Wikipedia

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 2

< Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China
(Redirected from Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 2)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by OhKayeSierra in topic Requested move 30 June 2020
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 30 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago93 comments41 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. I believe that there is a rough consensus to move the article at this time. Since this RM began at the end of June, there have been numerous shifts in the situation in Xinjiang. Consequently, that has caused the opinions and !votes of editors involved in this RM to shift as well, with some editors previously opposing a move revising their !vote and rationale accordingly. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Closer's revised rationale: I worded my initial rationale rather poorly, and I was indirectly asked to revise it by MarkH21, which I am more than happy to do. What I meant to say was that RS coverage of the situation in Xinjiang has shifted since this RM began, which has had a slight impact in how others have !voted for this RM. I noticed two instances where editors who previously opposed a move revised their !vote accordingly. That being said, I still see a rough consensus for this move. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


Cultural genocide of Uyghurs → Uyghur Genocide – The reporting that came out today caused me to think this page should be moved to "Uyghur Genocide" (perhaps belatedly).

Main reasons for this: 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.

This leads to conclusions such as:

“It’s genocide, full stop,” said Uighur expert Joanne Smith Finley, who works at Newcastle University

Since this is evidently the main landing page for the recent Uyghur oppression, it should likely be moved to "Uyghur Genocide" in line with pages for historical oppressions that resulted in genocide. 2601:547:500:14A0:58BB:365F:7E3E:66C8 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is false, Uighurs have always been allowed to have two children or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:c01:3990:f1f9:f885:e26e:141e (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Cultural genocide is a component of genocide, with multiple references have called it cultural genocide. This is probably a WP:COMMONNAME type of thing that will have to be determined. — MarkH21talk 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The genocide convention also includes acts such as killing members of the group and causing severe bodily and mental harm to members of the group (provided the acts are committed with intent to destroy the group in whole or in substantial part). So that, coupled with the recent revelations about forced sterilizations, would seem to satisfy the convention definition of a genocide, and not merely "cultural genocide." As long as we have a lot of reliable sources backing up that assertion, and hopefully some good jurists among them. TheBlueCanoe 22:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@TheBlueCanoe,MarkH21talk: With regards to WP:COMMONNAME, "reliable sources backing up that assertion". Sources calling this a genocide, not "just" a cultural genocide include:
The label of "cultural genocide" for this article now rests only on the quotes from Azeem Ibrahim and James Liebold, which are apparently stale. Zekelayla (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Can the first sentence of the article be modified based on these sources? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Don't move right now per The Blue Canoe. Genocide is a legal category, and I haven't seen any legal experts being quoted in the above. We should wait for them to weigh in. Right now news are saying things like "Some experts take it a step further." (calling it genocide) implying that the other experts consulted by the article did not necessarily use the term[1] and "may constitute genocide" as the headline of another article[2] WaPo editorial board is not a reliable source for legal questions, and Zenz works for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation which is an advocacy group. The ICC case anyway concerns alleged Chinese violations in neighboring countries because China is not a party to the ICC[3]. I don't think this can be put in Wikipedia voice quite yet. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think what is most relevant is named experts or authoritative bodies taking a stance one way or the other (though perhaps implicitly by continuing to use other labels than "genocide" such as "cultural genocide"). I don't think the quote from Prof. Byler fully rises to the level of a contrary statement to it being a "genocide", since it is simply a factual description without applying any label. Zekelayla (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Note: Genocide Watch, which is frequently updated, claims that genocide is ongoing is several countries, but not China[10]. (t ·c) buidhe 09:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This should be given due weight. Gregory Stanton is a genocide scholar, and he appears based on this website to prefer a narrower definition of genocide than the UN definition, excluding birth suppression. Though it would be good to find where he states this explicitly. Zekelayla (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
No, in fact he uses a very broad definition as you can see by the large areas of red on the map despite no internationally recognized genocides currently occurring there. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
buidhe He uses a 10-stage model of genocide. The first 8 stages are not actually what he would consider genocide but rather preparatory steps towards (possible) genocide. He depicts all stages on the map, but the genocides he alleges are much fewer. Zekelayla (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Zekelayla, The red areas are stage 9 (extermination). They are clearly being used for areas where genocide is not internationally recognized. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, you are right that the definition he was using is not "narrower", because it includes mass killings of people due to political identities. To restate my point in a more accurate fashion, the definition he is using appears to exclude birth suppression, making it more conservative than the UN definition as concerns the Uyghur issue. Zekelayla (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
FTR none of those RS are dated after 30/6/2020, when the 2 reports on fertility suppression came out. Zekelayla (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Which should be irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME is based on the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources), not the name that is most commonly used in the last few weeks. Recency at that level isn't a factor for article naming. It's just about what RSes use more.
