Wikipedia

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 16

< Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China
(Redirected from Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 16)
Latest comment: 9 months ago by 97.103.129.121 in topic 1 million number is wrong
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Requested move 20 September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago79 comments23 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uyghur genocide → Uyghur ethnocide – Uyghur genocide is not a neutral term and possibly incorrect, but the persecution is a clearly ethnocide. Sharouser (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor changing from its current title, which is not consistent with article naming policies. There are many labels used to describe China's maltreatment of Uyghurs, with various characterizations including persecution (a word you use), suppression, crackdown, human rights abuses, and forced assimilation. Unfortunately, the current article title reflects the most contentious and contended choice, one not accepted by enough RS to be the article title.
Characterizations from recent academic sources which I have readily accessible include Gerstl, 2023 (people of Xinjiang are "suppressed"), Dubravčíková, 2023 ("a policy of forced abandonment of religion, sinicization, and reeducation"), Tuscanyi, 2023 ("persecution" of religious minorities in Xinjiang), Shinn & Eisenmann, 2023 ("Uighur crackdown").
While ethnocide strikes me as "less wrong" than the current title, I am also not convinced it is a proper title.
Ultimately, I think this is a discussion which to stay organized, needs to be made with reference to the body of reliable sources on the topic. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Adding further to my list of recent academic sources, Murphy 2022 ("crackdown in Xinjiang" ... "The extreme manifestation of this interest is China's extrajudicial incarceration of over 1 million Uyghurs in camps in Xinjiang") JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Why would you consider a book about China's foreign policy (Dawn. C. Murphy, China's Rise in the Global South 2022) relevant to the subject, particularly when it doesn't refer to this incarceration as genocide? The issue is not what China is doing, but how we describe it. Genocide is an emotive term that should only be used when there is consensus in reliable sources for its use. TFD (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
You write, "Genocide is an emotive term that should only be used when there is consensus in reliable sources for its use." I agree.
Implicit in your comment is that "genocide" should not be in the article title. I agree with that too.
That's my purpose in identifying a sample of recent reliable sources that do not use the "genocide" label. "Genocide" is a minority view which should not be in the article title.
It is not remarkable that a foreign policy text like the Murphy one I cite here is relevant to the topic. The issue of China's policies in Xinjiang have significant foreign policy ramifications both with regard to China itself and other countries reactions and merit discussion in that context. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
"The most common way this is referenced in reliable sources is as a "genocide" Is that true? For example see a recent NYTimes story about Xinjiang, which does not refer to genocide, but instead human right violations: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/business/economy/solar-xinjiang-china-report.html?searchResultPosition=11 . In this piece from the Guardian "genocide" is only used to refer to the term used by some governments and is not the term used by the newspaper itself: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/28/xi-urges-more-work-to-control-religious-activities-in-xinjiang-on-surprise-visit Dhawk790 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This mean that you would support changing the language to something other than genocide, right? I agree about the problem of both terms being associated with mass killings, which no is even contending in the case of Xinjiang. I think the Persecution of Uyghurs suggestion below addresses this issue. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Please also see this article, which argues that genocide terminology is not helpful: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word-for-the-horrors-of-xinjiang Dhawk790 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Change to Persecution of Uyghurs as others have suggested, easier to understand than ethnocide and not as loaded of a term as genocide. Killuminator (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the name we have is sufficient. The common name for something that isn't occurring in an English speaking country is always going to be a bit messy, its never going to be perfect but what we have now is close enough. Persecution of Uyghurs doesn't work because thats a different and broader topic than the one described here which is only about a modern episode of persecution and not about the hundreds of years of persecution which came before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Change to Persecution of Uyghurs. Posting this to make my position more explicit, and I laid out some sources in response to an earlier comment. I strongly oppose the current title. While I believe there are numerous other formulations which would be acceptable, Persecution of Uyghurs has emerged as the most favored alternative at this stage of the discussion and I would certainly be willing to join in that result. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. "Persecution" of Uyghurs could refer to numerous events stretching back in time. That's not exactly what this article is about. - Amigao (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
    To the extent this is a problem, it is a problem already existing with the current name as well. The article uses a disambiguation link to address the issue, and a similar approach can be adopted after move. The article currently says, "For the 1750s genocide that occurred in the same region, see Dzungar genocide." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
    Moving to a title that is more imprecise still goes against WP:PRECISE and more disambigs just seem like a workaround to cover for needless imprecision. Amigao (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
    I think we could deal with the problem by adding years. For example "Persecution of Uyghurs (2014 to Present)". Dhawk790 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
    It is a good suggestion, but I think "Persecution of Uyghurs" is probably fine too. For example, the article about the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine since 2014 is simply titled Russo-Ukrainian War (instead of "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to Present)"), even if there were historically other wars between them. --Wengier (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree and prefer the simpler title. Good point about the Russia-Ukraine article. It looks like there is a growing consensus for Persecution of Uyghurs, but if enough people think lack of specificity is an issue, then adding the years might be a good compromise. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
    There are just a handful of editors in favor. That's not a growing consensus. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I think the more important point is not the title, but the clarification of the term usages. As discussions below have shown, I don't think the title is considered the main issue any more, although the related discussions do reveal important points that can be used to improve the article. --Wengier (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Change to Persecution of Uyghurs (or Persecution of Uyghurs (2014 to Present)) Update: As the discussions below have suggested, I think the more important issue is the clarification of the word "geocide" used in the article, as this will make readers more clear about the sense in which we use the word 'genocide'. This will also make the content more neutral. Indeed, neutral point of view (NPOV) is a core principle of Wikipedia. --Wengier (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
    Previous RfCs found that the current title meets WP:AT. In fact, since the 2021 RfCs, the current title has become more common, not less. Thus, more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, is there any new evidence or new arguments being put forth since the last RfCs? Amigao (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    However, "Persecution of (the) Uyghurs" is quite common (as well), probably has become increasingly more common than before. Things all change, and this is a regular move request. Of course neutrality is also very important for deciding the article title (as stated in that page). --Wengier (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    So, what exactly has changed? No new arguments or evidence are being presented in this RfC that were not covered in past RfCs. Amigao (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    This is a regular move request, and people can all vote and/or express their opinions as they wish. Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. If you have a problem with the move request itself, you can also request it separately (and I am not the one who opened the move request). --Wengier (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    With resect to Comment on content, not on the contributor, please, where in his replies to you is he talking about the contributor? He seems to be talking about the content (i.e. since the 2021 RfCs, the current title has become more common, not less and So, what exactly has changed?). I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    Right before my above comment he sent me a message in my talk page with a notice saying "You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, ..." etc [1], and also tried to change some contents that I previously edited in some other pages. I was simply voting in this page following the regular move request, and apparently people can all vote and/or express their opinions as they wish (and in good faith). Indeed, Wikipedia's editors should all treat each other with respect and civility, and be in good faith. --Wengier (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    The note on your page is a standard no-fault general sanctions notification, to ensure that you're aware that this is a GS topic area. Please also note that RfCs are not votes in the strict sense; they're more like formal threaded discussions than anything else. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and it is well-established among reliable sources:
Examples of RSes that use "Uyghur genocide"/"genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang in their own voice

