Wikipedia

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 17

< Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:6067:6E2B:11FD:E666 in topic Denial of abuses
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Move discussion (January 2024)

Latest comment: 8 months ago109 comments36 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closing the original proposal as "not moved" - there's a clear consensus against this proposal. However, see below for one more relist on the "alternative proposal" put forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide → Uyghur genocide accusation – In line with Palestinian genocide accusation and doesn't imply it's a settled fact like the current title does, but also still in line with the WP:COMMONNAME arguments (which I don't agree with, but this is a compromise) since it includes the supposed common name. The discrepancy between the current titles of this page and Palestinian genocide accusation implies a hypocrisy on the part of Wikipedia. eduardog3000 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. Other relevant policies here include WP:NDESC and WP:UNDUE. Additionally, many high quality sources do not couch these abuses in terms of "genocide" at all. Characterizations from recent academic sources which I have readily accessible include Gerstl, 2023 (people of Xinjiang are "suppressed"), Dubravčíková, 2023 ("a policy of forced abandonment of religion, sinicization, and reeducation"), Tuscanyi, 2023 ("persecution" of religious minorities in Xinjiang), Shinn & Eisenmann, 2023 ("Uighur crackdown"). JArthur1984 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment. While I am very sympathetic to arguments that "Uyghur genocide" is not the common name, certainly outside US and advocacy groups, this is not the way forward IMO. This article is about a series of HR abuses, which some consider to be a form of genocide, it is not primarily about the accusations themselves - unlike the "Palestinian" case, where the accusations are the topic, with the abuses being covered only to the extent that is necessary to understand background. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Both articles are about both the actual actions and the accusations. Palestinian genocide redirects to Palestinian genocide accusation and Uyghur genocide allegations redirects to this page. The naming and wording of each just reflects IMO a bias on the part of Wikipedia. eduardog3000 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It would seem to me that, globally, it is more widely accepted that there is a genocide against the Uyghur population in China than that there is a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza by Israel. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
That’s not really true. Muslim countries especially don’t buy the rhetoric of it being a genocide.[1] And nobody serious believes it’s an actual genocide i.e. mass killing of an ethnic group, because there have been no deaths. Both are doubted by many countries and should be treated the same in that regard. eduardog3000 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Countries are not independent, reliable sources. What they say can be notable and should be noted in the article. It is simply your opinion formed without evidence that nobody believes it is an actual genocide or mass killing. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
What matters is the description in reliable sources and they do not call it a genocide. TFD (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's what matters. WP:COMMONNAME guides us to use the common name, not the description in reliable sources of the common name. Common names that are misnomers, even if one were to agree this is an example, aren't automatically rejected as article titles. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and it is well-established among reliable sources:
Examples of RSes that use "Uyghur genocide"/"genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang in their own voice

Notes

  1. ^ Note that this is a piece from the news desk explaining that the New Yorker had translated the below piece into Mandarin
The academic consensus has become even stronger about the situation in Xinjiang as time has gone on, and the arguments to simply move the page to omit the word for which there are frankly unconvincing. The arguments to keep this page at its current locations, as stated in the prior well-attended move requests remain salient. Arguments to rename this as if it were a mere "accusation" likewise are unconvincing, particularly in light of the balance of academic sources that write about this issue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
These sources has been copy-pasted into every prior discussion, often, as here, conflating two issues. Firstly whether what is happening to the Uyghurs is accepted as being genocide, secondly whether the "Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the treatment of Uyghurs. Several of the impressive looking sources contradict both of these, eg:
    • Finley, Joanne (2020). "Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang". Journal of Genocide Research. doi:10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109.
      [T]he suppression of Uyghur births on this scale, in concert with the Chinese state’s other efforts to eradicate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, amounted quite simply to a genocide-in-process
Obviously Finlay cannot say "Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang" if scholarly consensus is that a genocide is certainly occurring! This despite the fact that Finlay is quite openly an advocate for Uyghur rights, not a neutral observer. Even less can anyone argue that Finlay is saying that the consensus is that 'Uyghur genocide' is the common name - even to those "Scholars and Activists," who fear it is happening.
For WP:COMMONNAME to apply, the name must be the one ordinarily used by the majority of sources for the events described. A more realistic test is not whether some sources, some writers, some viewpoints sometimes use the name - which is all this list shows - but whether it is the ordinary, or most common descriptor.
This is a search within the Guardian newspaper for the two words 'Uyghur' and 'genocide'. Some of the articles are reporting UN reports, investigations etc. some are advocacy pieces - mainly for the pro-Uyghur position. Never, or almost never (I couldn't look at all the articles) does the paper refer to the 'Uyghur genocide' in its own voice - even in pro-Uyghur articles and opinion pieces, though the subject is almost always the treatment of Uyghurs. That the name is often used - principally among pro-Uyghur advocates, is not disputed, it is simply not WP:COMMONNAME by any stretch of the imagination, even among those critical of China's treatment of Uyghurs.
This discussion is simply about the article name, the consensus on this article has already been reached that while mistreatment of Uyghur's is established, there is no consensus that the mistreatment is genocide and WP:VOICE should not be used to assert that it is. We shouldn't get side-tracked or muddle the two distinct issues. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact it is not the common name and there is no academic consensus that it is a genocide. TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The list of sources you've pasted does not support that "Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it here. It establishes that some sources argue it is such (though we already do not describe it as genocide in wikivoice), but most aren't using the phrase "Uyghur genocide". Endwise (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RS. Butterdiplomat (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    Support - the article doesn’t prove any genocide has taken place. The fact that Wikipedia in English calls it the Uyghur genocide with just a cultural genocide accusation but Palestinian genocide accusation with 22,000 killed in one month really reveals how biased Wikipedia in English is. 176.12.136.82 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    That is your WP:OR, and reliable sources reference this subject as a genocide. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    Some sources certainly do reference this as genocide - especially activists and partisan states. Many fewer reference the WP:COMMONNAME being "Uyghur genocide" however, the two matters are not the same and should not be conflated. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think the problem with this move proposal is that it disputes the existence and not just the use of “genocide” in the title. The latter is contested and discussed in the article itself, and per WP:COMMONNAME it is the article title (plenty of sources in green box above). However, adding “accusation” implies the event itself is being disputed by reliable sources.
    Therefore, while I think there may be a more appropriate article title such as “Chinese persecution of Uyghurs”, I do not think the current proposal is appropriate or supported by sources. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    This move proposal is founded on a false premise and false comparison. The 'Palestine accusations' article is about accusations, those who have made them and why. This article is primarily about the (mis-)treatment of Uyghurs, how to characterise that mis-treatment is relatively incidental. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
    There is verifiably no genocide happening. Genocide, as the name implies, requires killings. The fact that it's "commonly" called a genocide is what makes it an accusation despite it not being true. By calling it a genocide, Western sources are leveraging a surface level accusation of mass killing of an ethnic group, despite further reading disproving that. The "common" name is the accusation. The reality is that genocide shouldn't be in the title at all, but this is a compromise.
    I'm not going to bother talking about the veracity of or trying to change the contents of the article. eduardog3000 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
    Again, that is original research on your part and should not be considered in this discussion. It is ultimately your personal opinion (even if supported by some others) and claim that:
    (1) the word genocide implies mass killing (in reality it is the intentional destruction of a people with a broad and contested definition and derivative terms such as "cultural genocide");
    (2) there is verifiably no mass killing happening (a lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of non-existence); and
    (3) your feelings that the mistreatments, abuse, or other events are mischaracterized trump the common usage of reliable sources (Wikipedia isn't beholden to how editors feel about a certain subject).
    The term "Uyghur genocide" is very clearly common usage as demonstrated by the sources already provided by User:Red-tailed hawk. You yourself recognize that it is being used frequently (even if you feel wrongly). A personal belief that this labeling is inappropriate doesn't erase the fact that these sources all still refer to the topic this way. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I accept that Red-tailed hawk's sources show that many refer to this as a genocide. But by my estimation, between 1/3 and 1/2 of them don't refer to "Uyghur genocide". These same sources have been trundled out at multiple discussions, sometimes to prove that many people (especially academics and activists) say that what is happening is genocide, sometimes (as here) to attempt to show that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Uyghur genocide". Considering the number of (news) sources that have written about the treatment of Uyghurs, the number of them using the term 'Uyghur genocide' is actually very small (and many on the Red-tailed hawk list are same publication 'repeats'). The Guardian for example has a single entry on the R-T H, list, that article is written by a US reporter, reporting a US Congress committee hearing, this despite the Gdn having written dozens of articles about Uyghur mis-treatment. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per User:Red-tailed hawk. Nutez (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • relist note the move discussion didn't contain the RM banners. – robertsky (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.voanews.com/a/arab-league-visits-china-s-xinjiang-region-rejects-uyghur-genocide/7131285.html
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Persecution of Uyghurs in China as proposed. Support and oppose !votes here are roughly split, but I am giving the supporters more weight due to the stipulation #3 of WP:NCENPOV (as cited by Butterdiplomat below) which instructs as that "if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". It was demonstrated with evidence that although some independent reliable sources use the term genocide, many others describe the matter under discussion without ever using that word. As such, the use of genocide here isn't yet generally accepted, and the alternative of persecution, which I think all agree has fewer POV implications, is what the guideline instructs us to do.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide → Persecution of Uyghurs in China – Offering up an alternative that is probably more appropriate than the original proposal. This title is consistent with historical events like Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire and Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. Template:Religious persecution also has contemporary Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh and Persecution of Hindus in Pakistan linking to subsections of main persecution articles.