But there are recent RSes that use cultural genocide anyways:
— MarkH21talk 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME does speak of weighting recent sources in response to changed circumstances. BTW, each of the outlets you cite has also referred to this as a genocide this month. ABC Newsweek AP (That NYT link is to an AP story.). Zekelayla (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - It may be premature to title the article "Genocide of/against Uyghurs." But the current title is also imperfect, in that it would seem to limit the scope of the article to cultural genocide, and not to the physical acts enumerated in the genocide convention, or to other examples of persecution. It seems odd that there is no "Persecution of the Uyghurs" article, which would be a more encompassing title. I suppose the limited scope of the title doesn't necessarily limit the content that can fall under it, but it's something to consider.TheBlueCanoe 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Simply because the RS justification (or rather what we have in the article and this discussion) for the name "Uyghur genocide" is stronger than that for "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs". "Persecution of the Uyghurs (2016-present)" would also be an improvement on the current name, but there may be a WP:COMMONNAME issue(?). Zekelayla (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the results here, I think mention of the 'genocide' position should be added into the lead section of the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Chinese Government's activities in Xinjiang clearly fall under the definition of genocide. Instances of birth control have widely circulated in recent weeks, indicating that as of now there is currently a genocide occurring in China's far western province. As such, a more apt title for this article would be "Uyghur Genocide" or something similar such as "Genocide of the Uyghurs." The current title no longer fits our current knowledge of Chinese activity in the province of Xinjiang. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
While you may personally believe it to be genocide, that is WP:OR and should be discounted when considering the correct article title. We consider WP:RS and WP:Article titles/WP:COMMONNAME. Currently, most reliable sources are not calling it genocide in an unqualified manner. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It isn't really an opinion. Sterilization, forced abortion, and other methods of birth control cross the border of "Cultural Genocide" and into the territory of simply "genocide." Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That's still an opinion. The same actions have been done on Han Chinese as well with some very high-profile incidents in earlier years (before the One-child policy, no one is accusing genocide done on Han Chinese, or any other minorities. An execution of the current Two-child policy, like other population planning policies implemented around the world, does not automatically make it a genocide on a minority race. NoNews! 13:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The Han Chinese are the primary ethnic group of China and the Chinese Government and other enforcers of similar incidents were Han. Through that, the term genocide to describe those incidents are more debatable as the enforcers were of the same group as the victims. Also, the Han Chinese weren't being ethnically persecuted and culturally genocide against by the CCP, further rendering that equivalence incomparable. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well, particularly in Xinjiang, so in that regard your point that enforces being the same race as the victims is debatable can similarly be applied to Uyghurs. If I use your initial claim solely using the UN genocide criteria to argue that birth controls/forced sterilizations on Han constitutes genocide, you object to that because it is debatable. Change that to Uyghurs, wouldn't that be debatable as well? Or are you're essentially saying that you need additional evidence beyond the UN genocide criteria to justify calling it a genocide (thereby rebuffing your initial argument)? NoNews! 17:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The original sources which that article cites have been deleted, this makes the article no longer credible. NoNews! 02:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Of all the sources cited by the article, the only deleted one that I could find was this[dead link‍] Jamestown Foundation report which was moved to a new URL. Edelsheim (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have seen your sources. None of them showed any drone footage. Even in the recent BBC video with the Chinese ambassador, there are no identifiers and it is far-fetched to claim that it happened in Xinjiang, and on Uyghurs (just because the host said so, without proof), not in some other country or city. NoNews! 02:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most sources say "cultural genocide", until such a time as when it is generally accepted as simply "genocide", it should not be changed. Misusing such word devalues its meaning, there is simply nothing to compare this with the genocides of the past. Using a few emotive sources to justify this is a very bad idea. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The genocide is not limited to the cultural realm. See also article in National Review:
  • "How the Chinese Communist Party Has Botched Its Xinjiang Coverup" As evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s conduct increasingly seems to meet the criteria for genocide set out in the Genocide Convention […] Many observers have already applied the term “cultural genocide” to the situation in Xinjiang, but the June report added heft to the case for dropping that qualifier. The images circulating this week will add momentum to that push. Nutez (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per buidhe above. A genocide is a serious claim, and based on existing sources (as well as most of the arguments above) it appears that the only issue of contention that fits the UN's "genocide" definition is with forced sterilization. Then again we saw this done on Han Chinese as well as a result of family planning policies. Yet no one has been calling for articles on genocide of Han Chinese, or Tibetans, Hui, Zhuang and other ethnics. Therefore it is more suitable to use a narrower term, with regards to restriction of birth rights. Otherwise all future population / family planning policies and implementations, in any country, can freely be given the term "genocide" in the future and that leads to its abuse, just like how the term "racist" has been abused after it was carelessly thrown around. It's the media that's being too liberal in its use of the term "genocide", and so far we do not yet have an authoritative international body definitively saying so. NoNews! 13:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be misreading the convention. Forced sterilization and forced abortions in the Han population are not part of a genocide because, although these are among the acts specified in the genocide convention, they are not undertaken with the necessary intent of destroying an ethnic, religious, or national group. The crime of genocide requires that the acts be undertaken with this intent. In the case of the Uyghurs, that intent does appear to be present. TheBlueCanoe 14:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly: a large-scale targeted campaign of forced sterilizations, forced abortions and forced birth control implants against one particular minority ethnic group is a genocide under international law. And experts - from lawyers to researchers - agree on this point. It cannot be compared in any reasonable manner to a national "family planning policy". "A new report in Foreign Policy says that China's suppression of Uighurs, Kazakhs and other chiefly Muslim ethnic minorities in northwest China now meets the United Nations definition of genocide. Mass sterilization, forced abortions and mandatory birth control part of a campaign that has swept up more than 1.5 million people and what researcher Adrian Zenz calls probably the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust." [11] Morgengave (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I disagree with Morgengave and TheBlueCanoe here. I should point out that forced sterilization is something that China has been accused of multiple times as part of carrying out its family planning policy. As taken from from the compulsory sterilization article, Compulsory_sterilization#China:
"The one-child policy was historically much more lenient on ethnic minorities in China than on Han Chinese.[1] Ethnic minorities were exempt from the one-child policy, and have always been allowed to have two children, or even three in rural areas, in contrast to Han Chinese who were only allowed one child.[1]"
It seems that even with the new allegations from this new article from the Associated Press which is where most of the new allegations of compulsory sterilization come from, https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c The alleged compulsory sterilizations only occur in the context of violations of the two child policy.