Notes

  1. ^ Note that this is a piece from the news desk explaining that the New Yorker had translated the below piece into Mandarin
The academic consensus has become even stronger about the situation in Xinjiang, and the arguments to simply move the page to omit the word for which there are frankly unconvincing. The arguments to keep this page at its current locations, as stated in the prior well-attended move requests remain salient. Arguments to rename this to "persecution" likewise are unconvincing, particularly in light of the balance of academic sources that write about this issue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A great deal of the last debate focused around whether 'genocide' was actually the commonname for the recent mistreatment of Uyghur's by the Chinese state, and I acknowledge that SOME of the sources above do treat the term as though it IS the acknowledged/accepted name for that mistreatment, but those sources aren't necessarily 'mainstream'. A huge percentage of the above sources however prove the opposite to my mind. When commentators say things such as "all of which demonstrate a genocide is occurring in XUAR" … "The regime with its inhuman policies is currently carrying out genocide" … "All of these are acts of genocide which meet the Convention’s definition under article 2(b) and 2(d)" - those from among the first few refs only. Clearly in these instances the writer is trying to persuade me as reader that what is happening is genocide or that what is happening meets some or all of the legal definition of genocide. To analogise, if I believe, or I try to argue that the attacks on the Capitol on January 6th 2020 were a deliberate attempt to overthrow the US govt in order to impose a totalitarian governance, that is clearly a million miles from "January 6th US Totalitarian Coup attempt" being the commonname for those events.
FWIW, my own assessment during the previous name discussion was that 'genocide' was the commonname among activists and academics seeking to argue that sufficient evidence existed to believe there WAS a genocide, but the very act of arguing that the mistreatment was genocide, or met some of the legal definition of genocide, constituted an admission that the term wasn't generally the accepted one - ie wasn't commonname outside the circle of activists.
Due to partially contradictory discussions, we have the anomalous position that we call the article 'genocide', but cannot assert in WPVOICE that such a deed has occurred or is occurring, we merely claim that the mistreatment is sometimes/often referred to as 'genocide'.
One particular aspect of this naming dispute has always concerned me, namely that those who argue for 'genocide' being the apt term - either here or in the real world - are reliant on a little-known and never previously used part of the general 'legal' definition and a little known part of Lemkin's writings. The part of both that relates to making the group unviable by - in this instance - obstructing reproduction, rather than physically destroying the group (ie killing). I obviously cannot prove that the general reader does not know that 'genocide' does not necessarily involve intentional mass killing, but what I believe is true is that there are simply zero instances of "ZXY genocide" being the commonname for any historical event, in which significant numbers of the ZXY population were not intentionally killed. Why would the general reader NOT assume that genocide=intentional mass killing and therefore be perplexed to discover that no intentional killing is even claimed in this instance ? Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a really important point. I wonder if there are any examples of other articles on Wikipedia where the term genocide is used to refer to an event that did not include some form of mass killings, even if other crimes might have been a part of it. In contrast, in instances where the crimes are not mass killngs, the specifics are used. See for example: Sterilization of Native American women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women; Sterilization of Latinas: Sterilization of Latinas Internment of Japanese Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans . These historic cases of persecution match claims about Japan, but they are not referred to as genocides. In the case of sterilization of Latinas and Latin American immigrants, the alleged crimes persist to the present, but you basically never hear the terminology of genocide used. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A cultural genocide (or ethnocide) is still a genocide. What claims about Japan do these examples match? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The two main relevant claims about Xinjiang seem to be sterilization and mass internment. I was providing examples of other historical times when those activities happened, but they are not widely labelled genocide. You can in the sterilization case, some people have claimed that they are genocide, but Wikipedia still does not use the label genocide. Also, if you look at the list of Genocides on Wikipedia, Xinjiang is the only case where no death toll is listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides . If you go through the Cultural Genocide article you can see that the main articles discussing the events do no label them as a genocide in their title. See one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%ADs . Dhawk790 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
What does any of that have to do with claims about Japan? If we're talking about Xinjiang and you said Japan for some reason you don't consider the claim of cultural destruction to be relevant? The sources seem to treat those as the strongest claims. Also note that your example of mass internment doesn't match, thats wartime internment and this is peacetime interment. You also don't see the widespread physical and sexual abuse thats been reported in the Xinjiang situation in the WWII internment of Japanese Americans on the west coast. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not saying that these are the same thing. I don't see the relevance of wartime vs not war time either. If China was at war would that change how you would define the events? Many diffinitive genocides happened during war time. I am saying that in other historical times when similar actions have been done they are not labelled as genocide on Wikipedia even when in some cases there are credible sources that label them as genocide. There was also alleged sexual abuse during interment. See here for a helpful source: https://densho.org/catalyst/sexual-violence-silence-japanese-american-incarceration/ . Dhawk790 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
And yet you have not presented similar actions (the scale of sexual abuse for example doesn't match up, the source you just provided looks nothing like the organized mass rape-torture in the camps in China), nor have you touched on articles like Black genocide where we use genocide in the title despite that being contentious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
