Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Playing with words: Genocide/ Genocidal

I read the trump administration's statement, and it does not appear to use the English word "genocide", but its adjective "genocidal". One can of course feel "suicidal" without committing "suicide". The "free" western media then printed "genocide" in the news and sowing frenzy in their readers. Of course trump's out of office and cannot now be held to account, but if ever the now defunct administration were asked to explain, all they have to say is "go and read our statement carefully. At no time did we say the Chinese carried out genocide, we simply stated that we feel their policy was genocidal." 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel this is splitting some extremely fine hairs. Calling a policy "genocidal" and saying the government responsible for the policy committed "genocide" are the same thing, there is no difference between them, and if the Trump administration ever tried to backtrack like that they would be laughed out of the room. Loki (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@liar. Do u think trump is scared of being laughed out of the room? We are talking about an american president, and american presidents are well known for taking liberties with the truth, especially trump. Go back to Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinski". Then he went on to claim that he did not lie, as (the truth of) what he said depend on whether it was in the plural or singular, what grammatical tenses were used, and what you mean by sexual relations. You can of course throw the Statute of Interpretation at him, as you could at trump. But back to what genocide actually is: It is the mass killing of a people. Genocide of the Uyghur people by the Chinese government is simply untrue, and clearly there is absolutely no evidence for it. The accusation is pure malice. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The accusation is not "pure malice", since it's not unfounded. There are legitimate indicators that the Chinese government is pursuing a policy of sinicization in the region, which, according to most definitions of the term (see the numerous discussions above), constitutes cultural, or even "proper" genocide. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@tucan. So the WASP americans have committed cultural genocide on all other americans. Why is that Black Americans are not speaking the African languages of their ancestors? How many Native Americans have the White Man slaughtered, yes killed ie "-cided"? The White Man did the same to the Aboriginals of Australia. As for the present Uyghur, why are they muslims? Because they were forced into the religion. Their ancestors were not muslims. Therefore the culture of their ancestors was not destroyed by the Chinese. Was the present uyghur language the language of their ancestors? No, the present uyghurs adopted the language of another people. Populations change languages, religions and ways of life throughout history. African-Americans now have no knowledge of the languages of their ancestors. Why didn't trump's administration call that cultural genocide, and that american policies have always been genocidal? The Chinese have not committed genocide against the Uyghurs. trump's administration even want to make the Uyghurs jobless. trump's statement is purely malicious to take the media off his own wrong doings and failure in the election. There is no genocide committed on the Uyghurs by the Chinese, nor are the Chinese policies genocidal. The Uyghurs' way of life as with all peoples around the world changed, and will continue to change, over time. Any accusations are trump's lies over and over again. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:6D79:B0AA:9972:4E95 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which support your argument? If you are more interested in understanding your own whataboutism argument might I suggest this piece, “Responding to Chinese ‘Whataboutism’: On Uyghur and Native Genocides,”[1] in The Diplomat? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@horse. Do you have any sources? Why don't you read trump's admin's statement for yourself? We are in the internet age, and everything is on the web. Just look it up for yourself. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:353D:ED01:EF0F:15B3 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for what? I haven’t made an argument here, I’m asking for clarification of what you said and supporting sources. Did you read the article I linked BTW? I thought you would find it immensely helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Commment: The OP is clearly playing word games, pushing a POV. Their reply to Tucan is over the top and should be addressed and this closed.  // Timothy :: talk  17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@horse. By adding your comments here, you are making an argument. You propagate your views without evidence on these pages and on other articles to slander China and the Chinese people. What is stated here is well known knowledge, and perhaps your ignorance of these facts means you are very poorly educated, and have to rely on lies. Please show us some real evidence of genocide. I don't need to cite any sources because there is no genocide to cite. Of course it does not stop liars from saying that there is genocide, and then others cite the liars to spread the lies. As for "cultural" genocide, perhaps Donald Trump himself can claim that the Trumps and he himself are victims of American cultural genocide, because the Trumps are German, who now cannot speak or understand the German language. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:8503:5059:49CB:D161 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

About this page

Please protect this page against vandals. They are everywere. My name has eaten (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given the fact that the Chinese government is apparently calling foreign expat activists now to threaten their families, I would be very surprised if there weren't a combination of both low- and high-skilled attempts to manipulate the page content here sponsored by the state, including vandalism. (And I also notice a couple of accounts taking different angles on so-called "reasonable concerns" about the article that have only become active in the past few months and ony edit content relating to China and its genocidal campaign). BlackholeWA (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The page is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. I don’t think it’s typical to raise the protection level of a page beyond that until we see autoconfirmed editors engaging in edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing. If you believe that this is occurring, you could take it to WP:RPP, though I personally don’t see evidence of an ongoing edit war or disruptive editing series that would justify a higher level of protection at this time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that there’s substantial evidence of American pro-war think tank and organizational interference with Wikipedia for years, your fear of editors being “sponsored by the state” is a super funny and hypocritical accusation to make. 47.218.105.234 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@anonymous editor: if you have evidence that certain edits or sources push a POV in some areas of Wikipedia, please raise it on the talk page of the relevant article. Vague mentions of alleged POV-pushing don't give us anything of value as they remain unactionable. Morgengave (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be cultural genocide

As of now, we don't know if there is really is a mass murder. That's why the title should be renamed. Cultural genocide refers to the destruction of an ethnicity, which is what is happening there. Tarekelijas (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been the subject of debate before, see here. Ultimately many of the sources we use label this as a genocide, and now we're even seeing political institutions do so too. — Czello 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass murder is not a necessary component of genocide, I would also note that cultural genocide is a type of genocide... The overriding descriptor would still be Uyghur genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Mass murder is not the only component of genocide. In the course of events to say if a mass murder is genocide, destruction of culture is one thing scholars look for, along with typical features like the murder of children and laws against miscegenation, as well as whether the government is one that formally enforces ethnic distinction (yellow stars, etc). Scholars are still debating what Lemkin meant by "cultural genocide". Rather than discrete "types of genocide", for those interested there is a great explanation of the current details in The Oxford Handbook of Legal History [2].

Oranjelo's point about fertility has been covered by the Associated Press in detail [3] and falls under genocide. According to the article experts are using the term "demographic genocide". [4] Gators bayou (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We do know that there is a campaign to cripple Uyghur fertility+targeted rapes. This falls under genocide. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not 100% on the rapes being “targeted” at Uyghurs per se, though there is certainly information out there indicating that the policies instituted by the government are leading to a systemic problem of Uyghurs being raped. I know it’s a fine line, but I am not sure that the government is actually instructing people to rape Uyghurs, even if it might be creating policies (such as the forcible quartering of Han Chinese men in the homes of Uyghur women and the defense of co-sleeping) that may be causing the widespread nature of cross-ethnic rapes in Xinjiang. I think the question of genocidal rape in Xinjiang might bridge into a debate akin to the Holocaust’s functionalism–intentionalism debate as time goes on (albeit with a meaningfully different factual basis). There is, however, clearly an intentional and ongoing campaign to sterilize Uyghurs against their will, and per our last move discussion we chose to move the page to its current spot as this sort of behavior had come increasingly to light. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is starting a war against China: if the Western countries call it genocide they are formally bound to start a war against China. Of course, it will be vetoed in the UN Security Council, but it still remains a very difficult political matter. It's like Let's declare war to China and hope that it gets canceled in the last moment before its start. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"if the Western countries call it genocide they are formally bound to start a war against China” thats not even a little bit true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No? There is a treaty against genocides: if you declare there is a genocide going on you have to send the troops to stop it. As simple as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The above about "having" to send troops is unsourced and the claim is simply not credible.  // Timothy :: talk  20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have made up that part of the Genocide Convention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

[5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you read that source before posting? It says the issue was potential "moral pressure” as a result of the designation which could lead to public expectations/pressure to use military force not a legal or treaty obligation to use force. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is not just cultural, but pretty much physical. See this with the actual report here ("The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention"). My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sources (more every day) show this is clearly not just cultural genocide, but cultural and physical.  // Timothy :: talk  20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

US state department lawyers would contradict that term of genocide as there's insufficient evidence to claim that. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/

So far, the biggest and most cited expert seems to be Adrian zenz and his report is questionable https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/

Claiming genocide without actual hard full evidence is akin to propaganda like on Libya war https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181025-how-the-world-was-misled-into-the-libyan-war/amp/. I recall BBC promoting targeted viagra rape by Libyan soldiers based on just a single verbal account at face value. That was later debunked as false propaganda after the war was finished. It was presented as real despite it was just an allegation promoted as facts. Nowadays we also have targeted rape accounts in China based also on verbal accounts.

That's not proven to be facts but just allegations. Since when does wikipedia claim something as facts when it is still allegations based on insufficient evidence and even the US department lawyers had acknowledged lack of evidence?49.180.226.13 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is not Pompeo and not just Zenz. For example, here is very serious report by an independent organization (mentioned here and in other publications), and it say this is just a genocide per Geneva convention, affirmative. This is different even from something they did with Tibet or with other ethnic minorities [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, Zenz is listed in the report as an individual that either was a co-contributor or someone who the report consulted. He's also only one of 33 individuals listed in the report in that capacity. Those 33 individuals include a former Dean of Harvard Law School, the current UNESCO chair on Genocide Education at the University of Southern California, the founding president of Genocide Watch, the director of International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, and many more reputable academics and lawyers. I don't think that the criticism of the report provided by the IP is sound (especially given that their argument against Zenz's reliability and/or due-ness seems to be based off of a self-published blog), but I do want to point this out for posterity's sake. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree 'cultural genocide' is a better term to use here. If it is just called 'Uighur genocide' it tends to lead people to equate it with the mass murder of Jewish people in World War II or the 1994 Rwanda genocide, but the Chinese gov't isn't being accused of trying to exterminate by mass murder, rather it is being accused of using intense persecution in order to stop the Uighurs from following their culture any longer and making them assimilate into becoming like Han Chinese, which isn't really the same thing as a systematic campaign of mass murder. Yes, it may meet the UN definition of 'genocide', but we also need to consider what the popular understanding and connotations that people carry with the word 'genocide' as well.Reesorville (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is cultural genocide, then many countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia, of world will be guilty. White america has completely wiped out the African culture of the Black African-Americans. None of the descendants of the African slaves can speak an African language, unlike the Uyghurs in China whose modern Uyghur language has always flourished. Mind you, Donald Trump himself may claim he and his family are victims of cultural genocide in america too, as the Trumps are Germans and are now unable to speak or understand German. Biden himself can also claim to be a victim of cultural genocide, as he has stated he is Irish, and yet the Irish Biden cannot speak or understand the Celtic language, and can only understand the English language of his colonial masters. And by definition, have not the religions of Christianity and Islam completely wiped out the cultures of civilisations that pre-dated them, and thereby the worst culprits of cultural genocide? Maybe you people should demand to put the vatican on trial for cultural genocide. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF1:B601:F525:4AEC (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia

The article uses Radio Free Asia as a source which seems quite problematic to me given that it is a primarily US government funded org that was set up by the CIA. We certainly would not use RT or Global Times or any other government propaganda agency so why are we using what is essentially the Western version of Russia Today?PailSimon (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think more broadly a thread should be started about Radio Free Asia at WP:RSN. I suspect it's used as a source in more articles than just this one, so it'd be good for a definitive decision to be made there and then it be added to WP:RSP. Just noticed that there is a thread about RFA at that noticeboard. Let's wait for that discussion to conclude and then take a call on this article accordingly. — Czello 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to provide some final context, the results of the RfC at the noticeboard can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA). A short entry summarizing them is available at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Excerpt:

“ Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. 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. ” — Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, entry on Radio Free Asia (RFA)

TucanHolmes (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly a "geopolitically-charged area", meaning that RFA's claims need in-line attribution, with an explanation that RFA is US government media. One of the reasons given in the RfC for exercising caution with regard to RFA was that RFA has pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 epidemic in China (specifically, it has pushed conspiracy theories about the death toll being orders of magnitude larger than what scientific studies find). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is what the article has been doing. Beginning in the subsection on Mosques, we note that Radio Free Asia, a United States government-funded, nonprofit international broadcasting corporation, reported that in 2018, a plaque containing Quranic scriptures, that had long hung outside the front entrance of the mosque, had been removed by the authorities to "eliminate Uyghur faith, literary works, and language". Following this, we should be attributing content solely sourced to RFA as "Radio Free Asia reported" or something along the lines of "a report from Radio Free Asia said". This is in line with how the deprecated(!) Global Times is used (such as in Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, where it is introduced as CCP-affiliated media and attributed thereafter). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "reported" is really the right word here: "say" would be more neutral. An additional factor to consider is whether we're giving too much weight to US government media. RFA is very heavily used in this article, as it stands. I count 20 references to RFA (only 9 of which have in-line attribution). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Reported is fine", and RFN is reliable, unlike CCP's media. Oranjelo100 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

United States

Amigao removed the following sentence from the lead: "The United States is the only country to have declared the human rights abuses a genocide, a decision made January 19, 2021, by then President Donald Trump despite reservations by the U.S. State Department." Their explanation was "positions of particular countries are already listed below and do not belong in the 3rd paragraph."[7] However they did not move the information elsewhere.

It is relevant to the paragraph it was in, which begins, "International reactions have been mixed, with 54 United Nations (UN) member states supporting China's policies in Xinjiang." The fact that one nation (and only one) classifies it as genocide summarizes international reactions.