The article explicitly states that Uighurs are targeted if they violate the two child policy, or three if they live in the countryside. The article admits that Han Chinese are also subject to similar policies as Uighurs in regards to the number of children they have. Given that Han Chinese and Uighurs are subject to the same policy of limiting births to not more than three, I don't believe there is enough evidence that these new allegations of "compulsory sterilization" are enforced with the genocidal intent of destroying an ethnic, religious, or national group. I feel uncomfortable with moving this article to genocide, without an international institution like the United Nations or a similar organization labelling it as such, which has not happened yet. -2601:249:C01:3990:F1D8:65DC:68A6:2182 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. We also cannot discount the issue of media bias with regards to China. Western (European, American, Australian) media have been increasingly anti-China, seen from their double standards on reports on China (e.g. lockdown in China versus in Italy, protests in Hong Kong versus in Minneapolis). Therefore I'm inclined to believe that media claim on "genocide" is blown out of proportion. NoNews! 02:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


  • Support - revising my earlier position, because the consensus in reliable sources is changing quickly. I believe there is now sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide. TheBlueCanoe 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per OP and others. This is very clear now. RedWales (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (BST)
Birth rate drops in Uyghur dominated areas
Source: Xinjiang Statistical Yearbooks[2]
China's increasing sterilizations in Xinjiang
Source: Chinese Health and Hygiene Statistical Yearbooks & Computed by Adrian Zenz[2]
  • Support - Please note: The Uyghur and Xinjiang studies scholar James Millward (Georgetown University) wrote in The Guardian (James Millward (2020-07-27). "The Uighurs' suffering deserves targeted solutions, not anti-Chinese posturing". theguardian.com.): "Following recent revelations about forced labour, family separation and the repression of Uighur births, there should be no doubt that the policies inflicted by the Chinese Communist party (CCP) on the indigenous central Asians it rules meet the UN definition of genocide." Millward is not just one of many scientists of Uyghur studies, but a leading one. His book "Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang" (Columbia University Press, New York 2007, ISBN 978-0-231-13924-3) still "serves as the standard overview of Uyghur history", according to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (Thum, R. (2018, April 26). The Uyghurs in Modern China. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Retrieved 30 Jul. 2020, from https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-160). Actually I would prefer dealing with this subject wihin the main lemma "Uyghurs", which provides a better context of the whole historical and political evolution of the conflict. But if you chose to use a specific lemma for this topic, the usage "cultural genocide" is a misleading one. It does not cover the recent scientific findings and discourse. Therefore I see no other choice than moving the lemma to "Uyghur genocide" to put it accurately. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
That's just one point of view - and it's a subjective claim that this Millward is a "leading" scientist or expert on Uyghur affairs. Is he internationally recognized as such? "Forced labour" and "family separation" do not constitute "genocide", and there is no verified proof of forcing Uyghur children to change their racial identity. The only issue of contention is with Uyghur birth controls, which I have addressed in my opinion earlier. How many deaths are there?
Unless additional information becomes available for definite proof - or an international organization authoritatively declares it so, what is happening to the Uyghurs is in no way similar to, or on the scale of historical genocides. Calling it so at this point would set a bad precedence. NoNews! 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you are using this voting chapter for general internal discussion. But since you seem to indend disputing this here, I will answer to your question in detail:
Why don't you refer to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China", by Rian Thum, 2018[3]), I cited above? It shows clearly, that Millward is one of the very few scientists recommended for standard literature in Uyghur studies. His reputation as a leading expert therefore is international, indeed. Don't you agree with me, that this scientific reference is an excellent proof for his international reputation?