A major issue of the original proposal is that it challenges (in a biased way) the fact, backed by reliable sources, of the mistreatment of Uyghurs, and not just the characterization of it. I think this alternative article title is less controversial than Uyghur genocide and still accurately describes what the article is about. Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I wholeheartedly Support. the logic and substance of this proposal, Uyghur genocide is a WP:COMMONNAME, but nowhere near the WP:COMMONNAME in my estimation. Added to which, the logic of a genocide without known mass killing defies the popular understanding of the term (although the same legal definition has been in place since 1948, there are NO accepted instances of genocide in which mass death was NOT the main feature). Though I question whether this can proceed whilst previous move discussion is 'live'. Pincrete (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal, for two reasons:
  • I'm not convinced "Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME -- I don't think there actually is a COMMONNAME. The only evidence supplied here is the sources from Red-tailed hawk, but most of those don't actually use the phrase "Uyghur genocide", so I don't think the source dump supports that claim. For example on Google Scholar, I get 607 hits for "Uyghur issue" for example, and 461 hits for "Uyghur genocide". Most sources don't actually give this topic a specific name, and just describe it through things like "China's abuses against the Uyghurs" or similar. For lay news sources, to take a sample of only articles published this week (so I don't cherry pick), The Independent says "crimes against humanity and possibly genocide against the Uyghur population", Time says "the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution of the Uyghur ethnic minority", BBC says "China’s treatment of the Muslim Uyghur people", etc. Sources generally just describe it, in various ways, usually saying something like "China's abuses against/persecution of/crimes against Uyghur people".
  • In the absence of a clear COMMONNAME, we should use a neutral, descriptive title. Note that we cannot describe this as genocide in wikivoice since there is ongoing debate, so the current title is non-neutral, taking a side in something which we describe as a debate with two sides. Persecution of Uyghurs in China is neutral and descriptive, and from what I can see is actually more in line with what most sources actually call it.
Endwise (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the persecution of Uyghurs in China is a topic distinct from the one under discussion here unless I'm missing something... This page focuses on persecution in the 21st century, not persecution which occurred in earlier times. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t think the proposed title here implies any time period, thus it isn’t distinct from the topic of this discussion. Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    Persecution of Uyghurs is currently a redirect to this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    For what it’s worth, Persecution#Uyghurs also talks about the same topic, and this article seems to be (or can be) the main article for that subsection. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    So how about Persecution of Uyghurs in China in the 21st century, Ongoing persecution of Uyghurs in China, 2014–present persecution of Uyghurs in China, or something else along those lines? eduardog3000 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    I personally prefer the more concise Persecution of Uyghurs in China, given the ongoing persecution is arguably the most notable primary topic. This title does not specify time period, and unless there is already another article about historical persecution of Uyghurs occurring in the past, I don’t see the need to add more qualifiers in the title. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose if you want a WP:NDESC title then 'Human rights abuses against Uyghurs in China'—blindlynx 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think “persecution” is more appropriate than “human rights abuses” as a descriptor because the former describes a systematic and discriminatory mistreatment. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    i feel that 'persecution' understates the extent of this—blindlynx 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Endwise. The current title gives the impression that Wikipedia is taking a position on whether or not the persecution constitutes genocide, a question about which we should remain neutral. I'm not sure the proposed title is ideal, but it's better than the current one. If there are concerns the title is too general, we could make it more specific (maybe Persecution of Uyghurs in modern China, for example, or some other more precise option). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I believe the current title clearly describes the circumspect nature of its scope. It's not about discrimination of Uyghurs in Beijing, or about police brutality in Guangdong. It's about the mass internment, sterilisation, and sinification of the Uyghur people; it's about genocide.Doanri (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    We are in agreement of the scope, but I believe that “persecution” still aptly covers this. It is a systematic mistreatment - which spans from discrimination to genocide, and the key word here is “systematic.” It can be argued that this page is the main article for Persecution#Uyghurs. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    Previous RfCs have already established that we can't call it a genocide in Wikivoice. The title only remains because of a dubious common name argument. eduardog3000 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's about the mass internment, sterilisation, and sinification of the Uyghur people; it's about genocide, but neither internment, sterilisation, nor sinification ordinarily constitute genocide! Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    More specifically, forced “sinification” via assimilationism policies by the state. Consensually and voluntarily adopting Chinese culture or cultural traits would still be considered sinification but wouldn't constitute human rights abuses in any way. But that’s not what’s happening here, with charges that Uyghurs are being forced/coerced into abandoning their culture and assimilating into a state-vetted interpretation of culture against their will. Dankmemes2 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I actually prefer this over my proposal, but I was trying to compromise. eduardog3000 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, It still puzzles me why the name was adopted in the first place, doing a quick Google search certainly confirms repression or abuse, but sources certainly remained cautious to use of the word genocide. Personally, I believe to call something genocide without mass killing taking place distorts the its meaning and deflect its focus, and does more harm than good to readers interested on the subject or similar historical events. MarvelousPeach (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: two separate points here for me,
    • The current title, "Uyghur genocide" is not the common name of the situation. This exact term is not used by most reliable sources (e.g. academic journal articles - including the ones listed above that argue for classifying it as a genocide, The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters). There isn't a single term that is prevailing; there are various mostly descriptive terms that are used (e.g. Xinjiang human rights abuses, the repression in Xinjiang the repression in Xinjiang, crackdown on Xinjiang, or even Uyghur "genocide") without one being clearly most common.
    • There still is no academic consensus on the genocide classification. There are still sources over the last few years that have mentioned this as early as this 2021 Foreign Policy article and as recently as this 2023 academic Springer book. This latter source gives a long analysis, but a short quote for those who cannot access it:

      it is obvious that a campaign that aimed at Muslim minorities and abused their most basic rights definitely took place. However, the often exaggerated numbers, the way those numbers are presented—constantly repeating that millions of Uyghurs are being still and forever detained—and, principally, the unsubstantiated accusation of genocide, have to be criticized.
      — Brossat, Alain; Ruiz Casado, Juan Alberto. "What Is Happening in Xinjiang?". Culture of Enmity: The Discursive Struggle for Taiwan in the Making of the New Cold War. Singapore: Springer. p. 81. doi:10.1007/978-981-99-4217-6_6.

The title should be a non-judgmental descriptive titles, and the proposed one is certainly descriptive and neutral. No comment regarding whether additional pre-21st century material should be added, this can be done or not done after the move (e.g. renaming the "Background" section, which can be determined by further editing/consensus as needed). — MarkH21talk 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC); copyedited 20:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My opposition is both due to my support for the current title (as stated in the section above), but also that the proposed target has an extreme lack of precision. This article is about the post-2014 abuses against Uyghurs, not the entire history of persecution of Uyghurs in China. The proposed target makes for an interesting article on its own, but the scope ought be separate from the articles on the post-2014 events. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    Then why not add a 'time limit' to the title? It has been demonstrated repeatedly IMO that this is not the COMMONNAME, even among those most antagonistic to China's actions. Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    Something like "Persecution of Uyghurs in China following the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism" is extremely verbose. "Persecution of Uyghurs in China under the presidency of Xi Jinping" changes the time frame of the article by extending the beginning, and "Persecution of Uyghurs under the tenure of Chen Quanguo as secretary of Xinjiang" misses both 2014-part of 2016 and events after 2022. Do you have suggestions as to a title with a specific time? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not really very familiar with earlier campaigns against Uyghurs, so am not the best person to make a distinguishing time limit, but you youself said his article is about the post-2014 abuses. Some variant of "post-2014" isn't verbose if such a clarifier is needed. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t think that the proposed title has a lack of precision any more than the current title does. Neither name specifies a timeframe, and both terms are used to refer to the same events. Any notable persecution of Uyghurs as referenced in reliable sources occurred in this c. post-2014 era you mentioned. If there were notable incidents or abuses prior to that, the Background section can cover those. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support and merge Persecution#Uyghurs into the article, and hopefully expand the section (submit for weekly article for improvement?) so that the article also covers historical persecution. If this isn't realistic, support Edwardog3000's suggestion of Ongoing persecution of Uyghurs in China.Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    I personally don't see any reasonable arguments against the proposal, as all of them have solid rebuttals in replies. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The classification of abuses section of this article would mean that this doesn't meet WP:NPOVNAME, since there's also multiple alternative descriptions widely used. The proposed name is more informative. Ongoing persecution of Uyghurs in China might be a better alternative given the current scope of the article, but either are a more accurate title for the article content. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 'persecution' or related alternatives. The current title is as bad of an WP:NDESC problem as can be imagined and it is not common name. Although I can understand why people might want the title to cabin with a time period, even the current article title does not have this and relies on a disambiguation note. We should at least make some improvement here and should not let that bog us down from making the necessary improvement. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    In previous discussions, I have cited the following very recent academic sources which eschew the genocide terminology: Gerstl, 2023 (people of Xinjiang are "suppressed"), Dubravčíková, 2023 ("a policy of forced abandonment of religion, sinicization, and reeducation"), Tuscanyi, 2023 ("persecution" of religious minorities in Xinjiang), Shinn & Eisenmann, 2023 ("Uighur crackdown"), and I will now also note Garlick, 2024 ("suppression" in Xinjiang). JArthur1984 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    Since posting this comment, I can now also add as another recent ac academic source which avoids the genocide labeling, Crean, The Fear of Chinese Power (2024) -- describing the "mistreatment" of Uyghur people in Xinjiang, including mass camps and discrimination on the basis of religion. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed title "Persecution of Uyghurs in China" is WP:COMMONTERM and more appropriate for the content of this article. Adding a time period or other modifier could make the title unneccessarily long Path2space (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Red-tailed hawk. Still seeing a major lack of precision and conciseness with alternatives. Amigao (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I and others are open to Ongoing persecution of Uyghurs in China, which is arguably both concise and precise enough. Would you be open to this alternative? Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Red-tailed hawk has listed sufficient RS to qualify for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME. The proposed change is relatively lacking per WP:CRITERIA. It is inferior for recognizability, naturalness, and precision, as persecution of Uyghurs has long predated the current 2014-ownards Xinjiang focused efforts in response to a prior spate of Uyghur terror attacks (which is what this article is about). Examples include the Barin uprising in response to forced abortions of Uyghurs in 1990. While there may be a case for an article called "Persecution of Uyghurs in China" that covers the Uyghur Genocide topic among others, it is not a replacement for that particular topic. The rewording that has been proposed above to address this puts this at odds with the criterion of concision.
With regards to the final criterion, consistency, this article title matches what is used for other titles. Many comments for Support argue that the current title makes the article position that genocide is clearly occurring. This does not hold true for other Wikipedia titles, which have similarly charged naming, but are nonetheless the most applicable per WP:CRITERIA, WP:POVNAME, and WP:NDESC. See Black genocide in the United States, which is described as an "argument" in the first line, and incorporates items that are even described as "conspiracy theories". It mentions disputes behind the term from different scholars on the topic and openly presents the topic as a matter of dispute. This article title proposal would be like replacing the aforementioned "Black Genocide" article with Racism against African Americans. To give another example: Second Holocaust, presented in the first line as an "assertion". This proposal would be like replacing that article with Antisemitism. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