TFD (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Good work. The lead section is incredibly lopsided, though it has improved with your edit. The text regarding the State Department viewpoints were recently pushed down to the classification subsection on the basis of "WP:UNDUE", which was ironically against the point. I'm sure classifications made by them are more "due weight" than the "East Turkistan Government-in-Exile". RachetPasse (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources point to Trump himself as having made the decision. Most RS are reporting that the decision was made by the then-U.S. Secy. of State Mike Pompeo, and I can't find sources that point to it coming directly from the top. And, while we could include information on each country's internal deliberative process in the article, I don't think that information is due in the lead, which is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents per MOS:LEAD. I don't think that the internal deliberative processes in the United States regarding its decision to classify meet that threshold. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement is an over-simplification given recent events (see: 1). Also, there is a more nuanced treatment of the United States' position in the subsequent section listing out various countries' positions so there is no reason to state only a single country's views in the lead. That would make the lead a bit too US-centric. - Amigao (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you forget the vital part which stated it was a non-binding motion, brought forward by opposition Conservatives or are you being deliberate? RachetPasse (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Calling the human rights violations a genocide when the U.S. is the only country to have made that call is U.S. centric. It is not U.S. centric to point out that no other country has made that call. The Guardian article is an oversimplification. Canada's lower house of parliament, the House of Commons, adopted a resolution, which belongs in the article. But none of the cabinet members voted and the prime minister has said that he will make a decision later. [Note: A resolution is, "A motion adopted by the House in order to make a declaration of opinion or purpose. A resolution does not have the effect of requiring that any action be taken." - House of Commons][8] TFD (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If a resolution is a motion adopted for the purposes of declaring an opinion, then I think it's reasonable to say that Canada's House of Commons have declared the ongoing events in Xinjiang to constitute a genocide. Stating that opinion and affirming it formally in a resolution seems to be in line with reporting from The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, Axios, other reliable sources who have stated that Canada has deemed the events to be a genocide. Since we are relying on the reporting of WP:RS to write this article, I think that it's reasonable to include Canada. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in the comment you are replying to, "Canada's lower house of parliament, the House of Commons, adopted a resolution, which belongs in the article." However the House of Commons is not Canada. While it is part of the legislative branch, it is the executive which determines Canada's foreign policy. That's actually similar to the U.S., where the President not the House of Representatives, determines foreign policy. Note that Canadian news sources do not say that Canada made this decision. The CBC News headline for example is "MPs vote to label China's persecution of Uighurs a genocide." It says, "Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau was the only cabinet minister present. When it was his turn, he said he abstained "on behalf of the Government of Canada."" So Canada has no official position on whether it is a genocide.

Note too that in order for House of Commons resolutions to be binding, similar to the U.S., they must be approved by the Senate and the head of state or their representative, at which point they become laws.

TFD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, besides noting that the resolution passed the most we can say that the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and Greens (that is all but one major party) are calling for sanctions over the matter [9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The United States don't particularly like Muslims or the Chinese, including its own citizens of Chinese ethnicity and its own Muslims, nor are they particularly concerned with their rights, but they are now claiming that somehow they like and are concerned for Chinese Muslims. Sounds like the US is very disingenuous and hypocritical. 86.173.159.198 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of US hybrid warfare efforts? Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson highlights the geopolitical strategy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBthA9OHpFo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine not in this article, unless we can find RS that somehow tie this sort of thing to the ongoing Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Is "Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity" considered RS? There is also Sibel Edmonds for "Newsbud" who collaborate the hybrid warfare efforts (testimony here) but I don't know how to check if something is considered RS on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese invitation to UN Human Rights Commission

Given the fact that calls for a UN Human Rights investigation are discussed in the lede, I believe it is notable that China has invited the UN to visit and worth mentioning in the lede. I appreciate other opinions. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not due, its also highly unlikely to be genuine. The comment was “The door to Xinjiang is always open. People from many countries who have visited Xinjiang have learned the facts and the truth on the ground. China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang,”[10] which as all WP:RS has noted is not true, Xinjiang is one of the hardest places in the world to get information about and visit in a free capacity. For example Al-jazeera whose reporting on the invitation I just linked was literally kicked out of China for reporting on Xinjiang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be true that the invitation is not genuine, but the sources do not indicate that. The WHO just completed an investigation in Wuhan and a lot of the scientists have indicated the the government was fairly open. If we are going to report on calls for an investigation in the lede, I really think it is worth considering reporting on the response from the government. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to be a WP:FALSEBALANCE, we have no indication its due for the lead. It also literally just happened, see WP:RECENTISM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the Foreign Minister also said “basic facts show that there has never been so-called genocide, forced labour or religious oppression in Xinjiang” which is just as ridiculous. Chinese government sources have zero reliability here and I’m not seeing them being treated as reliable by WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@horse. Can you give us proof that Chinese government sources have zero reliability to back up your claim? From the trump government sources over the past 4 years, it would appear that it is us government sources that have zero reliability. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF1:B601:F525:4AEC (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily false balance. If an article reported, "X asked Y to do Z" the logical question is to then answer "what did Y do?" I think it may be worth indicating that a UN investigation has not been launched, but China has indicated an openness for such an investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk790 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We have no sources claiming that China has indicated an openness for such an investigation, they appear to say the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang" indicates openness. How would you characterize? Dhawk790 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We can’t characterize, the quote isn't from a WP:RS its from a Chinese government official. If a WP:RS said "China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang” then it would be a different story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the source was about who was reporting, not who was saying it. So in this case a reliable source is reporting on the words of a government official, there are other examples of this in the article. So for example, the Zenz report uses Chinese government statistics, it is Zenz who is reporting it, but the information comes from the Chinese government, I don't think it would be fair to consider Zenz as unreliable because of that. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We could say Official X said “China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang” but we could not turn that quote into a factual statement or attribute the opinion to AJ. But again, it still wouldn't be due for the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If the call for investigation is due, why isn't the response? Dhawk790 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Because we have significantly more coverage of one vs the other, due weight is based on coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think your point about it being a recent development is important. It may be worth re-considering after some time has passed and potentially more coverage emerges. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dhawk790: it seems waiting was the correct choice, it appears China never intended to allow an unfettered UN visit let alone an investigation of any kind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Add sentence to lead clarifying that this genocide does not include mass killings

I have read the debate about whether to call this a genocide, and I don't intend to re-open that can of worms. Consensus at the moment stands that this is a genocide.

However, it is worth noting that for most people, genocide brings to mind images of mass killings, as in the Armenian, Rwandan, or anti-Jewish genocides of the past. The definition of genocide used here (prevention of births, sterilization, mass internment, cultural suppression) is much less familiar to the vast majority of readers.

The current lead skirts around this, but importantly, does not clarify two things: 1) According to reliable sources, *this* genocide does not include mass killings 2) Nevertheless, the actions of the Chinese government are considered genocide. It describes those actions, but does not make a link to a definition of genocide that helps explain to the reader why this is genocide even though there are no mass killings. We should add a sentence that makes this clear. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Its the same definition of genocide... Mass killing has never been a necessary part of the definition. If people are uninformed about what the term “genocide” means thats not really our problem is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the usa is the biggest practitioner of genocide. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think as an encyclopedia it's our job to inform people in a way that avoids confusion. Genocide is an extremely important term and making sure readers understand the way it's being used in an article called 'Uyghur genocide' seems worthwhile. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If readers don’t know what this “extremely important” term means then I expect them to click on the linked genocide right in the beginning of the lead. If our readers are misinformed and don’t wish to alleviate their ignorance there isn’t really much we can do there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that at that least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass killings, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

[11]

@oranje. What do you mean by you think? We are not here for what you think or what I think. Where is the evidence? The article you quote are made by Falum Gong. You are in the wrong article. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:4115:A10A:A8EB:B894 (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you genuinely think uyghur body parts are generally transplant compatible for the majority Han Chinese? They might be compatible for other uyghurs, but the compatibility with the Han peoples must be very, very low, and practically useless as a source. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A992:ED36:EF8E:93EF: Organ harvesting in Xinjiang has been going on for many years and evidence continues to be published about this (in sources that include peer-reviewed academic journals). I don't understand where your denial is coming from here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@mike. Just checked your references and not a single one of them say 25,000 uyghurs are being killed every year for organs. The articles and claims (some of which are dubious) are for organ transplants in China. So where's your evidence that 25000 uyghurs a year are killed for organs? Even in the UK now, organ donation is from presumed consent. That is to say, in a civilised country such as the UK, unless you explicitly not consent before you die, your organs could be removed from you on death for transplantation. There are likely to be more than 25,000 deaths a year in the whole of China from traffic accidents alone. 07:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:4115:A10A:A8EB:B894 (talk)

The (peer-reviewed!) source from BMC Medical Ethics stated that the evidence examined by the authors can only be plausibly explained by systematic falsification and manipulation of official organ transplant datasets in China. Some apparently nonvoluntary donors also appear to be misclassified as voluntary. The source also notes that In late 2005, Chinese officials first publicly admitted to the use of organs from executed prisoners. Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source. In its conclusion, the source states that rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivized by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors. The source also notes a mysterious jump of 25K organs in the system transplanted on a particular day. That is to say, the organ donation program isn't as voluntary as officials portray it as.

I responded to your question providing you with several sources documenting Chinese organ harvesting (including harvesting of Uyghur organs). If you read the articles, there is plenty of evidence for the historical practice of organ harvesting (both among prisoners of conscience and death row inmates). If you are wondering for the source on the 25,000 number, the sourcing I have found is Haaretz citing Ethan Gutmann, who the source describes as a world expert on the issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: While Gutmann is the most prolific investigative journalist looking at organ harvesting, I think some caution is needed with his numbers (beyond the contextual knowledge that he works for an anti-communist organisation, as noted below). The article is currently appropriately careful and attributes the reports to Gutmann. Only one of the journal articles you've provided explicitly describes organ harvesting in Xinjiang. It's Ethan Gutmann in World Affairs (pp. 51–52) from 2012 (before the 2014 ramping up of repression), and he describes it as part of China's response to Uyghur protests in the 1990s and a wider pan-China policy of killing prisoners. He suggests the Uyghurs were treated particularly awfully in the 1990s with regards to organ harvesting – he says prisoners not on death row may have been killed, citing an interview with a "young doctor" who described being "ordered to begin blood-testing prisoners in the political wing of an Urumqi prison ... in search of viable organs" – although Gutmann says "then the trail goes cold [for several years]"; he goes on to to "reconstruct the next decade of organ harvesting" only discussing Falun Gong and in the article we attribute him as saying that organ harvesting in Xinjiang had fallen by 1999. Gutmann has since made a connection between the mass interment of Uyghurs and organ harvesting, but I'm not sure he's done so in a peer-reviewed paper? The rest of your sources above say the following (generally attributing reports to Gutmann or others):

• Journal of Medical Ethics (2020): "The procurement situation is further complicated by the fact that Chinese authorities insist that when prisoners do donate organs they do so voluntarily and without coercion. The fact is that some minorities are treated as prisoners solely due to their ethnicity or religion or both. For example, an August 2018 United Nations human rights panel stated that it had received many credible reports that one million ethnic Uyghurs in China are being held in ‘re-education camps’." (p. 687)
• Harvard International Review (2017): "Suspicions first arose in 2006 that state-run Chinese hospitals were killing prisoners of conscience to sell their organs. Targeted groups were alleged to include religious and ethnic minorities, such as Uighurs, Tibetans, underground Christians and practitioners of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement" (p. 17)
• BMC Medical Ethics (2019): "Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source" (p.3, various cites, predominantly Gutmann or relating to Falun Gong)
• American Journal of Transplantation (2014): "While Falun Gong practitioners remain the largest persecuted group,there is evidence of similar fates for other minority groups in China such as Uighur Muslims, Tibetans and Christians (29)" (p. 2248, citing Gutmann)
• Journal of Democracy (2013): "To mention one dramatic example highlighted by China analyst Ethan Gutmann: Highly unethical practices occasioned by the shortage of transplantable organs—including what appears to be organ-harvesting from the bodies of live prisoners—are now a nationwide scourge (and, some say, a shoe waiting to drop in the Bo Xilai scandal). These practices were first tested on condemned prisoners in Xinjiang." (p.77) Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oranjelo100: sorry I meant to ping you also. Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

While the repetition of Gutmann's research in multiple journals indicates that academics take it seriously, there is a notable lack of other sources independently connecting organ harvesting with Xinjiang since 2014. It's of course made difficult by the fact that the CCP has been trying its hardest to keep things hidden, but I would hope (and expect) that more sources will appear over time regarding this. WP:VNT. Jr8825 • Talk 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Another source (or really set of sources) I had not listed above is the China Tribunal (and the coverage) thereof. The Tribunal itself had stated that Uyghurs were at risk of organ harvesting, an item that was widely reported (I can provide sources later today, but I am currently in a bit of a hurry). Generally, it had been covered as "Uyghurs are at risk" between 2015 and 2020, though a WP:GREL reporting in 2020 on the findings of an expert source whose investigative work has been published in multiple academic journals (and widely cited, at that) would justify due weight for inclusion in the article with attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To add on to my prior point, there has been reporting from a WP:GREL that Gutmann had brought up concerns about the Uyghurs as early as 2013, when he was investigating Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. China later announced that that it would stop organ harvesting in 2015, though even the BBC report covering the announcement notes that [China] has said for many years that it will end the controversial practice. It previously promised to do so by November last year. It's pretty clear that the announcement has been generally met with skepticism, and research has been done towards that end (including by Gutmann, but the doubt of China's ceasing of organ harvesting seems to be pretty common).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The medical journals you linked treat it very much as an ongoing problem and didn't suggest there were any signs of China changing direction. I guess the question is more about whether China has increased organ harvesting in Xinjiang as part of its genocidal/ethnocidal policy there, and how strong the evidence is for this. Jr8825 • Talk 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825 and Oranjelo100:In addition to the above, I've looked and tried to find some sources regarding the organ harvesting claims more generally. There have been some peer-reviewed academic sources that have referred to China's treatment of Falun Gong via organ harvesting as genocide, though the scope of the article was mostly limited to the impact of organ harvesting on Falun Gong (Uyghurs were noted to have composed ~11% of all organs harvested, but the article did not make a genocide analysis with respect to the Uyghurs). There is a law review article that is pretty straightforward about this being a genocide (it writes The Xi administration’s (and by extension the Communist Party’s) agenda for Xinjiang seeks to accomplish the same basic goal of removing dissidents and potential dissidents belonging to an ethnic group without the international condemnation and internal strife involved in forced migration and genocide. ...In Xinjiang this effort has three key components. The first is a vast surveillance network which combines a large and extremely active police presence with cutting edge technology designed to monitor the populace at all times. The second is the da fa, meaning “strike hard,”campaign which arrests dissidents and anyone with even a remote connection to dissident activity. The third is the internment camps themselves which forcibly re-educate those arrested.). That article seems to work organ harvesting in at the very end by citing a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and framing it as new, horrific allegations, though it makes its analysis with respect to genocide independent of the organ harvesting as a whole. Another source writes about organ harvesting of Uyghurs, saying that Uighur prisoners serve a growing demand, as their organs are classified as halal, which points to a motive of harvesting organs for the sake of obtaining halal organs. In short, there's a lot of mention of the organ harvesting, and there is some mention of the harvesting in those articles that describe the situation as a genocide, but most of the sources that describe the situation as a genocide don't seem to rely on the organ harvesting in making that determination.