Why do you ask for "How many deaths are there?"?. Millward explicitly refers to the genocide criteria cited in the United Nations CPPCG, which lists in section d) of Article II: "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". As far as I can judge, until now all scientists referred to this section d), not to section a). Why do you try to mislead from section d) to section a) then? Maybe you understand it best if you compare the two diagrams (I inserted here now) provided by the independent investigation report published by AP (The Associated Press: "China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization", June 29, 2020, URL: https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c)
In conclusion, what at this point would constitute a bad precedence would be to play down scientific findings, misleading from UN criteria and ignoring the terms which are used in scientific discourse. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, Newfraferz87: I just got aware, that you are already preparing (diff) the next step for downgrading the lemma even to Persecution of Uyghurs instead of Cultural genocide of Uyghurs. So if you even don't acknowledge a "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs" where will it end then for en: Wikipedia? I hope you can confirm that the official Chinese narrative - as Zhao Lijian put it - "People of different ethnic groups and religious beliefs in Xinjiang live together as equals, enjoy unity and harmony, and lead a peaceful and stable life"[4] is pure and disgusting propaganda? Do you agree with me in that? --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I concede on your accreditation point, but still the only thing you have proven is part(d). That's what I'm still arguing against, that your points aren't enough to constitute "genocide":
  1. Birth control measures has been done for a long time under the One-child policy and its successor. Nobody called the administration of it to the Han, or any minority ethnicities, "genocide". Based on your sources, only Uyghurs with many children are subjected to sterilization treatment. This appears to only serve the population planning policy goal.
  2. Your data on falling birth rates just shows as is, that there is falling birth rates (various possible factors including migration) and birth control/sterilization, and it is non-ethnic specific so Han Chinese/other ethnics are included as well. Are you going to claim all ethnics in Kashgar/Hotan are genocided? The birth rates don't fall to zero. There is not enough proof to show birth control is being done on Uyghurs with the explicit intention of wiping away their population and/or ethnic identity: thus when your source concludes directly from "sterilization" to "genocide", it is just rhetoric and not objective argument. If you have proof that shows otherwise (that isn't based on any future predictions), you're welcome to show it.
  3. None of the other UN criteria on genocide is satisfied. Other Wikipedia entries with standalone articles attain the scale of massive killings and deaths. This simply doesn't apply to the treatment of Uyghurs given current information.
Lastly, in response to your question, I'm in no way interested to confirm the official Chinese narrative as you put it, maybe that's what the Chinese government is trying to achieve, but anyone who critically cross-checks information would know that there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang, and the government is implementing stringent measures in the name of security. What I do is find the facts amidst bias and rhetoric from media taking different sides, and in this case I believe that talk of "genocide" is blown out of proportion. I don't have any strong opinion on "cultural genocide" since that is so loosely defined, but "genocide" is not suitable. NoNews! 01:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are using the official Chinese Han-centristic propaganda narrative here. Why do I claim it:
ad 1): Ethnic Han women, who "violated" against former OCP or are violating against nowadays birth policy, were not sent into such mass internment camps (and even sterilized). This punishment of Turkic women takes place in todays era, when the Chinese state even desperately has to encourage women of other provinces (in some provincves with financial extra support) to get more than one child. There is absolutely no equal treatment existing towards Turkic minorities in Xinjiang and ethnic Han Chinese. You used this argument here several times. But even as an ethnic Han-Chinese - since you have got free access of information - you should know well that it's not true but in accordance with the Chinese state propaganda of "equality" between all ethnic goups (sensu Zhao Lijian and other CCP cadre officials as cited above).
ad 2): The scientists, and media sources like AP, who refer to the findings of birth rates and sterilizations (published since the end of June, 2020), came to the conclusion that the offcial Chinese figures for the Uyghur dominated areas of Kashgar and Hotan constitute the proof, that ethnic minorities (especially Uyghurs and Kasakhs etc.) are targeted, not ethnic Han-Chinese. The newest official Chinese figures are from 2018. For the years 2019 and 2020 birth rate of Turkic minorities are assumed to drop close to Zero (Zenz 2020). The fact, that you claim exactly the opposite of all these findigs shows, that you are neglecting these scientific findings in total. This, too, is in compliance with the recent official Chinese narrative.