But most sources simply don't call it "Uyghur genocide", many of those provided by Red-tailed hawk argue that a genocide of some form (cultural or 'literal') is occurring, but don't use the term "Uyghur genocide" in their own voice - and those are the most partisan sources, more neutral sources simply never use the term. I presume that "Black Genocide" is the standard term, even if the events are disputed. Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Leaving aside that I see plenty of entries saying "Uyghur genocide" being used in their own voice, is the argument here that some call it a "genocide" of the Uyghurs but not necessarily "Uyghur genocide" in that exact order? It seems pretty clear they're describing the same thing. All of the controversy in this talk section is focused around the word "genocide" in the title, this seems like an irrelevant point. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There are quite a few using "Uyghur genocide", but relative to the level of coverage of the campaign, a minority. The majority of sources dispute that the mistreatment constitutes genocide - mainly because nobody is known to have been killed by the campaign. and the most common definition of genocide necessitates killing. Finlay, one of the sources above and an advocate for the Uyghurs calls her article Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang, within the article she says "The suppression of Uyghur births on this scale, in concert with the Chinese state’s other efforts to eradicate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, amounted quite simply to a genocide-in-process". How can the COMMONNAME for something be something so un-established as a term that scholars fear it is happening and she argues is occurring? It is not even imaginable that the same sentences be transposed to Rwanda, or other commonly recognised genocides. There are many sources regularly writing about the mistreatment that NEVER use the term except when quoting others. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This seems like we're pivoting to another thing? You yourself acknowledged just one reply ago that "Black Genocide" can be disputed by some but still be the term used. That was one of the points in my OP, with examples of disputed genocides/holocaust being given that name nonetheless because they beat out alternatives under WP:AT. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
It’s one thing to discuss the terminology of “Black Genocide” and another to describe the whole series of events and debate as Black Genocide. There are ton of people I know would acknowledge the systematic racial inequality, but not so when it comes to “Black Genocide”. 182.255.32.16 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the structure of the article as it is, I am not so sure that this is specifically about the 2014-onward abuses. There are substantial sections on the background of Uyghers in China, government policies, cultural effects, etc., before we get to the "Classification of abuses" - where the direct "genocide" reference is mostly found. In the earlier sections, references to "genocide" in sources are generally either in quotes (even in headlines) or characterized as "labeled by some" and heavily qualified, and I think that is why common usage is arguably and reasonably disputed.
I opposed the initial move request per WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, but the more I think about it, "Uyghur genocide" as a common name more refers to a label or classification of the actual events, rather than the events. In my view, this term clearly still has a place in the article, but the proposed "Persecution of Uyghurs in China" is less judgemental and more descriptive. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that it is about 2014-onwards. There is of course, some content dedicated to prior events, as this didn't occur when Chinese officials just decided to start attacking Uyghurs for no reason. As I mentioned earlier, the actions focused on in this article are in response to a spate of terrorist attacks from Uyghurs earlier, which in turn are linked to the rise of global Islamic terrorism dating back to the 1990s and 2000s, and separatism and persecution dating back a century. In addition to necessary mention of those, some aspects of said persecution were considerably amplified or continued, including using the same institutions, such as the Bingtuan dating back to the 1950s. Overall, this article mentions these items in passing (if at all), with a clear focus on actions after the anti-terror campaign began, consistent with plenty of other articles that discuss a particular event that has substantial historical background behind it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, agree that the background sections are necessary even if the primary topic is the post-2014 abuses. My main point was still that references to “genocide” in sources are rarely straightforward references — they are either in quotes or heavily qualified with context. The classification itself may be a major event for which “Uyghur genocide” would be an appropriate title, but this article is about the actual abuses and persecution. Most sources that contain the term acknowledge the disputed or contested nature, many explicitly. The proposed title would mitigate taking a stance one way or another, and the debate can easily remain within the article content. Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that references to genocide are "rarely" straightforward, there seems to be a decent mix of sources stating genocide in various ways, but as I said earlier, we're all clear it means the same thing. With regards to your "main point", let's remember that this is not just a referendum on replacing "genocide" in the title, but to replace it with another name, which needs to prove itself superior. Applying a similar standard of scrutiny to these alternative proposals show them falling far behind the current title. The first article retrieved from searches on google scholar of "Uyghur persecution", "Persecution of Uyghurs in China", and "persecution of Uyghurs" brings up an article talking about Uyghurs being persecuted from 1997-2021 across multiple countries, clearly reflective of what I mentioned earlier of "persecution" as describing a far broader topic. Many further articles discuss "persecution" but actually focus on "genocide" as the descriptor of its intensified modern incarnation. More articles are dated back to prior to 2014 or shortly after, clearly discussing aforementioned broader trends.
By contrast, articles coming up with a search for "Uyghur genocide" are significantly more consistent and modern, clearly referring to the post-2014 events under the category of genocide. Going back to WP:CRITERIA, the current title reflects what the article is actually describing in a far more recognizable manner. It is clearly more precise in its description of the events spawning from 2014 onwards, which also lends it to naturalness as readers can clearly recognize it as meaning the intensified modern Chinese efforts against Uyghurs. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Literally the subject of the article is HR abuses: 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. A previous RfC decided the "often characterized as" phrasing since there is a consensus that there is no agreement among scholars or others whether 'genocide' is the right term for the mistreatment. Nobody pretends that any of the proposed names are COMMONNAMEs, since none appear to exist, but they are clear, unambiguous descriptive terms that make clear the subject of the article. What is the advantage of a term which to most people - and in every accepted case of genocide has meant - mass murder? Pincrete (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The word often needs to be removed. Can you cite the sources that deny the genocide?  // Timothy :: talk  07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue: There are several sources that contest the classification of the human rights abuses as genocide or mention that there are scholars who contest the classification. For example, this 2021 The Economist article, this 2021 Foreign Policy article, and this 2023 Springer book (the unsubstantiated accusation of genocide [has] to be criticized). — MarkH21talk 20:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