In terms of additional news pieces, the National Catholic Register writes that organ harvesting and human trafficking are other atrocities regularly committed against Uyghurs and other people designated enemies of the state. Fox News reports that human rights activists and international leaders are collecting evidence that the beleaguered Uighur Muslim community in Xinjiang province, also known as East Turkistan, could be the latest in a long line of state-sanctioned "victims" being killed for their hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys and other vital body parts – sometimes extracted from their bodies while still alive. Public Radio International appears to put the organ harvesting on the same level as the forced sterilization, writing that After more than 70 years of Chinese rule over the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, there’s mounting evidence that in recent years, their occupation has intensified into an environment of strict surveillance, with more than a million Uighurs held in internment camps. Reports show many are forced to pick cotton and work in factories that supply international brands and that some Uighurs are even subjected to forced sterilizations and organ harvesting. Nepali news site Khabarhub reported that a recent report documented how the religious minority has been subject to massacres, mass internment camps, torture, organ harvesting, and disappearances in addition to forced birth control and sterilization. News.com.au has reported that healthy prisoners are euthanised so their internal organs can be removed and sold on a lucrative multibillion-dollar black market in a story that was republished by The Queensland times.

My apologies if this is a wall of sources without much of an explanation for each individual source, though I wanted to respond and also note some of the sources I have seen that I had not brought up before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to dissect every single one of these sources, but the "Year of the Bat" source from the King's College is hardly a reliable one. The entire paper is a politically driven and speculative piece of geopolitical opinion rather than any semblance of research. The "halal organ" claim is bizarre borderine geopolitical poetry on par with the several literary quotes sprinkled in the source along with flirtations of the idea of the virus being a bioengineered weapon to destroy the west. Deku link (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The piece states that Conspiracy theorists, not content with the possibility of an accidental leak of the virus, argue that Covid-19 was an experimental biological weapon and that the veracity of such claims may be highly questionable. I don't think that's favorable coverage of the people who think it's an engineered bioweapon (though you are certainly justified in worrying that it strongly entertains a lab leak theory, which per a recent RfC got a no consensus on if it is a WP:FRINGE theory/conspiracy theory). It's certainly not a WP:MEDRS, and I would not use it to make medical claims, but I don't think it's completely out-of-line on the claim regarding Halal organs. Other sources, such as Taiwan News, Radio Free Asia, and the Sydney Morning Herald have reported on allegations of the sort before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@mike. Can't you supply a better source? How can you spin 25000 transplants into the killing of 25000 uyghurs by the Chinese government? I hope you realise when you die, say in the UK, and they take your body for organ donation, they can without your consent take all your organs, eg heart, 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, liver, 2 corneas, maybe even your face, 4 limbs, etc for transplant. Therefore 1 dead body can give multiple organ transplants. 25000 transplants come from far fewer than 25000 dead people. You also spin the rumours into 25000 people must be 25000 people from Xinjiang, and because it is Xinjiang, then they must all be uyghurs, and these uyghurs must be uyghur prisoners, and all uyghur prisoners must be political prisoners. Do you think there are no Han Chinese prisoners in Xinjiang, and that uyghurs do not do crimes? None of the sources you quote claim that all the organs for the transplantation came from the one province in China called Xinjiang, let alone that they came from uyghurs. Tell me when you take organs for transplantation, can you just transplant them into anyone? Of course not, the recipients have to be compatible with the donors. I would say the chance of a match between a uyghur Chinese and a Han Chinese is a lot lower than a match between their respective peoples. Most of the organ from uyghurs would probably be transplanted into other uyghurs, and if they go to foreigners, as some of your sources claim, the most likely recipients are turkish people. You also spin the story into something like a horror movie, that uyghurs are killed to order for their organs, which is total nonsense. In China, there is the death sentence, but it is only carried out for very severe crimes. Even so, the Chinese system is however still a lot fairer than the system in america, as you can see people such as George Floyd was killed by government agents without the chance of a trial or prison. There is not just the one George Floyd, think of all the other Black people who are killed that way, no trial and no chance of prison. Those in China who are executed probably deserve to be executed in the eyes of their local people. In america Black people are lynched for committing no crimes at all. If you are really concerned about organ harvesting, then you should be more concerned about not letting things as in the following reference happen to people in your country https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9419141/Teenager-18-declared-brain-dead-hit-van-wakes-up.html , where in the UK they can declare you dead when you are not, so that they can harvest your organs. 81.141.207.254 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL. Jr8825 • Talk 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Gutmann's estimates should definitely stay, and there are other sources who state that killings are happening like the Newline report. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjelo100 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit more and reading through sources in responses to questions from Jr8825, I'm actually not sure that we should report that there are in fact no mass killings of Uyghurs; I don't think that is what reliable sources are stating in their more recent coverage. Enough reliable sources are reporting on the organ harvesting stuff (see my comments above) that us trying to write the article in a way that mass killings do not in fact happen actually seem to not be supported by RS. If forcible organ harvesting—the killing of live Uyghurs for their organs—is going on in Xinjiang as these RS report, then we should report the organ harvesting on the page with details from sources. I'm also not able to find reliable sources that deny the organ harvesting outright, though if they exist then I would ask an editor to provide them since it would help provide balance in the article. Additionally, I'd like to raise the point that there have also been widely reported allegations of infanticide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The specific allegations are that Chinese doctors have been ordered by officials to kill Uyghur infants, which would reasonably constitute mass killing of infants if true (though obviously the comments should be attributed to the alleging party when we write in wikivoice, owing to the way that the allegations are being covered in the sources). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz

Adrian Zenz is not a credible source, and everything about this ultimately leads back to him. He is a religious right extremist, an anti-Semite, a women's rights opponent, and based all of his claims on a single report by Istiqlal TV. "Even more deranged, Zenz’s big genocide study claimed that women in Xinjiang receive 800 to 1600 IUD insertions per capita. That means every Uighur woman is surgically implanted with 4 to 8 IUDs every single day of the year." https://www.mintpressnews.com/china-uighur-genocide-behind-us-government-propaganda/276085/?fbclid=IwAR0bVpitL9_rklQJxqBCw8iKkCoPQ7dwjQGDQ2gt44cdXCcCMFYqtMXUg94 --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a real source? You appear to have linked to Mint Press News which does not meet the standards of our WP:BLP policy. A policy which I would note applies on talk pages as well, you might want to do some editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz is co-author of a book, Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation, where he argues that there will be two raptures. According to him, we are living in the end times and Jesus will return shortly. One third of Jews will be "refined in God's fiery furnace and will end up obtaining salvation," while the other two thirds will burn for eternity. While I respect your right to hold whatever views you do, even if they differ from mine, Zenz's views are not consistent with mainstream scholarship on astrophysics or social sciences. Anyway, I think that an argument about the rapture would be a distraction on this page, so if you want to argue that it has mainstream support in reliable sources, please take it to my talk page. TFD (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Theology as a field is not consistent with mainstream scholarship on astrophysics or social sciences, that is particularly true of eschatology. What does that have to do with out BLP policy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mintpress is a conspiracy theories promoting site. This isn't a reliable source. His religious believes are irrevelant to Uyghur genocide. Data is available showing massive drops in birth rates. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Religious views are relevant if he is interpreting current events to fit in to his theory that we are living in the end times when antichrists will persecute and kill "God's people." Also, he's a researcher with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Furthermore, the media is merely reporting his views, then are not endorsing them. TFD (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for those claims, without that it's wp:synth and wp:or. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously some degree of critical thinking is required in evaluating the reliability of sources. There are credibility issues for the reporting of current events by someone who interprets them as the end times struggle between Satan and God's people, foretold long ago in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Zenz said for example that the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank were required in order for Christ to return. TFD (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To borrow from the Christian Zionism article, Christian Zionism is an idea that has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecy. A 2017 LifeWay poll conducted in United States found that 80% of evangelical Christians believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about Christ's return and more than 50% of Evangelical Christians believed that they support Israel because it is important for fulfilling the prophecy. According to the Pew Research survey in 2003, more than 60% of the Evangelical Christians and about 50% of Blacks agreed that the existence of Israel fulfilled biblical prophecy. About 55% of poll respondents said that the Bible was the biggest influence for supporting Israel which is 11 times the people who said church was the biggest influence.

His religious beliefs don't seem to be disqualifying here in any narrowly tailored sense and they seem to be fairly common. Zenz has also seemed to have articulated some belief in Hell, which the author of the piece you've linked has bizarrely chosen to characterize as anti-semetic. The notion that we should be prejudiced against Zenz's work because of his religious faith doesn't seem to be due here, especially when boatloads of reliable sources have reported on it so heavily.

Also, are you arguing that Zenz believes that Muslims are God's people? I don't see any evidence for that except for the dubious Mint Press News link you have provided (the source has a history of reposting links from deprecated sources, such as RT and from Sputnik). On its face, I don't think the argument that has been presented has legs to stand on.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the definitions of God's people: "people who worship or believe in God." (Oxford)[13] That seems to be the meaning in p. 240, where under the "Antichrist's world dominion...[he] will implement the worst-ever persecution of God's people." Although Zenz does not define God's people, in context it appears he is using this definition rather than the narrower definition of God's people as Jews only. He mentions for example that the anti-Christ would persecute the church (p. 210).

Also, per Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, we don't give equal weight to views that have no acceptance in reliable sources, even if they are popular.

I notice you dislike conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of events based on the belief in an evil, all powerful and all knowing cabal, in this case directed by Satan and his lieutenants in the New World Order, which was created by the UK and U.S., France and the USSR, which is identified as the "Three Beasts." (p. 38) Do I have to explain why this is a less than credible explanation of post-WW2 history?

TFD (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

This is off-topic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also WP:FORUM. Oranjelo100 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Zenz has fringe views about the existence of the rapture is irrelevant to his reporting on Uyghurs. Just read Religious views of Isaac Newton, Isaac Newton's claim that the world would end sometime after 2060 doesn't detract from the foundational work he did in physics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We accept Newton's laws of physics because they have been tested and correctly don't accept anything else he wrote as authoritative. If someone determines the facts from biblical prophesy and sets out to prove them, then we are rightly sceptical. The same applies to Zenz' interpretation of Western countries today. For example, he believes that the enlightenment, modernism and post-modernism all contributed to the rise of the final antichrist through teaching moral relativism, mistrust of authority and atheism, and building global communication and transportation and modern technology. The scientific, rational approach is to base conclusions on evidence.

Oranjelo100, as I replied to you before, "WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously some degree of critical thinking is required in evaluating the reliability of sources. There are credibility issues for the reporting of current events by someone who interprets them as the end times struggle between Satan and God's people, foretold long ago in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Zenz said for example that the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank were required in order for Christ to return." [23:12, 16 March 2021][14]

TFD (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz does not appear to mix their eschatology with their work on human rights in China, WP:RS say he’s an expert and his work is accepted by other experts in that field... Do you have sources which say otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Zenz has said that his writings on China are part of a mission from God (in the WSJ, for example, though I think he's also said this elsewhere). More concerning is that he works for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is a US-government think tank created explicitly to convince the public of the evils of Communism (some might categorize this as propaganda). Claims made by Zenz should be clearly attributed, and the fact that he works for an anti-Communist US-government think tank should be mentioned. Looking through the article, this connection does not appear to be explained anywhere. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad you have no WP:RS which say he is unreliable. As for the new point I’ve never seen the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation described like that, do you have any sources which back up this extremely strong take? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When the VCMF was brought up at the RSN, the reception was overwhelmingly negative, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation. I agree that claims by Zenz should be attributed, but he's such a consistent presence in mainstream coverage of Uyghur issues that we can't avoid discussing his claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We all agree Zenz should be attributed, we already do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As for my description of the VCMF, I think it's fairly uncontroversial (look at the first sentence of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). As for attribution, while Zenz is mentioned a few times by name, the fact that he works for an anti-Communist US-government think tank is not. This is part of a broader problem in this article: various people and organizations are cited, but who those people are and what those organizations are is not explained. For example, Ethan Gutmann is simply described as an independent reseracher and expert on human rights abuses in China. The fact that he works for VCMF (and the nature of VCMF) is not described, though they are clearly relevant, given the claims he's making. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that its "a US-government think tank created explicitly to convince the public of the evils of Communism” I don’t see that on our page about the organization or in any of the linked sources. WP:RS treat them as experts and their claims as credible, it is not within our power to second guess them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm essentially paraphrasing their own self-description, which you can read here: [15]. Here's an extract:

To further this vision, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's mission is to educate future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism and to advocate for the freedom of those still held captive by communist regimes. Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.