There are similar actions accusations of mass internment, sexual abuse sterilization. My point is that in most cases these events are not usually labelled as a genocide. If you look at the main article that lists genocides, it lists the numbers believed to have been killed. The only exception is the Uyghur Genocide. It is clear that the term genocide is almost always used when referring to deliberate mass killings of a particular people group. The Black genocide example is an interesting one. I think if the we moved the current Uyghur Genocide article to a less contentious title (like the persecution example) and used the Uyghur genocide article to discuss the contentions about genocide, as is the case in the Black genocide article (the undisputed atrocities against Black Americans like mass incarceration, slavery, sterilization etc. have their own articles), that would be a good compromise. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
They don't appear similar, they appear to differ by orders of magnitude in terms of scale and in almost all other ways. You appear to be trying to use whataboutism but your argument is crippled by your inability to find similar cases which aren't acknowledged genocides or use genocide in their title or description. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The nature of the claims is the same. Mass internment. Sterilization. Sexual abuse. Scale is not the relevant point. In cases of genocide, the relevant factor is intent. For example, Srebrenica is frequently labelled a genocide, despite the number of dead being significantly less than other cases of mass killing because the belief is that there was intent to eliminate the Bosnian population of the city. For example, the 2003 Iraqi War, which involved many more dead civilians, is not labelled a genocide because the belief is that there was not deliberate intent to eliminate the people killed. To you point about finding similar cases--I think the important question is to find another article describing a historical even that is described as genocide without evidence of mass killings. If there are no other such cases, I think it is inconsistent to label what is describe in the current article as genocide. List of genocides is a good place to see what I mean. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
A cultural genocide (or ethnocide) is still a genocide. Well if I was Lemkin, I'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but all those editors (and many of the sources they cited) who changed this article title from 'Uyghur cultural genocide' to 'Uyghur genocide' back in June 2020 clearly wouldn't. The most frequently argued comment is that the situation had worsened/become clearer and that this was no longer merely cultural, but now actual. We can not either of us know with certainty what a hypothetical 'average' reader thinks, but 'cultural genocide' is a great deal less open to misunderstanding than 'genocide'.
I think that this 'misunderstanding' issue is actually peripheral. Were the COMMONNAME established in the way some editors claim it is, any ambiguity would at most require a sentence or two of clarification. At present IMO, we aren't even clear in the article about the sense in which we use the word 'genocide'. We rather assume that the reader is familiar with the writings of Lemkin and/or the provisions of international genocide law - which are both different from the ordinary English usage of 'intentional mass killing of an ethnic group'. The subjects are clearly very different, but The Rape of the Sabine Women is explicit from the outset that 'rape' is not used in the ordinary sense of that word. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
So an important point in the comment is that the word "genocide" as used by some sources (including some of those who tried to persuade that what is happening is genocide) is used in a very different sense than the ordinary English usage of 'intentional mass killing of an ethnic group'. Thus, if the word is to be used in the title as the common name, then the article should make clear about this very important point in the article, since ordinary readers may simply not know about such a usage. --Wengier (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that there does not appear to be objections about this in the discussion, I have been thinking about a sentence like "The word "genocide" as defined in the Genocide Convention does not necessarily involve intentional mass killing (unlike the ordinary English usage)". --Wengier (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
It would almost certainly be WP:OR to make claims about the 'normal' understanding of 'genocide'. I have had another editor argue here that most people understand that it does not necessarily involve killing. Whether they or I are more right, it would almost certainly lead to WP:OR to presume what the 'normal' meaning is IMO. We could only be clearer about what the meaning is when used HERE. Pincrete (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I see what you meant. It would be even better if you had pointed out this earlier. There is no doubt that you have a good understanding about such terms, and indeed I have been trying to learn from you. In any case, I am sure you can handle things related to such concept(s) better than me. --Wengier (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that Uyghur ethnocide is the only logical solution to achieve neutrality and accuracy. Cultural genocide or "persecution" may blur accuracy, but ethnocide is not. Sharouser (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
'Ethnocide' is probably even less the WP:COMMONNAME than 'genocide' is, but might be justified as a descriptive title. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think "ethnocide" may indeed be justified as a descriptive title, but I do not think it is used by many sources. --Wengier (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not the common name in sources. Admittedly, this page was at Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China when the page was first created, but that was done before the mass sterilization campaign had been reported. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Can the title incorporate quotation marks around genocide? The word is controversial because how it is used by sources, what it means under different laws to different analysts, and what it means in common language are all different. CurryCity (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
We aren't allowed to use scare quotes (what you just described) on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Red-tailed hawk, the WP:BESTSOURCES show "Urghur genocide" to be the WP:COMMONNAME. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Concur the current article title is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Path2space (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    By my estimation, about a third of Red-tailed hawk's sources are not using 'genocide' or 'Uyghur genocide' as the name they use to refer to the repression being suffered by Uyghurs. They are either arguing that what is happening amounts to genocide and some are simply reporting the use of the term. Joanne Finley's article is called “Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang” in it she says “The suppression of Uyghur births on this scale, in concert with the Chinese state’s other efforts to eradicate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, amounted quite simply to a genocide-in-process”.
    Clearly Finley is arguing that the possibility that China is implementing genocidal policies is very real and is increasingly feared to be the case by “Scholars and Activists” - but she does NOT refer to those policies and practices as “Uyghur genocide”. Indeed her argument implies that neither she nor her readership accepts that term as the usual name for the events. If it were, who and why would she need to persuade that this WAS possibly/probably a genocide?