What are the very next lines right after? Is the article focusing on a history of events dating back to the takeover of the Second East Turkestan Republic? Beginning in 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims without any legal process in internment camps. Operations from 2016 to 2021 were led by Xinjiang CCP Secretary Chen Quanguo. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: These articles are nonetheless written after the previous contentious renaming to Uyghur genocide; you cannot discount the possible factor of the Wikipedia article title itself influencing the views of those authors when they cite the term. It would be more accurate to delve into the specific subject matter described in those sources, which is persecution and abuses as opposed to killings. 129.126.10.8 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The idea that Wikipedia page titles would seriously influence the names used in academia would be vastly overestimating our influence. Unless articles explicitly cite our articles (which is very rare), no such connection can't be assumed. Even if authors know our article, they won't follow it blindly, but still use their own judgement. So don't kid yourself, or ourselves. Gawaon (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the persecution of Uyghurs in China is a different topic. The current title meets WP:COMMON and WP:PRECISE per the sources and content in the article. The proposed title is a different topic and does not reflect what the article is about.  // Timothy :: talk  03:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    The 'persecution' is literally the topic: "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. Is the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    The genocide is persecution, but the persecution goes beyond the genocide, in scope and chronology. It is a different article. Other examples would be the Final Solution is a part of the The Holocaust but the Holocaust goes beyond the scope of the Final Solution in scope and chronology, see Armenian genocide and Late Ottoman genocides, Cambodian genocide, War crimes in Cambodia. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for additional info.  // Timothy :: talk  07:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    Huh? What about the persecution of Uyghurs in China is not in, or would not make sense in, this article currently? Endwise (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    See the above examples  // Timothy :: talk  08:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    The distictions you attempt to make don't transpose. The final solution was the contemporaneous official Nazi euphemism for the plan which ultimately became the genocide of the Jews (which they call the Shoah, and most of the world now calls the Holocaust). The terms are distinct, and as terms each have their own history, but the core events described are the same in all three cases. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the Great Patriotic War is a different event from what the West calls WWII.
    I presume the Cambodian genocide is about the actual killings of Cambodians, but no killings have taken place AFA we know of Uyghurs, making a distinction between the persecution of Cambodians and their killing could make sense. There is an obvious difference between late Ottoman genocides, and any specific genocide within that period, what is the distinction being made iro Uyghurs? They are suffering systematic persecution, which some call persecution and they are suffering systematic persecution, which some call genocide?
    The fundamental question however remains, do most of the world refer to the current actions by PRC against Uyghurs as the 'Uyghur genocide' - this article is explicitly about those HR abuses, it isn't about any other subject, because there really isn't any other topic AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    The examples you listed were other genocides?? They aren't in the article now and they wouldn't be if the title changed. I still don't see what extra content the new title would open up. Endwise (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    @TimothyBlue: would you support the alternate suggestion of Ongoing persecution of Uyghurs in China? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - I have closed the original proposal as "consensus not to move", since it's clear that one is going nowhere. However, there is roughly equal support and opposition in this alternative proposal so giving it one more week to try to work through the issues to a clearer outcome. Note that it's not obvious now even whether it's consensus or no consensus, given that there's a WP:POVTITLE question in the mix as well, meaning the status quo may not be the automatic cohice. But hopefully we can determine that more clearly nex week.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to add that those most of those re-educations camps are decommissioned since Chen Quanguo's retirement, former party chief in Xinjiang. Consider that when you evaluate if the current title is appropriate 198.176.56.23 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    The claim that the concentration camps (so called "re-education" camps) have been shut down (they haven't) does not change history or the preponderance of sources reporting the genocide.  // Timothy :: talk  14:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    Intention does matter when it comes to defining genocide. We can't really claim North Korea is committing genocide against its own people regardless how draconian its policy is, because the very nature of genocide requires the coordinated effort with the intention to eradicate an ethnicity or race. We can't call all government atrocities and abuses as genocide, it will simply be a hyperbole, from that would ultimately kill the word of its original and intended meaning. Thus, the fact those measures were reversed does matter when it comes to this debate. 198.176.56.23 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    Camps aren't being so much "shut down" as being shifted into the formal penal system, as the article discusses. - Amigao (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per Endwise. Don't find Red-Tailed Hawk's references sufficient evidence that it is primarily referred to as this in RS. Given the highly-charged nature of the term "genocide", I'd opt for the more NPOV "persecution" phrasing in the title until proven otherwise. That it can and often is characterized as genocide can be made in the lede, but that should not be the title. Walrasiad (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCENPOV#2. Policy states that in the absence of a common name, we should prefer a generally accepted word used when identifying the event and avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. Every time we have this discussion, Red-tailed hawk provides a plethora of sources showing that even if the word "genocide" is not necessarily used by a majority of scholars (and note that WP:NCENPOV requires us to consider how the topic is described among scholars, to the exclusion of news media), it is the single most commonly used description. Between its prevalence and its concision, it is clearly to be preferred. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    It can be argued that there is not yet consensus among scholars. In the 4 sources above that KiharaNoukan provided, one seeks to "ascertain whether the CCP is committing genocide" and another specifically uses the term "cultural genocide." Thus, the argument here is to follow the War in Darfur precedent listed in WP:NCENPOV and apply rule #3 (use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications). I think the proposal is still relatively concise. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support if there are non-related news referring to this topic not by the genocide tag, i.e. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/science-fiction-authors-excluded-hugo-awards-china-rcna139134 citing in an open letter allegations of abuses against Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim minority groups in China that Beijing denies., then the question arises if the current article title is recognisable beyond it being a sensational title, and if the genocide label is prematurely applied. The proposed title is descriptive enough, reflecting situation on the ground. – robertsky (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment if prominent sources use the wording of genocide then the article may need to be named accordingly, but I'm against using COMMONNAME as a tool to force conformity in all the places other than article naming. I won't name names again, but it is especially disruptive when specific sources in those other instances do not adopt the term "genocide", yet some editors feel they can bludgeon it in just because the "common name" for the subject of this article includes the term. CurryCity (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Genocides may occur not only via mass killings, but also through forced sterilizations, forced abortions, forced birth control policies; etc.
Estimates show that Xinjiang's birthrates plummeted drastically from 1.588 in 2017 to 0.616 in 2021.
Some recent articles that reported about the forced sterilization policies imposed by the chinese state against Uighurs in Xinjiang:
An excerpt from the above article:

"China has committed genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, an unofficial UK-based tribunal has found. The Uyghur Tribunal cited birth control and sterilisation measures allegedly carried out by the state against the Uyghurs as the primary reason for reaching its conclusion on Thursday. Sir Geoffrey Nice, a prominent British barrister who chaired the tribunal hearings, said its panel was satisfied China had carried out "a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy" to bring about "long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations"." ("BBC News", 9 December 2021)

An excerpt from the above article

"Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.
The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia..." ("The Guardian", 12 May 2021)

"Another impact of state-inflicted horrors is the demographic inversion in Xinjiang. Through strict Chinese law and policy for family planning, ethnic and religious minority women, such as the Uyghurs, were reported to be subjected to draconian coercive measures for population control by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This resulted in a massive drop in population growth since 2018.
These coercive measures included mass forced sterilization, forced abortion, involuntary IUD insertions, and pregnancy checks conducted in detention camps, or as China calls it, ‘re-education’ camps....
between 2015 and 2018, the natural population growth of Uyghurs saw a drastic drop of 84 percent, which further declined in 2019. According to official Chinese statistics, there was a 48.7 percent decline in birth rates in ethnic minority areas of Xinjiang between 2017 and 2019." ("The Eurasian Times", 18 September 2023)

"As many as a million people were wrongfully detained in political education camps, pretrial detention centers, and prisons at the height of the Strike Hard Campaign. While some have been released, the Chinese authorities have also sentenced an estimated half-million people, many of whom remain imprisoned, Human Rights Watch found in a September report." (China: Events of 2022", hrw.org, 2023)

"in August OHCHR released a long-awaited report reinforcing previous findings by Amnesty International and others that the extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity." ("China 2022", amnesty.org)

"Beijing continues its massive abuses in Xinjiang, which Human Rights Watch has found to constitute crimes against humanity. Although some political education camps appear to have closed, an estimated half-million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims remain in prison, detained during China’s “Strike Hard Against Violent Terrorism” crackdown that started in 2017. There have been no mass releases." (China: Events of 2023", hrw.org, 2024)

Also, the proposed title "Persecution of Uyghurs in China" does not precisely reflect the sheer scale of state terror deployed by the Chinese state since 2014 in Xinjiang. The term "Uyghur genocide" is a common name which precisely and concisely describes the systematic persecution and industrial-scale violence suffered by the Uighurs in Xinjiang since 2014.
Also, it is clear from the list of references given by the user Red-tailed hawk that the term "Uyghur genocide" is a common name used in numerous academic sources, journals, media outlets, etc. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Birth rate drop is a weak argument because the one-child policy dropped other ethnic groups in China even lower for a much longer time. CurryCity (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see exactly zero of these sources use the phrase "Uyghur genocide", so they cannot not be evidence for it being the common name. In fact they are probably good evidence that "Uyghur genocide" is not the common name. Where they do even mention genocide at all, in these sources at least, it appears to be attributed, like in the BBC article ("... an unofficial UK-based tribunal has found"). The terminology these sources you cited use in their own voice tends to be essentially synonymous with 'persecution' (e.g. "arbitrary and discriminatory detention", "abuses", etc.), which incidentally is actually the title we are proposing this article be changed to. Endwise (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The sources given by the user "red-tailed hawk" clearly mentioned the term "Uyghur genocide".
Other sources like the "Genocide Watch" NGO also directly mentioned the term "Uyghur genocide":
Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Some of the sources mentioned by Red-tailed hawk do use the phrase, but most do not (this was discussed above). And even so, this is a sampling only of sources which already take the position that it is a genocide, which per consensus is academically contested: Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 13#The first sentence does not make sense
There exists a serious debate in reliable sources as to whether the events/actions are a genocide.
The events/actions may not be labelled as a genocide in wikivoice, that is, as an uncontested fact.
Cheers, Endwise (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Honestly, I doubt if Uyghurs were the targets, it was clear to me in all these articles that it was the Muslim population in that area are being persecuted, even if they were of other ethnicity. The idea of genocide doesn't actually add up, because religion is what actually matters so it seems. The case argued for cultural genocide is really that Chinese government suppressing religious expression, the only valid chain of logic for it constituting cultural genocide is that Uyghurs are a muslim majority ethnicity. So it seems it were really the persecution of muslims rather than the persecution of Uyghurs. 198.176.56.23 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as "genocide" is really not a dominant term for the topic. Terms like "persecution", "repression", "allegations", "accusations" are used just as commonly by sources and should be given equal weight in the title if we're talking about WP:COMMONNAME. ADifferentMan (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster, the treatment of Uyghurs in China counts as genocide, which is defined as "The systematic and deliberate destruction of a group of people, typically by killing substantial numbers of them, on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality." and "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". It is also utterly ridiculous to claim that there are no reliable sources on this matter. It is the same kind of behavior as doubting the veracity of climate change.
Chelk (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's stop pretending that people here are interested in the fact.

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
WP:NOTAFORUM. This isn't the place to gripe about Wikipedia. If there are sources currently determined to be reliable which you think should be discounted, raise them at WP:RSN. — Czello (music) 16:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This page is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source in the slightest when it comes to anything geopolitical or political.