This is quite explicitly a propaganda organization created by the US government. Their claims about China should be taken with extreme caution. If their claims are mentioned in an article, they must be attributed, and the attribution must describe the nature and purpose of the organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The discussion regarding the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is based upon the question, "Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?". This is not the question that we are attempting to answer here, which is about the credibility of Adrian Zenz, but instead is about the general reliability of the group as it is. Instead, to determine the credibility of Zenz more generally, let's examine what reliable sources say about Zenz's work. Perennial reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, have referred to Zenz's work as "groundbreaking, empirical work" in their news reporting (their editorial board also notes elsewhere that, Reuters "has independently corroborated the Zenz documents and evidence"). His work in the Journal of Political Risk has been cited to back up facts in a paper published in Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, editorials from The Washington Post (1 2 3 4), as well as other reports from reliable news organizations (including The Independent and the BBC). His other work has been explicitly cited or positively described countless times by a plethora of reliable news organizations, including The Washington Post (1 2 3 4 5 6), The New York Times (1 2 3), The Wall Street Journal (1 2), Reuters (1 2 3 4 5 6), ABC News , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), the Associated Press (1 2 3 4 5 ), the CBC, Axios, Fox News (1 2 3), NBC News, NPR (1 2), and many others. If widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that Zenz is not a credible source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz does not meet the standard of expert in Wikipedia which normally requires academic training in the area, a university appointment and most importantly a body of relevant literature in peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic publishers. This issue comes up frequently at RSN where journalists, members of think tanks and writers of popular books are discussed. Being called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting.

I didn't click all the links but Cate Cadell at Reuters describes him as "an independent Tibet and Xinjiang researcher" whose findings on Tibet were published by the Jamestown Foundation. She further says that Reuters corroborated his findings and reported China's response. That's how we maintain accuracy and neutrality in articles: we attribute in text every claim, we tell readers in text who the claimant is and where the claim was made, and we comment on the degree of acceptance of the claim and what the accused person says. We shouldn't treat Zenz like a latter day prophet whose words are gospel and should be reported as fact.

TFD (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you feel that news organizations, such as the Associated Press, are not competent at doing research for investigative reporting? It seems like news organizations might have quite a bit of competence in performing research during investigations to uncover malfeasance by state and non-state actors alike. I agree that we shouldn't trust any single person as a latter-day prophet who can never err when self-publishing, especially for exceptional claims. But, when multiple independent reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journal articles) confirm Zenz's research or report them as facts without comment, we should have no special hesitation to include them in the article as such simply because Zenz is the one doing the legwork to produce the research in question. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You would save everyone a lot of time if you read other editors posts before replying to them. Please read my post again before making strawman arguments against it. TFD (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

David Cohen, who was featured yesterday by Lee Camp, notes that many of the other sources, include a great deal of news articles, ultimately trace back to Zenz.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that most of the original research is coming from Gutman and Zenz, both researchers for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. While the information they provided wouldn't surprise me, I cannot accept two researchers for an organization we have determined to be unreliable. So, as I said and was misrepresented by Mikehawk10, we should not consider Zenz to be a modern day prophet, but report his opinions in the same way that reliable sources do. That is, "we attribute in text every claim, we tell readers in text who the claimant is and where the claim was made, and we comment on the degree of acceptance of the claim and what the accused person says."[23:01, 17 March 2021] Why should we report their statements as facts when mainstream media doesn't? TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent you? I'm offering a counterpoint regarding the ability of news organizations to conduct investigations more generally, which might play a role in determining the credibility behind describing Zenz as an expert/credible investigative researcher. My other point was that we shouldn't have a special hesitation to include Zenz's research when multiple independent sources cite Zenz. I think we're in agreement that we need to follow the WP:RS guideline, and I think that WP:USEBYOTHERS plays a key role here regarding Zenz's work on Xinjiang in particular. The RfC on VoCMF concluded that we can't cite VoCMF for its information on its website in a very specific case—estimates for mass murder in a specific article—with many editors citing its role as an advocacy organization and arguing that it's a self-published source. And, to be fair, the article in question in the RfC was certainly a self-published source. That's significantly different than the case of looking at Zenz's work that has been corroborated by news agencies and used as a source for facts in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. I don't think that we should have a special level of skepticism on the media sources simply because many of them have used Zenz's work (or even, like perennial reliable source Reuters, explicitly corroborated Zenz's work), absent a similar number of similar quality reliable sources reporting that Zenz's work is not credible. If you can find such RS, I'd be happy to reconsider, but until then I don't see any reason why we can't use Zenz's work in the article (provided that such work has been used for facts by sources the community finds to be generally reliable) since I have been unable to find any (and, to the best of my knowledge, other editors have not presented them).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You asked me, "Do you feel that news organizations, such as the Associated Press, are not competent at doing research for investigative reporting?" That's after I said that we should report Zenz' statements in the same way that Reuters did. That's called a strawman argument. Instead of addressing what I said, you falsify my statements and attack them. I have better things to do with my time than to argue with dishonest criticisms. I don't want to argue with people who pretend to be stupid. Why do you want to use that approach to arguments? Can't you come up with rational arguments to support your beliefs? TFD (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

First off, I presented an alternative framing to push back against the notion that "[b]eing called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting" in this particular case. It's an argument (albeit not phrased super clearly; my bad) that he's considered to be an expert investigative researcher by people who also work in the field of investigative reporting and might be qualified to give a professional judgement on this count, since the two oftentimes perform similar sorts of work in bringing malfeasance to light.

Second off, regarding Reuters: reporting it the same way would be to affirm the veracity of Zenz's claims. I'm more than fine doing that, but I don't understand why we would even need to attribute the work to Zenz if we have high-quality reliable sources saying that Zenz is correct, rather than simply stating it in wikivoice in this specific case. I agree that generally Zenz's statements should be attributed, but also that when multiple high-quality RS are reporting the same thing as Zenz (or are reporting that Zenz is correct) that we might just want to state it in Wikivoice.

Finally, I respectfully ask you to strike your statements alleging that I am being dishonest in my criticisms and that I am pretending to be stupid. I don't believe that this is civil and it's rather insulting to read these, since alleging that I am pretending to be stupid comes across as a personal attack. While I understand that this is a serious and meaningful topic that it appears we are each relatively passionate about, I don't believe that I've falsely attributed views to you in my comments or that I have pretended to be unintelligent in my comments.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Reuters article in question only claims that Reuters has corroborated one very specific claim by Zenz: that China has expanded a job-training program in Tibet meant to shift people from a nomadic lifestyle to modern industrial jobs (note that this has nothing to do with genocide, and is moreover a Tibetan program, and is therefore irrelevant to this article). Zenz has made many wide-ranging allegations about China, which go far beyond this particular claim. More generally, in this article, we have to differentiate between established facts and claims made by organizations like VCMF (including Zenz and Gutmann) and ASPI, which are linked to the US government (and in the case of ASPI, a number of governments allied to the US, as well as US weapons manufacturers). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not much to add here. Zenz is reliable according to multiple rses. Also here, Adrian Zenz is called a leading China scholar. [16] ​Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that he has no identifiable expertise on China, I wouldn't give too much weight to a throwaway line in a Vox piece. Zenz works for VCMF, which is a US government think tank and which looks an awful lot like a propaganda outlet, even from its own "About" page (Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.). We really have to attribute his claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times has published Zenz's opinion pieces with the tagline that he is a "expert on China's ethnic politics," as of 2016. He's got a Ph.D. in social anthropology from Cambridge, where his doctoral thesis focused on youth educational opportunities, career opportunities, and ethnic identity in Tibet (The German source says that "Er schrieb seine Doktorarbeit in der Sozialanthropologie über Minderheitenausbildung, Berufschancen und die ethnische Identität junger Tibeter in Westchina", if you would like to be really specific). He has also written a book, published by Brill Publishers, regarding Chinese policies in Tibet, and is the author of an academic journal article published in Central Asian Survey, which is a publication of Taylor & Francis. He's also written in the Journal of Political Risk quite a few times. The notion that he somehow has no identifiable expertise on China does not appear to be true, and the information I've included her about books and journal articles of his can also be found on his wikipedia page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Does he speak Chinese or the Uyhgur language? Has he been to Xinjiang? In this article, we're relying extremely heavily on unsubstantiated claims by a very small number of people who work for US government think tanks. That's concerning. We have to attribute these claims, with a full explanation of where they come from, and we have to explain the responses and criticisms of those claims, including in Chinese media. This is really the minimum required by WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly a good point. However, we also need to keep WP:FALSEBALANCE in mind. Some of these so-called "responses and criticisms" are flat-out (obvious) lies.

Additionally, I've seen the goalposts move woefully often in this discussion, which is another thing that we need to keep in mind (despite WP:EXTRAORDINARY). TucanHolmes (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411 and TucanHolmes:, it would appear that Zenz indeed is literate in Chinese. In his 2010 book , 'Tibetanness' Under Threat?, he references Chinese terms heavily, providing transliterations for readers. When his findings regarding an investigation into labor in Tibet was corroborated by Reuters, there were a lot of (Chinese language) government documents that were analyzed. A work in the Journal of Political Risk of which he is the sole author also contains translations directly from Chinese to English of the Karakax List. It would simply be unfeasible for Zenz to be able to do everything he has done (whether it be his books, his doctoral thesis, his translations of documents, or his primary source-heavy investigations) without literacy in Chinese language. When this is coupled with the fact that much of Zenz’s research has been corroborated by other scholars and independent media outlets, and this work involves heavy analysis of primary government document sources, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to conclude anything other than that he is literate in Chinese. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Has Zenz found those WMDs in Iraq yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E5:5F01:6800:C67:3CA5:9B59:8A4 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No, but he's found out who's getting raptured (surprise: not communists) Deku link (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2021

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: No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is. Consensus for one-year moratorium unless substantial new information arises in reliable sources also exists, and a note will be added to FAQ atop the talk page.
After a full week of discussion on this (and noting, but not really weighing in assessing consensus here, that there have been several discussions before), there is certainly no consensus to move to “Uyghur cultural genocide.” A preponderance of the arguments offering putative support to move from the current name question the veracity of genocide claims, but largely do not proffer evidence that a cultural genocide is, instead, what is happening. Some gesture towards the possibility of adding a word like “alleged” to the title, but that is generally opposed here largely per WP:WEASEL.
As for assessment of what reliable sources say on the matter, the conversation is somewhat bifurcated between consideration of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. While much discussion exists over the extent to which reliable sources call this the “Uyghur genocide” as compared to saying that government officials call it the “Uyghur genocide,” there is certainly not evidence provided here that such sources instead use “Uyghur cultural genocide” as the common name. Taking that fact alongside arguments about the naming criteria in general, each of the five criteria—recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency—do seem to gesture towards the current name being acceptable, as several editors point out. As such, I find that there is an affirmative consensus against moving this page to “Uyghur cultural genocide” and an affirmative consensus, albeit a weaker one, that “Uyghur genocide” is the appropriate name.
Finally, with respect to the proposed moratorium, there is clearly fatigue with the iterative nature of these requested moves. However, that is part of how a collaborative encyclopedia like this works; to a large degree, such content disputes are a proof of concept that this sort of thing works. That said, I do find a consensus exists that, barring substantial new information, editors should avoid requesting another move until March 2022. As a practical matter, two things are true:

1. The way to undo the consensus on this moratorium would be to discuss ending it, which would have echoes of a requested move discussion, and, since consensus can change, there is nothing to stop such a discussion from taking place before a year has elapsed.
2. If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists (or if editors believe the reliable sources have uncovered relevant new information), the appropriate recourse is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. If all else fails, WP:IAR may well apply.

That said, this should be interpreted mostly as a gentle nudge against starting a new requested move and to let this article sit for a while unless there is overwhelming evidence against that presumption. I will defer to other editors active on this page as to how best, in light of this close, to phrase a note in the FAQ (if for no other reason than I don’t know that I know how to edit a page FAQ), but I would encourage a short summary of this close statement with an eye towards discouraging move requests in the absence of clear new information.
Thanks to all participants for constructive engagement on such a fraught and important topic and for spirited advocacy of positions. It is thanks to this kind of work that the encyclopedia goes ‘round. I am happy to discuss my assessment of consensus here on my talk page or in the appropriate review channels as warranted. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Uyghur genocide → Uyghur cultural genocide – The title should reflect the common viewpoint -- the full genocide declaration is controversial as it is unclear whether mass killings/mass sterilizations have occurred on a systemic scale. Dazaif (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Requested move 1 April 2021

• Oppose The arguments from the previous move discussion in support of the title of "Uyghur Genocide" have only become more salient as additional coverage from reliable sources has been published. I will recapitulate them below, with credit to the editors who published them in the original move discussion.

1. The individual who opened the previous move discussion, Steel1943, wrote that "The UN definition of genocide specifically refers to "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". We now know that China is forcing many Uyghur women to get IUDs (with no string for self-removal) after they have 1 child, whereas Han women are entitled to 2 children, sometimes more. It's also clear that China's birth restriction policies are being intentionally far more vigorously enforced in Uyghur areas than anywhere else, with sterilization as a primary tactic. Additionally, there are credible reports of systemic coerced marriages of Uyghur women to Han men. This stuff constitutes clear "intent to destroy" "in part" the Uyghurs by "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", so this is a genocide per the UN definition. With the intent to destroy established, the clause "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" is also apparently engaged. The writer cited statements from an expert source contained in coverage from an article which was written by a wire service and republished in the Japan Times. (From the best I can tell, the wire story was an AP story, but I am unsure given that the link was not archived before the newspaper's permissions to republish the wire story had expired.)
2. While initially supporting the page to be located at "Uyghur Cultural Genocide" during the previous move discussion, Buidhe changed their mind, writing that there were many sources calling it genocide, for instance [17][18][19][20] German sources:[21][22].
3. Zekelayla noted additional reliable sources that used the term "genocide" or "demographic genocide", which included Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek (NOTE: Newsweek has an "additional considerations apply" rating at WP:RSP and its articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis), and the Associated Press.
4. Nutez noted that "genocide is not limited to the cultural realm", citing an article in the National Review.
5. Many users at the time noted that an article written in The Guardian by Georgetown Professor James Milward held that there was a "genocide" underway in Xinjiang.
6. TheBlueCanoe, who initially opposed naming the page "Uyghur Genocide," changed their mind after "consensus in reliable sources" changed quickly and there existed "sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide".