    The Guardian puts the term in quotes “Pair tell of witnessing or experiencing torture and brainwashing, as Republicans and Democrats vow to document ‘genocide’ and otherwise only uses the term ‘genocide’ in quotations from various parties. To claim that the Gdn is endorsing the existence of a genocide, or using the term in its own voice as the COMMONNAME is patently false. Reporting what others claim is happening isn't endorsing anything.
    Many other sources are arguing for the reality of a genocide or reporting that some are calling it that, or that some legal conditions of a genocide have been met. These are all the polar opposite of endorsing that the generally accepted term understood by sources and readers for the mis-treatment of Uyghurs is “Uyghur genocide”. Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • oppose based on RS provided above—blindlynx 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME, per Red-tailed hawk clear source analysis.  // Timothy :: talk  17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Opinion. Do significant majority sources support genocideness of this article? Per Wikipedian policy, it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Sharouser (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    If you look at one of my comments above, the two major human rights organizations (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) do not label it a genocide and AI cites a source that argues against calling it a genocide. Major news outlets (like the New York Times and Guardian) only report on certain governments considering it a genocide and do refer to it in that way. Dhawk790 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    My assessment is that sources don't sufficiently endorse “Uyghur genocide” as the commonname. Other editors disagree. It is my estimation that there probably ISN"T a COMMONNAME and that we should use an accurate 'descriptive title, especially since the present title is contentious. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Especially as the label of genocide here is sometimes used as proof of genocide. For example, see this article written by a prominent public health professor: https://sandrogalea.substack.com/p/on-engaging-with-colleagues-from . Dhawk790 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment, somewhat anomalously, although the article is called “Uyghur genocide” - a seperate RfC here established that we cannot say in WP:VOICE that a genocide is occurring or has occurred, but rather must say (as we do now) that the mistreatment of Uyghurs by the Chinese govt "is often characterized as genocide". To my mind this is truly bizarre and AFAIK doesn't happen on any other 'genocide' article, namely that the name of the article is merely "often characterized as" something which we cannot assert exists (ie genocide), rather than something that practically all WP:RS accept is happening, (persecution of, and HR abuses against Uyghurs). Even if those RSs disagree as to how to characterise the persecution or on what scale it is occurring, they almost universally endorse that Uyghurs are being incarcerated and otherwise persecuted in various ways as a matter of Chinese state policy. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    This is a persuasive view consistent with your earlier comment about the need to use an WP:NDESC title. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    I also agree this is persuasive. There is no doubt that you have good understandings of such terms. --Wengier (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    The reason we're in this absurd situation is that there are editors who really want to label this a genocide in Wikivoice, despite the sources not supporting that claim. The WP:COMMONNAME argument is then used as a way to do an end-run around WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and to put the disallowed "genocide" claim right in the title. Everyone knows that readers will interpret the title as an endorsement by Wikipedia of the claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs, and that's the indeed whole point of naming the article "Uyghur genocide". We can all be polite and pretend this isn't happening, but it's obvious to anyone who goes back and reads the talk logs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No new arguments versus previous move discussions. Uyghur Genocide is still the common name. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think the title is considered the main issue any more in recent discussions, and in fact I am not sure why the move request is still open. But the related discussions do reveal important points that can be used to improve the article. --Wengier (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I am not sure why the move request is still open. I relisted it because at the point of relisting, some 10 days ago from this reply here, because I saw fresh comments coming in still and would like to give this discussion more time to reach a conclusion. It seems that it may have, but I should not however be the one closing this discussion, given that I had participated in an related discussion somewhere else and doing so here may taint an otherwise proper closure. – robertsky (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply, although I have to say that while I have considered “ethnocide” or “persecution” to be WP:NDESC titles, it has been pointed out that the term "genocide" meets WP:COMMONNAME, which is an important WP policy. Thus, if WP:COMMONNAME is considered the most (or more) important policy for WP article titles and "genocide" does meet it, then I think the policy has to be followed no matter (unfortunately) how anomalous or "problematic" the term itself may be (as various editors have pointed out, which is certainly understandable), although I guess some clarifications may help improve the article, and (very importantly) it is always good to see editors working together (in good faith) during the process to work around the situation (instead of confrontations). —Wengier (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that consensus is reached not to use Uyghur genocide and we should use an accurate 'descriptive title. Sharouser (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, while the arguments about "ethnocide" or "persecution" being WP:NDESC titles are certainly persuasive, that is nevertheless not quite the same as a consensus not to use "genocide" as the article title has already been reached. --Wengier (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not list all discussed names and use approval voting to find consensus? Killuminator (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Because WP:NOTVOTE. – robertsky (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has already taken place for the most part but some thoughts are implied for certain editors without them being consulted, it's fairly common to survey editors to see what alternative proposals (including retaining the current title) are acceptable to get a sense of consensus so it's not a simple vote. Killuminator (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2023 (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.

