number of interned Muslim minorities. The source of that number comes from a few studies done by Zenz based on obscure data where Zenz acknowledges that there is a degree of speculation surrounding these estimates. Furthermore, those estimates are not without external criticisms either.

The point of all of this is to really convey to readers the true state on the consensus related to this topic. I made an initial edit request for this but I now know that I jumped the gun and didn't follow procedure so here is my attempt to start building some kind of consensus on how to accurately portray consensus. Chppedlettuce (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to conveying more of the uncertainty regarding this topic, but what specific edits do you have in mind? Is it the same two places you identified in your extended request?

And also I'm not familiar with the quality of Libertarian Institute as a source. That's the one you cited for external criticisms of the Zenz estimate.

And to help evaluate the first edit, could you post the language of the source that supports your proposed wording?

Thanks - JArthur1984 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Finley article was discussed at length previously (see the previous move discussions linked at the top of this page, and the requests for comment in the talk page archives). It's worth nothing that this isn't a new article -- it dates from Nov 2020. I expect acceptance of "genocide" is likely to have increased since then. Jr8825 • Talk 21:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved Points of Dispute Regarding Authenticity of Police Testimony

I mentioned how information regarding the police testimony in the article has not been updated following the newest consensus in the archived discussion. Would anyone mind cleaning up the relevant parts of the article to this? Thanks. Cycw (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

The UN does not recognise the Uyghur "genocide" and claims that it is Western Propaganda. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Vpab15 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can the article be changed to 'Human Right Abuses in Xinjiang' as there is no genocide currently and there are only alleged Human Right abuses? Nobody is dying, genocide is for people dying. Also the Chinese government promotes the Uyghur language and culture, so it cannot be considered genocide. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

OHCHR report

I have created an article for the OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice initiative. I think the title of the wikipedia page you created is very long. I suggest shortening the title. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC))

Where to add UN's new report?

I think this UN report https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/world/asia/china-xinjiang-uyghurs.html should make it to the lead section as UN has now formally recognized the crimes by Chinese government against Uyghurs. They called it "crimes against humanity" rather than calling it "genocide". Anyways, it is a big development that we can document somewhere. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC))

"The report’s assessment that China’s crackdown in Xinjiang could amount to “crimes against humanity” " is a very long way from "formally recognising … crimes". It is a serious expression of concern of course and should be in the article. Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for improving my wording. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC))

"without any legal process"

The lead states the imprisonments are done "without any legal process". While I'd agree that China has show trials/mock trials and such, they are a (mockery of) a legal process, not a lack of such process. I think the wording in the lead should be reworded, with a link to article about show trials or such. In other words, while the due process may not be followed, some abbreviated, administrative process, with some legal justification, surely is followed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)