The above list, of course, is not an extensive listing of arguments in support of the page name from the previous move discussion, but I believe that it serves as a decent survey thereof. Reliable sources, such as [Vox], have reported that the consensus on the question of whether there is a genocide in Xinjiang has changed since 2018. The article states that "when journalists like myself started reporting that China was putting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in internment camps, experts said we shouldn’t call it genocide — yet. ... That's changed." The article proceeds to describe the various human rights abuses that have been taken against the Uyghurs, as well as confirming that RS have shifted from hesitating on describing this as a genocide. The article also affirmatively states that there is evidence that China is in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide and that such evidence "has come in recent months from Uyghur testimonies as well as the Chinese government’s own statistics about Xinjiang, the northwestern region where Uyghurs are concentrated." The piece goes on to say that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials" of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

It's not just Vox that's reporting this in its straight news pieces; The Globe and Mail has reported that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." Axios has reported that the actions in Xinjiang go beyond only being cultural genocide, noting the existence of "China's campaign of cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang" and has also simply referred to the abuses as the "Uyghur genocide" in its straight news reporting. As I've noted in above discussions on this page, the editorial board of The Washington Post has repeatedly referred to the ongoing situation as a "genocide." I could continue to go on and on with sources, though it should be clear by now that reporting in RS indicates that "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the article's topic. And, in light of reporting from the RS I have listed and other reliable sources, I think that we very well might actually have a consensus among RS that actions taken by the government of China against the Uyghur people are in violation of at least one portion of the UN genocide convention. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick comment on (3): Newsweek is no longer a generally reliable source, per WP:RSP. Not taking a position on the rest of Mikehawk's summary as I haven't had a chance to look into this question but wanted to flag. Harland1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I've made a note in my summary above to reflect this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of the AP piece [23], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [24], or the source is an editorial/blog, [25][26][27][28], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [29][30]. -Darouet (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your assertion is plainly false. See my response under your !vote below for how Vox, Axios, The Globe and Mail, and ABC News describe the situation in their straight news reporting. These are reliable sources; Vox and Axios are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, while The Globe and Mail and ABC News are, at a minimum, generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's accurate that most of the links you've provided above are to opinion pieces or lower quality sources. I did miss a few of your links in my post above. As I demonstrate below, most international, high quality papers regularly attribute the claim of genocide to US government officials, or other political actors. Finding a few opinion columns or articles that fail to do so is plainly not enough to move Wikipedia to drop the attribution used by all other high quality sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've provided a further response at your comment below. I don't quite understand the line of thought here, since this is a discussion over whether to move the article's title rather than a discussion on the use of in-text attribution regarding specific abuse claims and/or analysis regarding whether or not such claims constitute a (demographic/cultural/outright) genocide, but I've provided several more sources there for you to examine.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Mikehawk10 said, with more and more information having come out of Xinjiang, the term genocide has become the common/established/predominant descriptor in reliable media. Morgengave (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As an interesting fact, useful for context, not an argument on its own: (having used Google Translate) most non-English Wikipedias call it the "Uyghur genocide" (Greek, Persian, Korean, Indonesian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin). Only three languages opted for "Uyghur cultural genocide" (French, Italian, Sardinian). The Cantonese Wikipedia calls it the "Great Purge of Uyghurs". While this needs to be interpreted with some caution, it seems that the consensus across a culturally diverse set of Wikipedias is for "Uyghur genocide". Morgengave (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not clear what has changed since the last discussion to warrant this move, if anything there is even more evidence and coverage to justify leaving the 'cultural' out—blindlynx (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Nothing has changed and OP doesn't raise a point that hasn't been raised before. — Czello 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 'Cultural Genocide' is also a widely used term in many sources and I think it gives people unfamiliar with the topic a more accurate understanding so that they are not misled into thinking that China is being alleged that it is conducting a systematic mass extermination, which is how people unfamiliar with the topic may be led into thinking by just writing the word 'genocide' as the title on its own and which is certainly not what is being alleged to occur even by those who are strongly critical of China. This same criticism I would put against the mass media's adoption of this term like this too, but this board here is not about discussing that - we don't need to make the same mistake that the media is making on wiki; we can strive for accuracy and clarity. Reesorville (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The article's subject is about more than cultural genocide and incorporates topics such as forced sterilizations. Many sources are also using genocide rather than cultural genocide. Jancarcu (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mass incarceration of people based on their ethnicity, rape and allegedly forced sterilization is not just a cultural genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of things called cultural genocides: in Australia the Stolen_Generations, where Australian aboriginal and Torres strait children were forcibly removed from their communities and the government tried to breed out their heritage, or in Canada where the Canadian Indian residential school system forced Indigenous children to be taken away from their communities and forced into schools that were designed to assimilate them; there is evidence cited that forced sterilization occurred in Canada's treatment of indigenous as well. These events are referred to as both 'cultural genocides' and 'genocides' in various sources. Both can be found in RS, however, I argue in favour of using 'cultural genocide' here, because the average person doesn't understand the nuances of the UN convention on genocides, and when the media uses the word genocide to describe something, it leads people to thinking that this is the same thing that happened in the Holocaust with the mass murder of everyone who belonged to a particular group, when really it is describing something very different.Reesorville (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Australian and Canadian topics, but the moment a genocide includes demographic elements such as forced mass sterilizations and forced mass abortions, it's impossible to justify that it is just a cultural genocide. A genocide does not need to be identical in method and impact to the Holocaust to be named a genocide. Most notable & reliable sources, such as the BBC, seem to agree. Morgengave (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The articles about Canadian and Australian aboriginals don't use genocide in their titles. Note too that mass sterilizations and abortions were not technologically impossible before the twentieth century. That does not mean that there were no genocides. TFD (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your reply, TFD. I have not said that these Australian and Canadian instances were not genocide. If they are indeed genocide (as supported by reliable sources), then the titles should reflect this, as it does here with the Uyghur genocide. Morgengave (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged as you used may be better reflective of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dazaif: It's a genocide period.

• Support No reliable sources call it a genocide. The findings of the independent Uighur Tribunal which was set up at the request of the World Uyghur Congress and is presided over by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, has yet to issue its report. One independent research institute, the Newlines Institute of Strategy and Policy has called it a genocide,[31] but given the obscurity and controversial nature of the university its attached to, it doesn't carry much weight. TFD (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Reesorville — Mainly 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support — With the exception of the AP piece [32], literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim" [33], or the source is an editorial/blog, [34][35][36][37], or in two instances the source is highly dubious [38][39]. Also, I see in earlier talk sections that some editors who support the use of this term claim that it's not meant to be presented in Wikivoice. If we title this article "Uyghur genocide", we are plainly declaring that a genocide is occurring, full stop. One AP article making this claim and a pile of editorials aren't anywhere close enough to support this. -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Darouet: you've claimed that excluding the Associated Press (which I might add is WP:GREL), literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim"... the source is an editorial/blog, or that the source is highly dubious. This is plainly false. I have explicitly enumerated many news pieces in my !vote above that plainly state what is going on in their own voice and are reputable. Axios uses the term "Uyghur genocide" as a matter-of-fact statement describing the ongoing situation. The Globe and Mail reported that that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." The Vox piece reports, without any sort of hedging, that "China transfers many of the detainees to factories across the country to perform forced labor. There’s evidence that this forced labor has leached into the global supply chain for products we all use, from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon." The same Vox piece reported that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials. They show that as the network of camps grew, women were threatened with internment if they violated the birth control policies for rural Uyghurs (maximum three kids per family)" and that the ongoing situation "looms as one of the most horrifying humanitarian crises in the world today." Vox and Axios are WP:GREL, The Globe and Mail is a highly reputable WP:NEWSORG that is Canada's most widely read newspaper on every day but Sunday, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reputable news organization that is editorially independent and is so reliable that Reuters considers has them as a news partner. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to readWP:RSP—blindlynx (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Mikehawk10:, and I see that I missed a few of your links. If we go to high quality national and international newspapers, we see that they almost universally attribute the claim of "genocide" to others. For example:

• The New York Times writes [40] — The State Department declared on Tuesday that the Chinese government is committing genocide... The Chinese government has rejected any accusations of genocide.
• Associated Press writes [41] — The U.S. secretary of state’s accusation of genocide against China touches on a hot-button human rights issue between China and the West... China strongly defends its human rights record and policies in Xinjiang, saying its constitution and laws treat all citizens equally.
• The Financial Times writes [42] — The Trump administration has characterised the repression of Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province ... Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said: "Pompeo‘s comment on Xinjiang is just another one of his ridiculous lies..."
• The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists writes [43] — According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these actions constitute genocide... Uighur activist groups have also formally alleged that genocide is taking place... China has long denied accusations of human rights abuses against Uighurs.
• Radio France Internationale writes [44] — The last official act of out-going US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was to accuse China of perpetrating "genocide" against its Uyghur population.
• Deutsche Welle writes [45] — A US congressional commission said that China may have committed genocide in its Xinjiang region.
• The Japan Times writes [46] — The Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghur has violated “each and every act” prohibited by the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, a report by dozens of international experts alleged Tuesday. The report from Washington-based think tank Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy offers an independent analysis of what legal responsibility Beijing could bear over its actions in the northwestern Xinjiang region.
• Reuters writes [47] — Blinken said in January that he agreed with a determination by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, that China was committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, which China denies.

Even American thinktanks are attributing this claim to the US government:

• The Brookings Institute writes [48] — The United States government already has characterized China’s conduct in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
• The Council on Foreign Relations writes [49] — Human rights organizations, UN officials, and many foreign governments are urging China to stop the abuses, which the United States has described as genocide. But Chinese officials maintain that what they call vocational training centers do not infringe on Uyghurs’ human rights... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that China is committing crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs.

Readers should be informed of all this. But if most major papers are regularly attributing this claim to the US government (or to American DC-based think tanks, or to officials from other governments), Wikipedia should too. Finding a small minority of newspaper links, most of them either derived from lower quality sources or from editorials, can't be sufficient to drop the attribution used by most of the journalistic world. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Darouet. I'd like to point out that it can simultaneously be the case that sources can accurately report both that the United States is accusing China of human rights abuses, as well as reporting that human rights abuses are occurring without qualification. There are no reliable sources that are actively denying that a genocide is occurring in their news coverage, nor denying that crimes against humanity are occurring in Xinjiang. If your claim is that we should portray China's view on the same view as those organizations accusing it of malfeasance, moving the page to "Uyghur cultural genocide" would no better in this respect than keeping it at its current title, since China denies that any human rights abuses have occurred in Xinjiang. The vast majority of RS, however, indicate that the Chinese Government has engaged in a continuous path of lies regarding Xinjiang, whether it be at first denying the existence of the reeducation camps, denying the use of forced abortion and forced sterilization, or brazenly denying outright that China did anything wrong. None of these sources use "cultural genocide" in a different way than they use "genocide".

• The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is probably one of the best sources, if not the best source, that Australia has to offer. In 2020, it reported that use of forced abortions, IUDs and sterilisation has seen birth rates in Uyghur-dominated areas drop rapidly and that the Chinese governmentregularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on hundreds of thousands. The piece also contains a quote by Joanne Smith Finley, who the ABC describes as an expert on Xinjiang from Newcastle University in the UK. In the piece, she says "It's genocide, full stop. It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot-type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide.".
• The Associated Press has likewise reported on the use of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and other human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It has been unequivocal on the fact that China has taken draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children. The report noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide" to refer to what is going on.
• Public Radio International has reported, unequivocally, that data show authorities have regularly forced pregnancy tests, birth control, sterilization and abortion on hundreds of thousands of Uighur women to suppress the population, among other repressions. The piece also noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide".
• CNN has likewise reported that some Uyghur women were forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang. There are also a few sources I have found (1 2) that have republished a wire story from CNN that states that China is often accused of a lack of transparency, as well as grave human rights abuses like the Uyghur genocide happening currently.
• The BBC has reported on the widespread systematic rape of Uyghurs in camps, also noting that the birth rate in Xinjiang has plummeted in the past few years, according to independent research - an effect analysts have described as "demographic genocide".
• Another Axios source reports unequivocally that China regularly conducts pregnancy checks, forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on some of the Xinjiang region's minority women. The source notes that the draconian effort, which has been carried out in the western region of Xinjiang over the past four years, has been described by some experts as "demographic genocide." It coincides with years of restrictions and human rights abuses against Uighurs and other majority-Muslim ethnic groups in China under the authoritarian leadership of Xi Jinping. The source also, citing their own reporter, states that China's policies in Xinjiang have been considered cultural genocide; a policy of forced sterilization and abortion imposed on minority populations would bring their policies closer to the textbook definition of actual genocide. Later reporting from Axios described a cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang in July, August, and September 2020. Even later, in February 2021, Axios began using the term "Uyghur genocide" without any sort of qualifier.
• USA Today has reported that media reports and independent research shows that in the internment camps, Uyghurs are indoctrinated on the “backwardness” of their identity and subjected to a wide range of mental, physical and sexual abuses. They are forced to recite Chinese Communist Party propaganda and renounce Muslim religious practices and that [a]ccording to media reports and independent researchers, Chinese officials have engaged in a forced sterilization effort targeting Uyghur women living in certain regions.