First sentence in the lead

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone link the previous discussion(s) on the first sentence of the lead? I don't know why the first sentence doesn't start like "The Uyghur genocide is..." (with the term in bold), which is the convention in normal cases. Aintabli (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is here. Crudely, it established that we cannot say in WP:VOICE that a genocide is occurring or has occurred, but rather must say (as we do now) that the mistreatment of Uyghurs by the Chinese govt "is often characterized as genocide". As I've said above, I find this exremely anomalous, although I am one of those that think that 'Uyghur genocide' is NOT the COMMONNAME, and that theredore the article is mis-titled.Pincrete (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the RfC. It certainly looks interesting for those (including me) who were not very familiar with previous RfCs on such issue(s). I hope to study them more in order to have an even better understanding of such discussions (and indeed the general topic as well) and in the hope to handle such issue(s) better than before. In any case, as also pointed out in the previous section, there are certainly anomalies in the term, and hope the article can be improved further to address such issue(s) even better (whether the focus should be on the title or the content is another issue). --Wengier (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Will take a look at the RfC, but I believe it is somewhat contradictory that the article doesn't take the conventional direct approach in the first sentence, although it is clearly titled so, and "Uyghur genocide" is visible in bold letters on the infobox. Aintabli (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I agree that this is 'contradictory', but for me the name, rather than the opening sentence. is wrong. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article called 'Uyghur genocide'?

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Already the lede shows that the labelling of these policies as 'genocide' is highly contested and not at all generally accepted. Yet, by its very choice of title, the article openly endorses the most extreme position on one side, and then, as a result, we have articles elsewhere on Wikipedia again referring to 'the Uyghur genocide' as if it were an undeniable and established fact that there is such a thing, i.e. that the policies do amount to a genocide. This is even used to label individuals who disagree with the view that this description is appropriate - again, a view that is not even close to being universally accepted, as the lede itself admits - as 'Uyghur genocide deniers'. This contradicts WP:NPOV and seems intended to create a new default view rather than to reflect the currently existing range of opinion - in other words, it seems to emanate more from an activist/propagandistic mission than from an encyclopedic one. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You can peruse the move logs to understand the discussion that led to the naming of the article, and to the upholding of that name later on. You can find those logs in one of the banners at the top of this talk page. UlyssorZebra (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Neutrality is not what is commonly meant as being neutral. It defines its own Neutrality with respect to only what editors consider as reliable sources. For example, if A, B, and C are considered reliable, then the articles will reflect what they say and not take sides amongst them. However, this does not mean Wikipedia is neutral with respect to all sources or information. Say X is considered unreliable by editors, and Y is ignored by (reliable) sources, then Wikipedia will not include those information. CurryCity (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the FAQ

The FAQ, edited by Red-tailed hawk, has stated since 2021 that: "The current title reflects the consensus established in two separate move discussions (30 June 2020, 1 April 2021) that were created just over three-quarters of a year apart from each other. In these discussions, editors discussed reporting from reliable sources in light of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA, each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title "Uyghur genocide" is an appropriate name for the article."