It doesn't take a genius to see how biased and unreliable this page is. You aren't allowed to use any sources that oppose the "genocide" or "prosecutions" narrative. But you're allowed to use RFA, Adrian zenz, NYT, and Victim of communism. Hell you aren't even allowed to debunk the cited sources itself.

Outrageous claims like " 1 million Uyghur detained" are considered reliable claims despite having zero reliable source or proof backing it.

Look at this page's history. You will realize there are a few prominent editors who also dictate many other pages related to China, i.e. Chinese tech companies like Huawei.


But thankfully, the majority of people in the real world don't buy this bullshit. The Uyghur genocide narrative is pretty much dead. And was never even prominent in the first place because this page and western media aren't arbiters of reality.

IF you want to see an actual Genocide that's being protested by millions of people daily, go look at the Palestine genocide. The majority of people in the world recognize this genocide but not the Uyghur one because the former has a sea of verifiable proofs such as videos, photos, testimonies, and other forms of evidence. Despite the fact western media like NYT, WAPO are trying their hardest to protect Israel and the American interest. DemisJohnson (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed some unreliable sources I saw at a spot check (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and news.com.au). In my personal view I think we also shouldn't be using US govt mouthpieces as sources either (VoA and RFA, or even ASPI for that matter), but that would require broader consensus. Regarding the 1 million figure; that is sourced, in §Inside internment camps. Cheers, Endwise (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It says the sad state of Wikipedia that we are debating whether we should use RFA or ASPI. The fact that it's even allowed to use them as sources(but not Chinese sources or others) should tell you how unobjective this page is.
These people don't care about being objective, only their narrative. But unfortunately for them, they can only dictate the narrative in Wikipedia. As Western media and America's reputations continue to tank, and the horrors of the GAZA genocide continue to get broadcast, the Uyghur genocide narrative will continue to fade into irrelevancy.DemisJohnson (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@DemisJohnson the problem is that any deep dive scholarly research on the latest wave of persecution or genocide against the Uyghurs is pretty much non existent because of the Chinese government's denial to let any research on the issue happen or even let any coverage happen. u act as if the West is an unequivocal evil. there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia and atrocities done or supported by the west, I think portraying claims by more one side leaning or biased sources as facts is wrong but those claims shouldn't be absent since they're many times supported by looking at even Chinese government policies available to the public. as for the "1 million detained", it's accepted by many scholars and organisations including the UN and other human rights groups. u have no problem rightfully criticizing the atrocities now being done in Gaza. idk why do you feel a need to defend it in the case of East Turkestan. I agree with dealing with claims properly but u just say to avoid claims that have considerable weight to them which I think is not right 2409:40E1:110B:380D:A1DF:AC10:9699:32AF (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tibet

Latest comment: 6 months ago11 comments8 people in discussion
WP:NOTFORUM move along. – robertsky (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


there could be another page made for "Persecution of Tibetans" too. I think there's sufficient material on it. Also I think any instance of diving into any issue China related always leads to at best overcompensation or at worst straight up apologia. China is not the only country in this probably but I think Wikipedia administrators or editors should make a distinction between apologists and those who actually want to contribute 2409:40E1:100A:5F28:3733:DD4D:B76B:926 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it could be a page in theory given the content, but FYI, some existing articles are Human rights in Tibet, Antireligious campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party, Sinicization of Tibet, Labour camps in Tibet. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Butterdiplomat thanks. yeah I've taken a glance at them. It's just becoming increasingly common nowadays seeing anti Tibetan hate everywhere so I'm just looking for better resources to refer to since there's so limited coverage 2409:40E1:100A:5F28:3733:DD4D:B76B:926 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I hope your comment is not conflating "anti Tibetan hate" with criticism of the Dalai Lama since I rarely see the former in the Anglosphere but have been seeing a bit more of the latter recently. Your suggestion that admins should divide and possibly restrict users who are "apologists" is not plausible because it would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. What matters most on Wikipedia is reliable sources and while many of those come from the West, non-Western sources are also encouraged if it can make the page more balanced or neutral. Suggestions like yours are not in line with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Donkey Hot-day by anti Tibetan hate, I don't mean the criticism of the Dalai Lama. it's basically doing apologia for the Chinese side of things about the rationale of Tibet's occupation and denying it's sovereignty completely and smearing the other side and many times being condescending and racist towards Tibetan culture or whitewashing human rights abuses by the CCP towards Tibetans. I never said anti Tibetan hate was all over. I just gave my personal observation about what I thought I was seeing, merely the outright anti Tibetan voice getting louder. my comment was just to be cautious and combat outright apologia,not to completely invalidate the other side 2409:40E1:110B:380D:A1DF:AC10:9699:32AF (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "denying Tibetan sovereignty" since it's part of China. This fact is accepted by everyone/countries including people in Tibet itself. This reality won't change whether you like it or not. no matter how many fantasy wiki pages you create. And the only one here who's doing any sovereignty-denying is you.
It's sad to see people like you continue to destroy the reputation of wikipedia by creating false narratives. But it's also immensely satisfying to see people like you continue to fail. DemisJohnson (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@DemisJohnson pretty rich of you to claim I'm destroying Wikipedia by creating false narratives by regurgitating propaganda points. ik Tibet is considered a part of China today by most countries but you are portraying this in a completely simplified and dismissing tone for the other side. there is a whole debate on Tibetan sovereignty. do I think it's a black and white issue? no. but u certainly seem to think so 2409:40E1:19:14B:7EF6:4D8F:E268:2917 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Can I politely remind both of you that this article isn't about Tibetan sovereignty and that the WP:NOTFORUM sole purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to THAT article.Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pincrete yeah Ik. I was just responding to claims. I didn't want to bring up other stuff. I was just giving an idea for another article. sorry if it fell out of the genre 2409:40E1:19:14B:7EF6:4D8F:E268:2917 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm simply stating fact, if you consider that propaganda then you should perhaps consider going back and continue your education in high school.
It's not my fault that you can't handle the simple truth. You love to live in your own fantasy but please don't conflict that with reality. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment by doing that. DemisJohnson (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "political dissent" under "motive" in the infobox to be a link to the Wikipedia article for political dissent. Skylerthegamer (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Increase in anti-Chinese racism?