ad 3): I don't know any scientific source which equates the repression of Uyghurs by the Chinese state with executed genocides like Nazi Germany did. Of course we are talking about a state under Xi, not about Hitler. But the UN criteria for genocide are wider. Maybe thats why Joanne Smith Finley put emphasis on that point: "It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide." But "these are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population."[2] If Wikipedia chooses a separate lemma for this topic and deals with the discourse of genocide, it has to refer to the United Nations defintion. Right? But I would agree with you if you say, you generally feel discomfort with regard of using terms like "genocide", massacre", or "terrorists". Such terms often are used as political weapons, rather then proper descriptions. But do we really share this general discomfort? Or do you prefer using such terms by yourself in other cases? (See next point).
ad 4): You claim "there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang". Really? How many years ago there were "turbulences" in Xinjiang for the last time? You said on your user page, you are interested in Counter-terrorism. So maybe you know better then me, that there is no "terrorism" acts in todays Xinjiang existing. What is existing, are mass internment camps, denied for a long time by China. And what exists is a Chinese leader Xi who says, that the Turkic detainees are infected by a “virus” of Islamic radicalism and must be quarantined and cured.[5] That talk of "terrorism" is what is blown out of proportion. But I'm afraid, we have blown out this discussion enough here, too. I gave and keep my voting. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. I take serious objection to you putting words in my mouth and participating in ad-hominem attacks. Where did I say in my user page that I am interested in Counter-terrorism, and therefore I am an expert? Just because I'm ethnic Chinese, doesn't give you the excuse to brand me as someone who engages in propaganda. You can criticize me in information or argument if you would but not insult me in character.
  2. There were various high-profile cases of Han women being mistreated for carrying more than one child, despite your unsubstantiated claim that Chinese state even desperately has to encourage women of other provinces to get more than one child. Your claim and sources have not disproved my point that birth controls on Uyghurs or any other minorities are under the context of the Two-child policy -- if Han only have two children, while Uyghurs and some ethnics have more than two children, then you would see a situation where Uyghurs are more targeted/affected! I'm not discussing whether Two-child policy is itself morally correct or wrong, only that your evidence is not enough to constitute genocide.
  3. Zenz's point is just WP:CRYSTAL. Extrapolating a possible trend of birth rates falling to zero is not evidence, but just hypothesis, and that cannot be used as evidence to support you here. Falling birth rates may be the result of various social trends or issues, such as migration as I mentioned earlier.
  4. Finley's words are rhetorically charged, so are yours for trying to bring in the Holocaust which is entirely out of context in this case. If we want to discuss an issue on Wikipedia, we have to step out of such emotive words and look at the facts and objective arguments from all the sources, don't we?
  5. You are bringing in interment camps. What does that got to do with "genocide", is there evidence that definitively suggests aspects of genocide are going on in there? There is dispute even among the international commitee with these so-called camps. Until there is a concensus, that can't be taken as conclusive evidence.
  6. All the talk about infectious "virus" of Islamic radicalism is only propagated by your source. I'm not here to argue with you the morality of the Chinese government's stance or take a stand on that matter. I'm here to argue that there is not enough evidence to definitively prove that there is genocide on Uyghurs.(rephrase: I am amicable with UN article II section(d) on birth restrictions, but disagree that it deserves be called "genocide" given the lack of such terminology on Han Chinese birth controls, and other UN sections are not satisfied.) NoNews! 05:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Ad 1) No, Newfraferz87, I did not aim at your person, but at the rhetorical methods and content you used. Instead of that you are putting words into my mouth. I used scientific sources and argumentes taken from scientific sources, while you were using rhetoric, similar to that known from Chinese state media. I never stated, you were an expert. I think one can clearly see from the way you are misinterpreting scientific sources, that you are not an expert. But since you displayed yourself on your talk page (see here) as being "interested in Counter-terrorism" (why do you deny this now?), I said, "maybe you know better then me, that there is no "terrorism" acts in todays Xinjiang existing". And if you know that, why do you state that "there is still turbulence and ethnic tension in Xinjiang"? Or if you don't know about such affairs, why do you make such a claim in a Lemma discussion about such a topic at all? Which recent "turbulence" do you refer to?