This sentence in the FAQ makes it seem likes there was a bigger support for the current title than what can be seen by following the two links in the answer. On 30 June 2020 the closing admin didn't even move it at first to the current title and on 1 April 2021 the The result of the move request was "No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is."

That's why I propose it be changed from

"each time establishing an affirmative consensus that the title..."

to

each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title...

181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the FAQ 2

I've removed the following question (written and answered by Red-tailed hawk and then reinstated by himself when I deleted it), mainly because it's just clutter at this point since the article is move protected indefinitely since September 2021 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Uyghur+genocide ). But also because, in my opinion, the way it was worded was biased and unprofessional since it implies that anyone who renames the articles does so just because they don't like the title. 

FAQ row|index=2|q=Should I try to move the [[Uyghur genocide]] page on my own because I don't like its title?|a=No. '''Do not unilaterally move the page against consensus.'''

181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There is affirmative consensus to have the page where it is. If you would like to move it, open a move request; don't do it unilaterally, because it's fairly disruptive to do that when one knows that any change will be contested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The point about full move protection is a strong one, though. I think it's unlikely that any admins will unilaterally move the page, and even less likely that the FAQ would influence such a decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
BTW, there is a weak affirmative consensus to leave it as is. Red-tailed misrepresented the consensus reached when writing the FAQ. At the time the misrepresentation didn't matter because there was a one year moratorium regardless. 181.164.245.124 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There does appear to be a strong consensus again unilateral moves, thats separate from the affirmative consensus to leave it as is. What do you think unilateral move means in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
As for your first statement, I've only clarified that there's a weak affirmative consensus. As for your question "What do you think unilateral move means in this context? " you are either wasting my time by not reading the previous exchanges or you are being sarcastic, either way at this point the first statement is the only one that is relevant.

i.e. the one related to my proposed change:

go from: "each time establishing an affirmative consensus that the title..."

to:

each time establishing a weak affirmative consensus that the title...

181.164.245.124 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want an honest answer to your question, the reason why the article is titled "Uyghur genocide" is because there are editors who want to state in Wikipedia's authoritative voice that there is a genocide. They know that there's insufficient reliable sourcing for that claim, so they've gone a different route and argued that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for this subject. It's a clever way of making a claim without having to clear the threshold of establishing that reliable sources agree with the claim. If you press them, they'll claim that they're not making any factual claim with the title, but everyone knows that readers will view it as a factual claim. That's the whole point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Any change to the article is obviously very tedious considering that even the FAQ has been coopted by a few users misrepresenting the consensus from the previous discussions.

181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Chinese version

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Have you guys noticed the insane whitewashing on the Chinese version? Shouldn't that be fixed? I'm just thinking that if some Chinese people want information on this subject (with a VPN) and they know Wikipedia is "Western" (I know it's neutral, but for the sake of the argument) doesn't that distort their view even further of the fact that the whole thing is baloney in benefit to the CCP? ChadBroskii (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Insane people think others not agreeing with them are insane. 203.186.166.58 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, our country is in a continous crisis, are you pleased for this reply？ 86A32980X (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the English language version of Wikipedia - if you have issues with the Chinese language Wikipedia you should bring up your concerns there.--VVikingTalkEdits 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 10 months ago19 comments10 people in discussion