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The CIA-funded conspiracy theory that China is committing "genocide" against Chinese Turkic Muslims has had a demonstrable impact on the increase in anti-Chinese attitudes globally. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:14A8:9E0:45A3:2D98 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bring forward Wikipedia:Reliable sources, otherwise this proposition is WP:SYNTH. I'm willing to review an RS for this if you bring one forward. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Latest comment: 5 months ago17 comments8 people in discussion

The first picture has been proven to be illegitimate. The picture is in fact of a drug rehab center in Xinjiang. https://twitter.com/Kanthan2030/status/1743809318896738711 High quality pictures, including other angles, can be seen here. Xiliman (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not done: Twitter accounts aren't reliable sources. — Czello (music) 09:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xiliman: @Czello: I looked into this, and it appears the article isn't citing any reliable sources at the moment showing that this image is depicting a internment camp in Xinjiang. So, this editor does have the right to challenge it. Perhaps there is an alternate image which comes from a reliable source? Sagflaps (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Really? It took me all of ten seconds [1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
So that resolves their edit request if it's not already added to the page. Sagflaps (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I have found the resource: https://web.archive.org/web/20180821032854/https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1564669932542581
The original article should be news from Luopu County, Xinjiang, which mainly talks about how extremist religion leads them to commit crimes. This picture comes from a prison and is a normal state judicial act. There is no evidence to prove persecution. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Is that a blog post or a news article? I am not sure 石亭资讯 is considered a reliable source. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a news gathering platform. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like it’s a new aggregator without a clear original source then. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no clear source for that image either. Although some Western media forwarded it, they did not indicate the source when forwarding it. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
RFA's account of the provenance and content seems fairly complete - is there any reason to doubt it? Pincrete (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Still can't complete. Because Radio Free Asia is a political media, controlled by the US government.
Template:U.S. Agency for Global Media - Wikipedia
U.S. Agency for Global Media has a channel for all its competitors, such as Radio Free Europe for Russia. Such targeted news media cannot guarantee its neutrality and objectivity.
In addition, this is just a text description and cannot be proven true or false. Since you think the proof link I gave is not credible, please give me a more credible link, preferably this origin article, instead of giving me a paraphrase of the RFA. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the political bias of RFA, but in this context it doesn't impact its reliability - and the article itself shows detailed fact-checking, unlike any of the PRC sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
What you said is obviously discriminatory. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Not in the slightest. Pincrete (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If Radio Free Asia is allowed, why not twitter? 23.28.148.2 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They have an awful lot of (cowed and obedient) young male prisoners taking part in that "drug rehab program in a prison"!Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Radio Free Asia Sources

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Government propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. 23.28.148.2 (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RADIOFREEASIA, RFA is considered reliable: Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. — Czello (music) 14:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add Violence against Muslims in independent India and Demolition of the Babri Masjid article in the "See also" section of the article. Just like persuasion has taken place in China against Muslims, similarly, it happens in India too. Its quite similar the way discrimination happens. Thanks 2409:40E0:59:8056:506E:F081:4C96:898F (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not done: Outside the scope of the article – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 20:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Excessive references to Adrian Zenz

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Adrian Zenz, a senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, is referenced 6 times in the Mass detention section and 6 times in the IUDs and birth control section. An over-reliance on research produced by him, despite that he is a heavily interested character in this issue, serves against the credibility and quality of this article. As a leading scholar his findings should be mentioned, of course, but not without qualification or alternative sources and data. NipponGinko (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s likely more once you dig into sources as well; there’s a significant degree of circular reporting involving Zenz. I agree with your idea generally but it’s better to approach in a concrete way. What’s the specific edit or edits you want to make to address the issue? JArthur1984 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
But he's not a "leading scholar" and his evidence has been endlessly debunked. 2001:1C02:3019:2750:B0C0:AADE:226D:66E (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
A single person is not a secondary source. A secondary source is a conglomeration of the author, the reviewers, editors, editing policy, and institution where the work is published, combined with the filter of the secondary review of the primary material. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect citation?

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In Background - Xinjiang conflict - People's Republic of China (1949–present), there is the sentence:

"In February 1997, a police roundup and execution of 30 suspected "separatists" during Ramadan led to large demonstrations, which led to a PLA crackdown on protesters resulting in at least nine deaths in what became known as the Ghulja incident,"

which has footnote 63, which leads to "China: Human Rights Concerns in Xinjiang" (https://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/china-bck1017.htm) from Human Rights Watch. On that page, regarding the events of 1997, the page only seems to discuss two episodes, demonstrations that were suppressed in February 1997, and some bombings that took place in March 1997. The HRW page doesn't mention the execution of 30 suspected seperatists as a reason for the demonstration, or mention any cause of the demonstration, so I think the citation is used incorrectly here. Or the information may be in the article and I missed it.

I suggest that a new citation be added, which leads to the information about the 30 executed persons, instead of/in addition to the HRW citation.

I am new to wikipedia, please forgive me if there is anything that I have overlooked. L'étatisme (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Or if there is any additional information that I should provide. L'étatisme (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be correct. Thanks. I've added a tag in the hope that someone will correct/remove the unsupported text/citation. Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added several citations demonstrating the links between these events, and removed the "30" number, as this is not verifiable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Xinjiang internment camps into Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The two articles talk about the same events basically. 159.91.31.13 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are free to suggest a merger of the articles, but I would argue that this persecution article is broader in scope than the article on the internment camps. GnocchiFan (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Denial of abuses

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Should Uyghur genocide denial have it's own article?, I've seen a fair amount of people on the internet who deny it's happening Consistently Heinous (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The Uyghur genocide has been largely been debunked so no. It should not have its own article. 81.44.54.21 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure there’s enough content on the denial itself to generate a separate article, but it should definitely be included in this one. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I concur with Butterdiplomat's doubts about the volume being enough to start a new article. Personally I only know of a handful of 'apologist' news sites. Bear in mind that you will need independent WP:RS saying what person X/organisation Y/ group Z claim is/isn't happening and they would specifically need to say what kind of 'denial' (denial of mistreatment/ or acknowledging mistreatment, but arguing that it doesn't constitute 'genocide' for example). I'm aware of these pitfalls because of similar articles. Pincrete (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Those are straight up tankies and I suggest you sever all contact with them 166.198.175.17 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The photograph in the article certainly doesn't show any sign of physical abuse. All the men looked clean, well-fed, warmly clothed, and not a single scratch on any of them. 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:6067:6E2B:11FD:E666 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China/Archive_17&oldid=1258034850"