I think that none of this makes it preferable to use the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" rather than "Uyghur genocide". It's clear that the common name for the topic, regardless of our disagreement on whether RS coverage indicates that these events actually constitute a genocide, is the "Uyghur genocide." Even if the title is non-neutral, the naming guidelines say that Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

"Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME, so the article should remain where it is. A change to "Uyghur cultural genocide" would require that title to be the common name, which isn't the case at this point. And, it appears that when “cultural genocide” is affirmatively used by media organization, it's very often paired with “demographic genocide." I don’t think there’s strong reason to believe that the change to “Uyghur cultural genocide” would be properly tailored to the topic’s breadth, nor that it would solve the issues that people are bringing up regarding the common naming concern. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet, news sources indeed report official statements and declarations as "official statements and declarations". It would be bizarre if they wouldn't do so. This is also the case for the Rohingya genocide. That however doesn't mean that they don't report on the events themselves as genocide. Genocide is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME. Morgengave (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is Uyghur genocide and reliable sources make it clear that this genocide is also physical, and involves large scale state organized killings along with crippling reproduction, and genocidal rape. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oranjelo100: Mind linking me to the evidence of these "large scale" organized killings and genocidal rape? As far as I know, there is a clear lack of evidence pointing to the assertion that this is occurring on a systematic scale. Strong accusations require strong evidence. Dazaif (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if this is butting in between you two, but there is widespread reporting on systematic rape within the camps. The BBC has reported that Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The many reliable sources (ABC, The Times of London,Fox News, The Guardian, Reuters, China Digital Times, Catholic News Agency, Council on Foreign Relations, USA Today) have generally republished the information without comment, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS is evidence of the source's reliability. There are also reports of mass rape aside from the BBC's investigation that have gotten a large amount of coverage from reliable sources as well (New Zealand Herald, The Independent).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like these are "only sporadic cases based on unconfirmed personal testimonies and accounts," as I stated above. This is not the BBC acknowledging that systematic rape is occurring, it is the BBC stating that there exists defectors who claim so. However, much like we learned in the Nayirah testimony, unconfirmed personal accounts can be extremely misleading, and therefore we should be wary of making such strong claims until they are independently and absolutely verified. Dazaif (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you conclude that from Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.? The BBC is pretty clear that there is systematic rape, sexual abuse, and torture. Are you saying that the BBC, whose reporting on this specific issue has been widely cited by reliable sources, is not reliable here for statements of fact? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the BBC's reporting in a very basic manner. The BBC attributes these claims: according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The BBC specifically says that it cannot verify the claims: It is impossible to verify Ziawudun's account completely: [50]. Reuters explicitly describes these claims as allegations, and says that it cannot verify them either: [51]. We can't jump from news accounts that report about allegations to claiming, in Wikivoice, that those allegations are true. This is an extremely basic question of how to read and use sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Oranjelo100 and Mikehawk10. After following this discussion for a while, I've come to the conclusion that Uyghur genocide is not the best title for this article, but that Uyghur cultural genocide (the move target) would be more wrong, especially because it obscures the physical violence directed at the people living in the region—implying that the events are restricted to the cultural realm. Since this issue will probably resurface in no time, perhaps it's time for a FAQ at the top of the talk page? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the FAQ proposal; that's a great idea. Also to avoid a perpetually recurring request-to-move. Morgengave (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the FAQ proposal. There is already a collection of move discussions, so it might be the case that we also want to include Template:Round in circles, akin to what the Taiwan talk page has, to be extremely explicit regarding the title. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As others have already pointed out, Mandy Rice-Davies probably applies. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Oranjelo100 and Mikeawk10. I like the FAQ idea, but I've also proposed a 1 year moratorium on future moves below. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neither - Nothing in the article is exclusive to Uyghurs in the first place, even though Uyghurs get most attention as largest group in Xinjiang and holder of titular status. Calling this any kind of genocide against Uyghurs or any other people is shoddy, ill-informed, and very premature. Sinicization of Xinjiang or Sinicization in Xinjiang are appropriate titles for the situation.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a partial point: the genocide indeed affects all Turkic groups in Xinjiang, not only the Uyghurs (which are by far the largest Turkic ethnic group in Xinjiang though; about 85%-90% of the Turkic population in Xinjiang). The term Uyghur genocide however is the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable media. Sinicization is a senseless name: no reliable media are using the term, and on top, it's a misnomer. Morgengave (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sinicization of Xinjiang feels too euphemistic to me and fails to include the forced sterilizations and mass imprisonment that are part of this article's scope. If you want to include other groups persecuted in Xinjiang, you could instead consider something like Genocide of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, though I personally don't support changing it away from the WP:COMMONNAME of "Uyghur genocide". Jancarcu (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective and inclusive of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — This is a close one. I'm not fully convinced that "Uyghur genocide" is used sufficiently commonly in reliable sources to count as the WP:COMMONNAME. As catalogued by Mikehawk10, several experts have labelled it a genocide, but as others have pointed out, most news articles attribute the label to an outside expert or institution, rather than adopting it themselves. I find the State Department's 2021 human rights report designating China's actions as genocide convincing, but that's just my view, not enough for Wikipedia by itself. However, since there's no evidence that "cultural genocide" is a better or more commonly used term, and "genocide" is at least moderately commonly used, we should stick with that. Harland1 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This New Yorker article, along with the discussion in this section, particularly the arguments that we're using Uyghur genocide not as the WP:COMMONNAME but based on the Wikipedia naming WP:CRITERIA, convinced me that this isn't a close call. Harland1 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Would "Alleged Uyghur genocide" be a better title then, perhaps? My issue with the title is that it is unclear whether these accusations are actually occurring, and the word alleged may be better reflective and inclusive of the current landscape of discussion. Dazaif (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Alleged" is a hopeless weasel word, hedging without actually giving the reader any more information. All it says is "someone disputes this". Well, of course they do. What matters is: alleged by whom and with what evidence? Vast human rights abuses are plainly occurring, reliable sources make clear the best label for them is genocide, and the article explains that the Chinese government and others dispute the term. Harland1 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Support as proposer. There is has been little to no evidence of systematic mass killings or rape occurring inside of the prisons, only sporadic cases based on unconfirmed personal testimonies and accounts. A better term for now would be "cultural genocide," much like the case with Australian and Canadian aboriginals. Dazaif (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dazaif, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It doesn't need to entail mass killings. Genocide is legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Morgengave (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Per its usual definition in the English language, "genocide" entails mass killing. That's why it has the "-cide" suffix in the first place ("homocide", "suicide", "regicide" and countless other "-cide" words all denote killing). As for the definition laid out in the Genocide Convention, you're not accurately representing it. The convention states that genocide requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. "Criterion (d)", as you're calling it, is only "genocide" if it is part of a deliberate policy to wipe out the entire group. Based on your interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the One Child Policy, which dramatically reduced the birth rate among majority ethnic group in China, the Han, would have been a "genocide" against the Han people. Yet everyone recognizes that that wasn't a "genocide". But most importantly, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when they believe a genocide is occurring - reliable sources do not call this a genocide, so Wikipedia cannot either. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides, as said before: reliable media and investigative reports use the UN definition as a framework/reference, not the dictionary. Trying to alter/dispute what these media mean with genocide, using a dictionary definition, is both POV and OR. Morgengave (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're advancing your own interpretation of the Genocide Convention, according to which the legal definition of "genocide" supposedly diverges wildly from its meaning in the English language. That's actually a red flag that perhaps your interpretation of the convention is incorrect. You have yet to establish that reliable sources call what's occurring in Xinjiang a "genocide". In fact, the sources you've listed in this discussion consistently attribute claims of "genocide" to the people/organizations making those claims, and also describe objections to those claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's false. I have been saying the opposite, namely that we should avoid our own interpretations, and directly use the terminology the sources use (and yes, these mostly use the UN genocide definition, but that's beside the point). You are openly pushing your dictionary definition and your interpretation of that definition to alter or dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say. That's not right... Anyway, we are going in infinite circles here, as does frankly almost everyone else in this conversation. I won't be able to change your mind and I rather focus on driving content improvements elsewhere, so I am leaving this conversation. Morgengave (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're advancing your own interpretation of the Genocide Convention, an interpretation that is radically different from the meaning of the word in the English language. That should already tip you off that the definition you're trying to advance is almost certainly incorrect. dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say: You haven't shown any reliable sources that state that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. In order to put such an extreme claim in Wikivoice, you'd expect editors to show a strong consensus of reliable sources. But you haven't provided even a single one that does so, much less any sort of consensus. To the contrary, it's been abundantly demonstrated above that reliable sources scrupulously attribute such claims, which means that we also have to attribute them, and cannot put them in Wikivoice. You're simply asserting that your preferred (and likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention is correct, that it applies to Xinjiang, and that we should therefore do something that the reliable sources do not do - label the situation in Xinjiang a "genocide". -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not clear to me where this assertion that "Uyghur genocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME. There are basically no RSes that use that exact term. I found only a handful of RSes (e.g. the 2020 Finley article), some opinion articles, some non-RSes, and usage in quotation marks (e.g. this Politico article). My understanding is that "Uyghur genocide" was applied here as a descriptive article title for the five naming WP:CRITERIA rather than as the actual term used by most RSes (which might not exist).
  When a specific term is used by RSes, it seems to more frequently be: "Xinjiang genocide allegations" (CNN), "Cultural genocide in Xinjiang" (Foreign Affairs), "persecution of the Uyghurs" (The Economist), "repression of Uyghurs" (The New York Times), and other similar terms.
  I'm not sure if there are more recent academic analyses of consensus, but the 2020 Finley article in the Journal of Genocide Research said that the state in July 2020 was that it had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide". It noted an increasing trend towards being unqualified by the modifier "cultural" (also mentioned in the Quartz article paraphrasing Finley), but did not state that it was more prevalent yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support No credible evidence of mass killings or mass rape. Not even a cultural genocide. Adding the article as part of a 'counter-insurgency operations in Xinjiang' would be more appropriate Huaxia (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Huaxia, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It doesn't need to entail mass killings. Genocide is legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Morgengave (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just so others reading this are clear, the above explanation of the Genocide Convention is incorrect. The Genocide Convention very explicitly says that what Morgengave is calling the "five criteria" (which is not the phrase the Genocide Convention uses) are not sufficient by themselves. As the UN explains,

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).

But just as importantly, reliable sources do not state that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. They have reported on allegations of genocide, but that is very different from confirming the allegations. Wikipedia can't put such drastic claims in Wikivoice without a strong consensus of reliable sources, and there is nothing remotely approaching such a consensus. Quite the opposite, there is a strong consensus among sources that such allegations must be attributed and described as allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huaxia, why would you support moving the page title to "Uyghur cultural genocide" if you are saying that this is "not even a cultural genocide?" That doesn't seem like a very convincing reason to actively choose to move the page to the proposed target. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the argument presented by Mikehawk10 and others. Citobun (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support The fact that the US government (aka the State Department) in February 2021 stated there was insufficient evidence to state China was committing genocide, to me, shows that the status of genocide has not reached consensus. [52] The fact that more than 54 countries (including China) have stated that it is NOT a genocide, shows to me that it is not concensus that China is committing a genocide against the Uyghur population. The fact that according to this article there has been a genocide that has been going on China since 2014, but the Wikipedia article for "Uyghur genocide" was only created in 2020. Which suggests to me that this much of this article has to do with politics and not necessary fact-seeking. Seven years of genocide, and the Uyghur population has been increasing. --Existenţă (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Chinese government gave explicit orders to "eradicate tumours", "wipe them out completely", "destroy them root and branch", “round up everyone", and "show absolutely no mercy", in regards to Uyghurs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• That report was written by Fairfax University, which is a university not without its controversy. It got threatened to have its accreditation revoked by Virginia for grade inflation. Also, I believe that Fairfax report was referencing the New York Times paper "leak", in which case, the statements that Xi made were not in reference to Uyghur people. But in reference to terrorism. --Existenţă (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Al Jazeera article you're citing scrupulously attributes every claim to a US think tank (the "Newlines Institute"). For example, the article opens, A US think-tank has accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. Al Jazeera only says that the think tank claims the Chinese government used the phrases you're quoting, and the article does not say what those quotes refer to. The key point here is that Al Jazeera, like other reliable sources, does not treat these allegations as facts, but rather attributes them. Wikipedia cannot state, as a matter of fact, that there is a genocide in Xinjiang, when reliable sources treat this as a contested claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Camp guards reportedly follow orders to uphold the system in place until ‘Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and other Muslim nationalities, would disappear...until all Muslim nationalities would be extinct’.” Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Do you not understand that the Hindustan Times report that you just cited is literally referencing the paper written by Fairfax University which I mentioned was problematic? You can't use the same two sources and pretend they are two separate things when they literally reference the exact same report. --Existenţă (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Existenţă (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support: I feel like I've landed in an alternative universe in which words have no meaning any more. Just to remind everyone what "genocide" actually means, Oxford Dictionaries defines it as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The word is formed using the suffix "-cide", which is used to form nouns that mean the killing of the initial element of the word, which in this case is "genus", meaning "race". It therefore refers to the killing of a race of people. Similar constructions are "regicide" (the killing of a "rex", meaning king), "fratricide" (the killing of a "frater", meaning brother), "parricide" (the killing of a "pater", meaning father) and "suicide" (the killing of "sui", meaning oneself). There is no evidence of mass killing or any attempt to exterminate the Uyghurs, so the word "genocide" simply does not apply here.

Above, Mikehawk10 elaborates their own WP:OR argument as to why Chinese policy in Xinjiang should be called "genocide". First off, such a serious accusation should not be based on original research by a Wikipedia editor. But beyond that, MikeHawk10 claims that the UN defines "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" as "genocide" (the UN does not do this - this is given as a possible element of a larger policy of genocide). Taking this argument at face value, that means that the Chinese government waged a 30-year campaign of "genocide" against the majority ethnic group in China, the Han. After all, the One Child Policy was a draconian birth control policy that specifically targeted the Han, and which specifically exempted ethnic minorities (including the Uyghurs). Of course, everyone recognizes how ridiculous it would be to label the One Child Policy the "Han genocide". Yet we are being asked now to label, in Wikivoice, the new policy of two-to-three children (for urban and rural families, respectively) as "genocide", based on the original research of a Wikipedia editor.