The suggested new name is "Uyghur genocide accusation", just like "Palestinian genocide accusation" WingL (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn't going to fly. The subject of the "Palestinian genocide accusation" IS the accusation/debate of genocide - it isn't mainly about what Israelis have done to Palestinians. This article however is mainly about how China has treated Uyghur, around which any 'genocide' accusation is simply one aspect. Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Pincrete No. It's not about how China has treated Uyghur. It's only about the accusation of "how China has treated Uyghur" from some western countries. Even most Muslim counties don't believe these accusations. So whether these treatments really exist is still debatable. Simply calling it "Uyghur genocide" is biased and seems that it really happened. But most of countries or UN don't call it "Genocide". Just need to make the subject more neutral. WingL (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Please show that reliable sources call this just an accusatory EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That isn't how we work on WP - introducing scepticism in the title. The arguments either way should be within the article. The fact of mistreatment is virtually agreed on in WP:RS, the scale, whether the treatment is justified and whether it should be called genocide are all disputed. As others say, provide the sources, or I'm afraid you are wasting your, and our, time. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a simple example from BBC report. [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037. Even they are funded by UK government, they only used the term "being accused " or "allegations", never confirmed that it's genocide. So, "Uyghur genocide accusation" aren't more netural name for it? If it's still called "Palestinian genocide accusation" even after 5000+ innocent civilians being killed by Israel in only 2 weeks, I don't think "Uyghur genocide" is a proper title of this article (at least China didn't carry out airstrike on Hospital or University). 131.155.141.145 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The BBC isn't Govt funded - nor more importantly Govt controlled. I am someone who thinks the article is misnamed, and that 'genocide' is not the usual term for what is happening to the Uyghurs (but that the above suggestion is wholly wrong - and doesn't have a hope-in-hell of being accepted). The fact that almost everyone on the planet (not just the BBC) KNOWS that genocide is unproven, isn't an argument for the change you suggest. WP articles are supposed to be based on WP:COMMONNAME, with a few caveats - ie approximately the name that the reader is most likely to recognise as defining the subject, rather than any 'proven' case. The article itself should outline accusations /claims/ defences/ proofs etc of all key parties, proportionately. The text rather than the title is what is most important and the title merely establishes the topic area. Our article is called the Yeti - not the Alleged yeti.
The number of deaths has almost nothing to do with whether any event is deemed to be genocide, issues like intent define it both in law and academic coverage. Also, that article is about a whole series of accusations covering from 1948 to 2023 - not specific events over a brief-ish period, as here.
Finally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, basically outlines that what has happened on one article means almost nothing on another article. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Pincrete Alright, good point. So you would agree that if I change the article description to "Alleged series of human rights abuses against an ethnic group in Western China" just like that in your Yeti example - "Alleged ape-like creature from Asia"? WingL (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what policy is on short description and even if I agreed, others might not. As it happens, I don't think the HR abuses are alleged, all the details and how widespread they are might be disputed, but mass incarceration of an ethnic group is nigh-on certain. Coercive birth-control fairly certain, other mistreatments less proven/provable. Pincrete (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Then why is the 'Palestinian Genocide Accusation' lede not simply named the 'Palestinian Genocide' if it's an issue of framing a topic regardless of validity? The timespan seems irrelevant to the inclusion or exclusion of a qualifier unrelated to a length of time 97.103.129.121 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Rational answer is because that article is about accusations, it isn't about how Palestinians have been treated. This article is about how Uyghurs have been treated, only indirectly is it about the accusations. I personally think this article should be called "HR abuses against Uyghurs" or similar because calling those abuses 'genocide' is not the WP:COMMONNAME IMO, but the boat has sailed on that discussion. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not really rational nor consistent. Both articles are about the treatment of Palestinians and Uyghurs respectively and how they're treatment is characterized by experts. The only difference is that this article lede presumes genocide as a matter of fact where as the Palestinian article does not. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, we already have an article titled "Black genocide in the United States" based on allegations that African-Americans have been subject to genocide, even though the article itself does not state that there is consensus that it is the case. Likewise, this article doesn't actually state there's a scholarly or international consensus that the human rights violations against Uyghurs qualify as genocide and if you look through previous RfCs there is already consensus that we cannot label the events "genocide" as an uncontested fact. That said, keep in mind that the term "genocide" hinges on a specific intent of the perpetrators rather than the existence or severity of mass atrocities, which is why there is clear consensus that the Srebrenica Massacre is a genocide while this is not the case for the Holodomor which claimed many more lives. Anoldsegacount (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources support current name.  // Timothy :: talk  05:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree. — Czello (music) 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
These sources are as reliable as those suggesting there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 203.186.166.58 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It's simply a waste of time trying to change how this article is written. In reality, no many people believe the information provided by western governments and media, which this article is based on. 203.186.166.58 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to contribute to this discussion by noting what this article points to in other languages:

German: "Verfolgung und Umerziehung der Uiguren in China seit 2014" (English: Persecution and re-education of the Uighurs in China since 2014) Spanish: "Violaciones_de_derechos_humanos_en_Sinkiang" (English: Human rights violations in Xinjiang) French: "Génocide culturel des Ouïghours" (English: Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs) Korean: "위구르족 집단학살" (English: Uyghur genocide) Italian: "Genocidio culturale degli uiguri" (English: Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs) Russian: "Геноцид уйгуров" (English: Uyghur genocide) Sard: "Genotzìdiu culturale de sos Uiguros" (English: Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs) Vietnamese: "Nạn diệt chủng người Duy Ngô Nhĩ" (English: Genocide of the Uyghur people) Mandarin Chinese: "新疆种族灭绝指控" (English: Xinjiang genocide accusations) Simple English: "Uyghur genocide"


I'm not going to list all 39 of them. I just wanted to point out that there seems to be diversity in the name of the article, but a lot of them have the same "Uyghur genocide" title.JasonMacker (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that German Wikipedia has a "Rezeptionen, Positionen und Reaktionen zur uigurischen Frage" (English: Receptions, positions and reactions to the Uighur question) article that we don't have here on English Wikipedia. JasonMacker (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Update article introduction (first section) to include latest information

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Proposal:

As of 2023, German sinologists Thomas Heberer and Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer report that the situation in Xinjiang is one of a return to "normality": "various camps that emerged during the peak phase of the fight against terror have now largely been dismantled." Police checkpoints are reportedly no longer in use, universal education is now made available, and state-subsidized healthcare is partially available. Additionally, while standard Chinese is the main language of instruction in schools from secondary school onwards, the languages of ethnic minorities are available for study as subjects.

Sources:

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/xinjiang-china-kampf-gegen-terrorismus-und-separatismus-ld.1753509

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/725494 2600:4040:250A:5700:5C6A:5A81:EBA4:F0F1 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The infobox on victims says "> 1 million detained", if most of them have been released it should be clarified on there as well. 181.164.245.124 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
It appears that the NZZ article by Heberer and Schmidt-Glintzer has sparked quite a lot of controversy, according to this article. Anoldsegacount (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
(German language speaker chiming in:) The journalistic quality of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) has declined considerably in some areas since a change in directions and leadership a couple of years ago, and should be used with caution in matters such as these. They don't do enough fact-checking, or just even basic checks for plausibility/coherence, and, like related outlets, will publish a lot of inflammatory or provocative things on purpose to "get discussions going" as they would put it. They pretend to be a gullible media outlet, but really, they are not doing their due diligence, by conscious omission.
Unless this is covered by other media outlets and/or more sources emerge, I would include it only with attribution to NZZ and the two academics, with reference to the ensuing controversy, as well as with heavy qualifications, since the circumstances of their trip and the subsequent articles they've published appear to be suspect. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, it was certainly brought to the ICC as crimes against humanity. On the other hand, the ICC rejected the case saying it did not fit the criteria for crimes against humanity. I think the better position is to remove the category, as it does not leave room for this nuance the way something like "allegations of crimes against humanity" might. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I've re-added the category, it certainly seems justified in this case, considering the discussion in the section Uyghur genocide § Crimes against humanity and throughout the article, and considering that the page title calls it a "genocide", making it a crime against humanity by definition. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This right here is the reason the title needs to be changed. Now even veteran editors are using page titles to assert as fact that which is yet proven. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1 million number is wrong

Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The sources for the "1 million Uyghurs being assimilated" is wrong It says Gay McDougall "Cited credible sources" Then it debunks it self right after "While McDougall did not cite her sources, the numbers of people forced into detention and into re-education matched a report that the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders submitted to the committee." So it blatantly says she does not cite her sources than decides to source a CHRD source that i cannot find and CHRD looks like some NGO funded by billionares i cant find whos behind CHRD, next on the bottom of the page it says Sources "News Agencies" what do they mean by this, that was the literal source "News Agencies" therfore i say this sources is complete bogus. IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The sentence for which this Al Jazeera source was cited states exactly what the source says: In 2018, United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination vice chairperson Gay McDougall indicated that around 1 million Uyghurs were being held in internment camps. The paragraph states various other estimates with other sources. I don't see an issue currently with how the content is laid out. The allegation that it is bogus may very well be notable, if supported by reliable sources, but our personal opinions on the matter are not relevant for the article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The article should at least include that McDougall's claim is unsubstantiated/unverified if there is no reliable data corroborating her claim or methodology for her figures, the article does explicitly include that her remarks weren't verified and that there are other groups giving far lower figures, this could be included to prevent this article from appearing to support unsubstantiated claims culminating in genocide. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
We can't just write that because we (or rather, you) think so. That would be OR which is expressly forbidden (entirely regardless of whether or not it's true). If you have a RELIABLE source stating what you wrote, please cite it here. However, the figure of a million or more detainees is confirmed by multiple sources, so even if there should be a disagreeing reliable source, we would have to be careful not to give it UNDUE weight. Gawaon (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
An article in The Globe and Mail first mentions that the McDougall figure has no underlying source:
  • Scholars estimate hundreds of thousands of people are in those centres; Ms. McDougall placed the number at two million, although she offered no source for that figure.
A 2023 academic book also mentions this and more on the 1+ million figures:
  • The first reputable report on the situation in Xinjiang was published on August 2018 by a United Nations panel on racial discrimination [...] the committee estimated that "the number of people detained ranged from tens of thousands to over a million"
  • Meanwhile, Gay McDougall, vice-chair of the same Committee, shared that the number of Uyghur detained was "two million, although she offered no source for that figure" (Vanderklippe, 2018).
  • Drawing upon various sets of "estimates" derived from unverified data [...] Zenz felt sufficiently assured to determine the total "internment figure" at just over one million (Zenz, 2019, p. 122), magically reaching a figure with the book then emphasizing Zenz's disclaimer that his estimates were speculative.
It goes on to say that post-2019, thereafter, Zenz became the preferred source for media reports mentioning those speculative figures. — MarkH21talk 08:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This material should be incorporated. Rightly or not, there are enough sources that simply repeat the 1 million figure. The solution here is to also add the sources like the 2023 text. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
That figure hasnt been confirmed by multiple sources, its been repeated by multiple sources. Many sources, certainly the Al Jazeera article cited on this page, acknowledge that there isnt a clear consensus. This page should acknowledge there isn't a clear consensus on the nebulous figure of "over 1 million", which is more in line with wikipedia neutrality that explicitly stipulates pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China/Archive_16&oldid=1224025905"