As Darouet has shown above, reliable sources regularly attribute accusations of "genocide" in Xinjiang, indicating that they do not treat these accusations as fact. Wikipedia should not treat these accusations as fact either.

Finally, the title "Uyghur cultural genocide" is also highly POV, but it is less egregious than the current title. The article really should have a completely neutral title, such as "Accusations of cultural genocide in Xinjiang" or "Human rights in Xinjiang". -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides, I don't think you understand what genocide means. It's legally defined by the Genocide Convention, see: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. Acts such as forced birth control, forced sterilizations and forced abortions led to a drastic fall in Uyghur births, meeting criterion (d) in the UN definition. There has also been a transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities (see "(e)" in the UN definition). In addition, considering the targeted acts of torture and rape towards the Uyghurs, likely criterion (b) is fulfilled as well. Note that only one of these five criteria is enough to classify something as a genocide, not all five ones need to be fulfilled. Considering the UN definition, the term "genocide" is not controversial, which also explains why it's used in reliable media. Morgengave (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: I cited the definition of "genocide" above, and I even gave the etymology of it (the "-cide" suffix denotes killing, as in "homicide", "suicide", "regicide" and "fratricide", "insecticide", "matricide" and countless other examples). The specific interpretation of the Genocide Convention that you're arguing for is not generally accepted, and it would widen the definition of "genocide" far beyond its usual definition in the English language (which I cited above). The convention specifically requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It includes five possible methods by which perpetrators may try to achieve that goal, but without "intent to destroy" the group, there is no genocide. In the case we're talking about, there is no evidence of mass killing, and in fact, the Uyghur population continues to grow. You are arguing that China's birth control policy (limiting urban families to two children, and rural families to three children) constitutes "genocide", an argument that would also mean that China has been perpetrating "genocide" against the majority Han population since 1979. Your argument is original research, and does not reflect any sort of consensus view of the international community. In fact, 64 UN member states have disputed allegations of genocide made by the US (Reuters). Even the US State Department's accusations go against the findings of its own Office of the Legal Advisor (Foreign Policy).

"Genocide" is an extremely serious accusation. Wikipedia cannot state definitively that there is a genocide based solely on accusations by the US and a few of its allies, or based on Op-Eds. Most countries in the world that have made any statement on the matter dispute the US' allegations, and reliable sources scrupulously attribute these allegations. Wikipedia should do the same, attributing the claims and not presenting them as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The UN definition is the most relevant definition. The reason for this is that news media and investigative reports often (or even consistently) refer to it as the frame for the description of genocide. This is also not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It's a serious description, and seen what's happening, a justified one. Your point on the Chinese one-child policy is POV/OR, as no sources afaik make this comparison. My answer, if it would depend on me, is that the targeted combined nature reveals the genocidal intent (i.e. the Han-dominated state specifically targeting Turkic ethnic groups + that it is happening in combination with many other measures such as child transfers to state-run institutions, the use of internment camps, the widespread use of torture and rape, etc.). Morgengave (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the definition of the word in English and the Genocide Convention matter. The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't mean that we ignore the meaning of words in English. "Genocide" has a meaning, and we can't go inventing new meanings for it, based on our personal opinions. As for the UN definition (from the Genocide Convention), it specifically requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. You're arguing that there's intent, and then arguing that birth control policies amount to genocide. You can argue that (and there are others who will argue that you're completely wrong), but it's your argument, not something that we can put in Wikivoice. Regardless of how you, I or even the US government may view this issue, we have to acknowledge that the allegations of "genocide" are just that - allegations. They have been rejected by 64 countries, and even by the US Department of State's own Office of the Legal Advisor. We can present those allegations, but presenting them in Wikivoice is a massive breach of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You misconstrue what I said. I am saying we should use the definition used by reliable media, which do often (or even consistently) use the UN definition as a frame. Bringing the dictionary definition to the fore to dispute or alter what these media say, is OR and POV. What you/I think or what these 64 UN states say is irrelevant to the naming of the article. Morgengave (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course the definition of the word in the English language matters. We're writing an English-language article. The UN definition also matters. What does not matter is OR arguments about the UN definition, which have been used above to argue that we should ignore reliable sources (which do not treat the claims of genocide as fact), because some Wikipedia editors believe the situation in Xinjiang meets the UN definition. What 64 UN member states say certainly is relevant to the naming of the article, because it shows that claims of genocide in Xinjiang are widely disputed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't live in an alternative universe. On Wikipedia, we should base article names on what reliable media say, and we shouldn't use specific dictionary definitions to alter or dispute what these media say. We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say. The article can of course mention that certain actors dispute that it's a genocide (as it does now btw). But ultimately facts matter, not opinions. That the Earth is a globe is also widely disputed; that doesn't give that claim any validity. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we go by what reliable sources say, which is precisely why we cannot call this a "genocide" in Wikivoice. You haven't shown any reliable sources that call this a "genocide" in their own voice. In fact, the reliable sources you've listed consistently attribute claims of "genocide". That means that we also have to attribute these claims, and that we cannot treat them as established facts. In your initial post above, you argued, based on your own personal interpretation (which I think is incorrect) of the Genocide Convention, that what's going on in Xinjiang is "genocide". You're additionally arguing here that we should ignore the actual definition of the word "genocide" in English, because you believe the Genocide Convention encodes a different definition (again, you're very likely wrong in your interpretation, and it would be extremely surprising if the Genocide Convention's definition of "genocide" differed so radically from the meaning of the word "genocide" in English).

We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say. So the claims of the obscure "Newlines Institute" (which is apparently an appendage of the equally obscure "Fairfax University", a "university" with a few dozen students that nearly had its accreditation stripped two years ago - according to the Washington Post, Another council-accredited school, Fairfax University of America, formerly known as Virginia International University, was nearly forced to close in 2019 after a state audit blasted the quality and rigor of its online education program. Even the board that accredited Fairfax University is extremely controversial, as described by the Washington Post.) should be treated as fact, but a declaration by 64 UN member states doesn't matter? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading this talk page overall has felt like a great headache. Clearly most of the cited sources are not directly condoning or confirming the claims, they are merely reporting on the fact that they exist. This back and forth between several users doesn't change this fact. Deku link (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We really shouldn't give too much weight to the 64 countries rejecting these allegations. For one, we don't even know which countries they are (at least I was unable to find a list of them). I managed to track down a recording of the statement this is referring to (here), along with a transcript, and found a separate transcript here. None of them mention which countries are backing this, and China has a long habit of simply buying world influence through investments (e.g. [53]). TucanHolmes (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed. We can't just ignore those objections, ignore the fact that reliable sources scrupulously attribute claims of "genocide", and decide - based on one or another Wikipedia editor's (likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention - that we know the truth. Wikipedia cannot express more certainty than reliable sources, especially with such serious allegations as "genocide". As for which countries backed of the statement in the UNHRC, I haven't found a list, but this article has a list of 45 countries that made a similar declaration last year. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will consider your arguments regarding the opinions/reports in reliable sources, but this is clearly a joke. The countries in question are: Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Laos, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, the UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

None of them have a good record when it comes to human rights either, most of them are dictatorial or authoritarian regimes, and many of them profit hugely from Chinese investments in their region, i.e. need/want to be on favourable terms with China. If they were a source, Wikipedia would consider it unreliable and biased.

As for your opening sentence, The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed.—no, it doesn't; it simply shows how much support China can drum up on this issue internationally, and nothing more. I would agree with you if this list would include countries not so heavily associated with China, countries more directly involved (e.g. China's Central Asian neighbours), or countries with a better human rights record. That would indicate an actual dispute, but this simply doesn't. Remember, whole countries can happily deny all accusations of genocide, no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what makes a declaration of 64 UN member states "a joke", any more than a declaration by the US State Department (contradicting its own legal advisors, it should be noted) could be viewed as "a joke". The United States and some of its allies have made allegations of "genocide" against China, and China and 63 other UN member states have pushed back against those allegations. The allegations being made by the US and a few obscure think tanks ("Newlines Institute" and "Jamestown Foundation") are clearly extremely controversial, and are regularly attributed in reliable sources. I don't see how anyone can argue that they should be put in Wikivoice. It's an obvious, massive violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I do not object to your arguments regarding the reporting in reliable sources, but I have clearly explained above why I think we shouldn't give any weight to the countries' statement (an explanation which you have ignored in your response). At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. I will update the reasons for why I voted the way I did. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your reasoning. I don't agree with your flippant rejection of a declaration by 64 UN member states. That obviously carries weight and shows that the allegations being made by the US and some of its allies are hugely controversial. I don't see why we should put unsubstantiated claims made by the US government in Wikivoice, while rejecting out-of-hand the claims of 64 other UN member states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The only weight is that China has strong economic influence over many countries. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

On a different note, I don't get why "Uyghur cultural genocide" would be POV, too... Is forced Sinicization not cultural genocide? TucanHolmes (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be POV because it's an allegation that's being made, not an established fact. We should have a more neutral title, which does not assume the correctness of the allegations beforehand. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The notion that I am somehow creating the designation of genocide based solely upon on my own original research is wholly not reasonable, especially in line with the fact that global experts on human rights and researchers have concluded this very same fact, which has been included directly in many the sources that I have cited throughout this discussion. The Newslines Institute report alone has been treated as generally credible by reliable sources, who have explicitly noted the qualifications of those who have written the report. In addition to the large numbers of sources provided above in this discussion, the following sources lend support to the credibility of the report:

• United Press International stated that China's treatment of its Uighur population violates every provision of the United Nations' genocide convention, according to a damning new report published Tuesday by dozens of experts on international law, genocide and Chinese ethnic policies. (emphasis added)
• USA Today has stated that the publication is a sweeping report and that independent researchers say China is now engaged in "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and other minorities, including Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks. The paper has separately called the document an extensive report that was based on interviews with former detainees and other evidence.
• The South China Morning Post(!) states that Chinese authorities’ treatment of Uygurs in China’s northwest meets every criteria of genocide under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, said a group of experts in international law, war crimes and the Xinjiang region in a new analysis. (emphasis added)
• France 24 has noted that the report is based upon documents about mass deaths, selective death sentence, and prolonged imprisonment of elders, in addition to other series of abuses that authorities commit against the Uyghur people (original source in spanish). And, the same source says that more than 50 global experts on human rights, war crimes, and international law. The same source says that the group of expertsexamined a series of free and verifiable evidence, including state communications and testimonies of witnesses.(translations my own)

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. We're seeing just that with the Newlines Report. It ain't original research to cite reliable sources. WP:USEBYOTHERS also states that widespread doubts about reliability weigh against use of a source. Since you would seem to believe that the particular report is unreliable, in light of the widespread citation without comment for facts, I would kindly ask that you provide sources to back up your doubts on the reliability on the specific report.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: All of the sources you list specifically attribute these allegations by the Newlines Institute. You're arguing that we should do something that those sources do not do - treat the Newlines Institute's claims as true. This is a very basic issue of how we deal with sources on Wikipedia. If the claim of genocide were widely accepted as fact, then reliable sources would generally state, in their own voice, that there is a genocide. They do not do so, as both you and Darouet have shown. And as I have said, 64 countries have pushed back against these allegations (Reuters), and even the US State Department's own legal experts found that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations ([54]). We should note the Newlines Institute's claims with attribution (just as reliable sources do), and also note the responses to those claims. We cannot, however, put those claims in Wikivoice, or name a Wikipedia article "Uyghur genocide" based on them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources are either using the source without comment for facts, or they are explicitly providing credence to the report and saying that relevant experts find that what is going on genocide. We don't need the article to have a WP:FALSEBALANCE; international experts that have been widely cited as such form a good basis for the title, while Chinese government denials have thus far been treated as wholly non-credible by reliable sources (whether it be falsely denying the camps exist, lying about the true purpose of the camps, or falsely denying the existence of any abuses against Uyghurs) and constitute undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

When newspapers report on the existence of the "Newlines Institute" report, that does not mean that they consider its claims to be correct. A little-known "institute" in the DC suburbs publishes a report that makes extreme claims, a few newspapers write articles discussing the report, without treating it as true or false, and you now argue that we therefore have to treat the claims of the report as true. This is simply not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Reliable sources attribute these claims, and so do we. There's nothing remotely approaching consensus that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. These are claims made by the US government (in contradiction to the US government's own legal advisors: [55]) and some of its allies, which are rejected by most UN member states that have taken any position on the matter, and which are not treated as true by reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: Killing tens of thousands a year for organs is mass killings so it's not only mass rapes and sterilizations and there are other sources mentioning killings and mass deaths in camps. Not to mention camp guards received instuctions to make Muslim ethnic groups extinct. Oranjelo100 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of "citation needed" on the above statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the argument several others have made that the Genocide Convention defines mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group as a genocide, which China is definitely doing to the Uyghurs according to reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: That is not how the Genocide Convention defines "genocide". The convention specifically states that genocide is only present when acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But it really doesn't matter how any editor here interprets the Genocide Convention. What matters is whether reliable sources treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang. As has been shown above, they attribute such claims, and also note opposing views (such as those of the US State Department's legal advisors, and those of 64 member states of the UN). We simply cannot state in Wikivoice, based on Wikipedia editors' own personal (and very likely incorrect) interpretations of UN conventions, that there is a genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As noted by Darouet, the claim that this is a genocide is not the consensus of reliable sources. Some users above have said that "Uyghur genocide" is the COMMONNAME, but that's not correct, as there aren't many sources that use that phrase. "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not an ideal title either, so no prejudice to a future move to some other title if someone can think of a better one, but the current title is severely non-neutral.

I'm concerned about the amount of WP:OR in this discussion. Our decision on the page title should not be based on our own analysis of what constitutes genocide, but rather based on what reliable sources say. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested in something that been published very recently, The New Yorker published a long-form article on April 5 heavily detailing an individual's experience within the camps and attempting to exit China. The article is absolutely unequivocal in its description on the events as a genocide, as it states In 1944, as Lemkin, a Jew, witnessed the horrors of Nazism, it occurred to him that the vocabulary of modern law was missing a word, so he coined one: "genocide." Over the years, the term has taken on a specific legal definition, but Lemkin had a broad understanding of it. "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings," he noted. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups." Such a plan is unfolding now in Xinjiang. As in the cases that inspired Lemkin, it is happening under a shield of state sovereignty. The New Yorker is also listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, with editors noting its robust fact-checking process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a news article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a reported piece. It reports factual information. It even has the tagline "A Reporter at Large", which the New Yorker places on some reported work. It's also worth noting that the New Yorker is one of the most rigorous and reliable publications in the world. Harland1 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this is from the "Magazine" section of the New Yorker, not the "News" section, as you can see in the URL. This is an essay, written in a highly narrative and personal style. The opening line is, When Anar Sabit was in her twenties and living in Vancouver, she liked to tell her friends that people could control their own destinies. The essay continues in a similar vein. The New Yorker is a magazine, and does not only publish straight news articles - it also publishes content that mixes personal narration, opinion and fact. That's fine, but it should not be confused with objective news reporting. As has been shown over and over again above, reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide, rather than putting them in their own authoritative voice. To put something that reliable sources consistently treat as an allegation in Wikivoice because of a single narrative essay would be absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems relevant to this discussion. "If the world’s only response to genocide is to engage in endless debate of the term, then “never again” is truly an empty promise". Oranjelo100 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And I would retort with: "If the world's only response to allegations of crimes againist humanity is to believe them full sale, then nobody learned anything from Iraq" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deku link (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nayirah was just one person. Here we have multiple victims, witnesses, researchers, and studies. China isn't a viable military target and sanctioning it hurts the West so nothing to gain. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

except sanctions are already being levied against Xinjiang Deku link (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Calling it "cultural genocide" would be unnecessary downplaying of the intent and effect. Even if you include only the most optimistic interpretation of what it occurring, it fits the definition of genocide without the need for adding "cultural" as a minimizing adjective. A lot of other pages don't have "genocide" in the title, but only because the events are widely known by another specific name such as The Stolen Generations or The Holocaust. There's no other name for this page that would be more widely recognised than the current title, and there's no need to downplay the current title. Irtapil (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The entirety of the abuses don't just amount to cultural genocide, it is almost universally described as genocide, this new title in theory would not only be unnatural it also would downplaying the entire genocide. It's not simply cultural genocide it a systemic destruction of an ethnic group involving sterilization and mass incarceration. It is as such universally described as simply a genocide and tagging "cultural" when the abuses as laid out in this very article would not only be a contradiction of the current article (the article states multiple other abuses other then cultural genocide,) it is also a title that downplays such events. Des Vallee (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

it is almost universally described as genocide. This is simply untrue, and has been shown above by Darouet (and others), reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide in Xinjiang to those parties making the claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per United Nations criteria.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear this up, that report is not from the UN but from a dubiously credible think tank Deku link (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To be specific, this is a claim made by an obscure DC think tank created by a dubious "university" ("Fairfax University") that 1) has only a few dozen students, 2) was nearly forced to shut down recently after the state of Virginia found it failed to meet basic standards, 3) is only accredited by a highly dubious accreditation agency that itself is under threat of losing its recognition. This is all described in an article in the Washington Post. This think tank's claims do not in any way represent any sort of official position of the United Nations, and cannot be put in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thucydides411 That is a redefination the definition of reliable sources, scholarly sources are reliable regardless of your position. The UN criteria does meet the definition of a genocide, and has been laid out in many different reports, this new title is completely well arbitrary (almost no organization describes the genocide in Xijang as just "cultural genocide") In fact this very article lays out it's not just a cultural genocide by describing things like sterilization, mass internment, forced abortions and killings none of which fit the "cultural genocide" definition. As laid out in nearly all reliable secondary, tertiary reliable sources it's is almost universally described as just a genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To go through your sources one-by-one:

• Your first source is titled, "Settler Colonialism and the Path toward Cultural Genocide in Xinjiang". First off, it uses the phrase "cultural genocide", which is exactly the term this RfC is proposing to move the article to. But you haven't given any indication of how significant this source actually is. How many citations does this paper have? Is this a significant journal?
• Your second source is a Bachelor's thesis (i.e., an essay written by an undergraduate student for university credit), and therefore worthless as a source.
• Your third source does not claim that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. It is a news article that discusses the "genocide charge" made by the US government and China's reaction to that charge.
• Your fourth source is the very report from the obscure DC think tank (the "Newlines Insitute") that I was discussing above. This isn't a reliable source.

If there were a strong case for the title "Uyghur genocide", it would not be so difficult for supporters of this title to identify a reliable source that actually states that there's a genocide. When you're citing undergraduate student projects, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this report: [56] Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, used by RS such as this recent CNN article. HAL333 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the source describes "genocide allegations". We can't put claims that reliable sources consistently describe as "allegations" in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Misleading and undefined, so-called “cultural genocide” does NOT exist as a crime punishable under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

“Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” [[57]] --Ooligan (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arguments in favour of the move seem to all rely on some official definition (and even these are shakey) but there seems no doubt that the more common name is the current one, and that's what we should go with. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References:

Discussion: Requested move 1 April 2021

To provide a bit of context: the previous move discussion, which was closed in August of 2020, resulted in the page being moved from Uyghur cultural genocide to Uyghur genocide. At the time, a rough consensus had been established for the move. The closer, OhKayeSierra, noted that over the time period during which the close occurred, many editors moved from supporting the page title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" to Uyghur genocide. In particular, the closer noted that editors who initially supported the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" had changed their !vote on the issue based upon the coverage of the topic provided by reliable sources that were published during the time of the move discussion. I've provided a more detailed summary of the arguments in favor of the move at that time in my !vote in the survey section above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking over that move discussion, the proposal was highly contentious, and the rationale was based heavily on original research and a few opinion articles. Reliable sources attribute the accusations of genocide, as has been shown above. Eight months later, it's time to revisit what was an extremely poorly grounded (and from a WP:NPOV perspective, absolutely outrageous) decision. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I believed then (as I still do now) that there was a marginal consensus in favor of moving the article to its current title. Or would you have preferred me to ignore consensus and cast what would've amounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE in my close? I fail to see what's so "outrageous" about respecting the consensus of the editing community as an RM closer. At any rate, this isn't a move review for an 8 month old RM, so I don't really see what there is to be gained from rehashing an old RM when this current one is still active. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Also these sources. Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[58] [59]

Study released by the Essex Court Chambers concluded that there is "a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uighur people in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and describes how the minority group has been subject to "enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilisation and persecution." Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[60]

Proposal: 1 year move moratorium on Uyghur genocide

I am proposing that a 1 year move moratorium be enacted on the page, regardless of the outcome of this RM. I see no indication that consensus has changed since the initial RM. If anything, per Mikehawk10's rationale, it seems that the majority of reliable sources have been increasingly referring to it as a genocide. I don't think there's much to be gained from multiple RM's being churned out for the same topic in less than a year's time, especially for one as controversial as this. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an on-going news event and we cannot predict what it will be called in the future. TFD (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe so, but there should be some semblance of stability in the RM process, based on my understanding of the intent of WP:TITLECHANGES. While we can't predict what it will be called in the future, what we can do is wait a year after this RM concludes (or less if there's a sufficient consensus to lower the moratorium, which I'm not opposed to) and revisit it if there's a need to do so and if the RS coverage about Xinjiang warrants it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  We have already predicted that it will be called the Uyhgur genocide in the future. If we used the terminology in reliable sources, as recommended, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. TFD (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Huh? Just from a cursory glance at the article, the WP:THREE best sources that I could find explicitly refer to it as a genocide. At any rate, whether or not it should be called a genocide or cultural genocide is immaterial, as far as this proposal is concerned. The purpose of this proposal is to limit disruption from multiple consecutive RM's in such a short span of time. If you're still opposed to that, I don't think there's anything more that I can say to convince you otherwise. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  In fact they don't. The sources quote people who call it a genocide. There is dispute among experts whether the alleged events, if true, would constitute genocide, which is why reliable sources always attribute the claim of genocide. While it may be a subtle distinction, it is the difference between partisan and neutral writing. TFD (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have anything more to add beyond what I've already said. OhKayeSierra (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe the right way forward is a conditional moratorium: a moratorium on any new move requests unless significant new information arises. The problem with the current move request is that it came without any new information, making it identical to the previous move request. It wouldn't make any sense to have a third such request. Morgengave (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. Of course, requesters will claim there is significant new information and we'll end up arguing over that, but it would probably save everyone time by enabling frivolous move requests to be closed speedily. Harland1 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant to comment here earlier, but I'd like to add that I'm not opposed to modifying the proposal with this suggestion. I think lessening the time from a year to 6 months might be easier and less likely to get gamed, but by this proposal, if there would be sufficient consensus to remove the moratorium if new sources came out that would warrant a new RM, I'd be for making it conditional. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion. There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars. Dazaif (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dazaif: This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion. That's simply not true. Moratoriums are used to limit disruption (both unintentional and otherwise) that stem from multiple consecutive RM's. Kyiv and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are two of the most recent examples that come to mind, though I'm sure there are many other articles that have required RM moratoriums and benefitted from it. For example, I remember closing the second most recent RM with Kiev as not moved with a strong consensus against moving to Kyiv with the moratorium taking effect shortly thereafter. After the moratorium lapsed, there were enough reliable sources to justify moving it from Kiev to Kyiv, so consensus naturally swayed towards moving it. So my suggestion that this could benefit from a moratorium is hardly unprecedented, and the article would actually benefit from having it in place. Additionally, when you say There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars., you haven't shown that in your RM request at all. As the requester, the onus would be on you to prove that moving it is necessary. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per OP. It's getting a bit annoying now. — Czello 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support The current move request hasn't put forward any evidence that reliable sources have changed their positions since the last move request—blindlynx (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support conditional move moratorium per Morgengave. Jancarcu (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, it's not like it's going to stop being a genocide in the next year. Even if China stops it still will have been a genocide. Loki (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as no substantive evidence has changed since the last move discussion. - Amigao (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an ongoing, changing situation, and I don't think a COMMONNAME has yet been established in reliable sources. Moreover, neither the current title nor the proposed title is ideal, so it's important to leave the possibility open for a proposal to move to a better title. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as other, less drastic measures should probably do the trick, namely (as already proposed in the survey) a FAQ notice at the top of the talk page, along with Template:Round in circles. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think there's anything to gain from gridlocking a current event's name based on dubious sources when a significant amount could change regarding the narratives and evidence of genocide in the months to come. This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title. I think people forget how influential a title can be in a situation where the evidence and claims are far far murkier than people give it credit for. Deku link (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title. That's simply not true, and my rationale for why I think this is beneficial for the article has been detailed multiple times above. My reply to Dazaif may be of interest to you. WP:AGF, please. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  You're right, and I apologize. I'm still opposed to the motion, but I was assuming your intent in a malignant way, and that was in error. That being said, even if your rational lies in another place, I still think the end result will be similar and will be a mistake. Deku link (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - moves should need discussion, but don't set a time, the events could end up acquiring a widely known name in less than a year (like The Stolen Generations or The Holocaust), and if so a new page title might be appropriate then. Irtapil (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Of course not. This article covers a current events story and given that alone, it is ludicrous to ask that editors cannot change the title. More importantly, it's become obvious from the discussion above that the title reproduces allegations in Wikivoice when the vast majority of reliable sources do not do so. In all likelihood a title like Human rights in Xinjiang will be necessary to document human rights violations, without declaring a "genocide" in Wikivoice using mostly opinion columns as support. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, with a preference for a conditional moratorium, as outlined by Morgengave. WP:CCC notes that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Repetitive move discussions in the absence of substantial new information take up time that could be better spent elsewhere and it seems WP:CCC would indicate that it would be a good practice to avoid repeating move proposals in the absence of substantial new information that would be likely to change consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support Has this proposal not been attempted over ten times over and every time it reaches the same consensus? These moves are a waste of time, but the name also won't change with time. As it's a genocide the fact that it's ongoing doesn't change that one bit, nothing new would change therefor a new title would be absolutely redundant. This isn't an armed conflict with the name changing with time, how is time somehow going to make this less of a genocide? The abuses present have nearly universal consensus of deliberate attempts at genocide, really they aren't subtle. If the consensus of the abuses is that it is a genocide no time changes that, we don't need to have this open to ten more wear and tear discussions, its an immense waste of time. Des Vallee (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support First, this one year protection allows for the stability needed to help this article to obtain a higher quality status as an article[61]. Second, once the crime of GENOCIDE has been alleged by permanent members of the United Nations- it will NOT likely recede to some lesser crime. In fact, further investigation will likely add to the existing evidence, when a “Genocide Tribunal” or “Criminal Court” is convened to adjudicate these allegations and any potential future international criminal charges related to ”Genocide.” By the way, I understand there are three potential Genocide related criminal charges- 1. Conspiracy to Commit Genocide, 2. Attempted Genocide and 3. Genocide. Wikipedia is not the final tribunal of these allegations, but it can and should reflect these extraordinary allegations by some member states of the United Nations. This includes the State Department of the United States under both the Trump and Biden administrations, which is a rare continuity of policy between political rivals. Third, the proposed year will save valuable time and energy of Wikipedians with broad and varied interests in this overall Project by not having to engage in repeated effort on redundant requests on a specific, yet important issue. --Ooligan (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Whatever the outcome of this discussion, this seems like a solid idea. ~ HAL333 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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