Ad 2) You are seriously equating singular cases of Han-Chinese women with the systematic mass detainment of Turkic minority in Xinjiang? Furthermore the single cases of Han-Chinese women you refer to, happened in an era when China desperately tried to reduce its population growth. In that time China treated experts for demography like Yi Fuxian - who were critic of China’s Oone-Child-birth policy - as "traitors".[6] The mass detainment of Uyghur women and their sterilization happens in an era (which began 2016), when China desperateky needs more children, but many Han-Chinese women do not want to give birth to more than one child any more, because of several reasons.[7][8]. There is absolutely no way to equate the situation of the small ethnic minority of Uighur women in the surveillance state of Xinjiang with that of the huge mass of Han-Chinese women in China.
Ad 3) First: I did not use extrapolated data in the WP article, but in the discussion (this is of course not object of WP:CRYSTAL here. Second: Extrapolating a possible trend of birth rates is what you did. You claimed "The birth rates don't fall to zero. Nobody can predict future for sure and China is not providing figures for 2019 yet. So what is your source to make such a claim? I just told you that from the scientific sources you already know, you knew exactly that the extrapolated data can nearly reach zero soon. Third: According to migration: Zenz used for his calculations the "natural growth rate" which is explicitly excluding migration. Why do you pretend not to know that fact if you checked his publications?
Ad 4) First: You tried to define the term "genocide" of being constituted by the presence of killed person ("How many deaths are there?", "Other Wikipedia entries with standalone articles attain the scale of massive killings and deaths)"). Because of that I explicitly answered, that scientific sources don't equate Nazi-Germany under Hitler with China under Xi, but they refer to the term in the context of the United Nations definition and they say it meets one of its criteria. The term "Holocaust" by the way was only used by yourself and two other users in this discussion. So it seems it is you alone who tries to use "emotive words" and change to a personal level. I did not use it a single time, nor did I compare China's treatment of Uyghurs with Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews or other minorities or victims. But it is interesting that - agin - you are just stating the opposite. This is typical, I think, for the way you are misusing data, sources and citations here. Second: Smith Finley is co-editor of the scientific "Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia" and author of "The Art of Symbolic Resistance: Uyghur Identities and Uyghur-Han Relations in Contemporary Xinjiang", both books are recommended in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History for the Lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China". Which source did you use to state that her "words are rhetorically charged". Or are you - this time - an expert yourself?[3]
Ad 5) First: The existence of the internment camps is proven. This is a common scientific sense. That you even try to call them "so-called camps" shows you are using Chinese propaganda narrative. If you want me to cite literature for this, I can procide you not only dozens, but hundreds od scientific publications. Who will believe any word of you any more, if you state these camps are not existing. Second: you really ask "What does that got to do with "genocide"". You are citing sources which clearly say, Turkic women are systematically sterilized within the internment camps. And you ask, what does internment camps got to do with "genocide"? It seems it makes no sense to answer to you any more, here.
Ad 6) Here you are right. You did not refer to Xi's rhetoric of a "virus". And you are right: You don't have to take position regarding the Chinese policy. This discussion is about the evidence, whether China's treatment of the Uyghurs meets UN criterium - Art II, section d) - or not. According to scientists like James Millward "there should be no doubt that the policies inflicted by the Chinese Communist party (CCP) on the indigenous central Asians it rules meet the UN definition of genocide". --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
1. What do you suppose with looking at past versions of my userpage? It could be that I was interested on the topic back then, and no longer am after some time. I have never suggested I was any expert on counter-terrorism either and am amicable to being corrected. What I have issue with is your mocking tone in talking about it. Fine, you win your mental game, whatever. It's not even the main topic for this discussion anyway.
3. Your source is the one that cites birth rate of Turkic minorities are assumed to drop close to Zero. That means no evidence, that it's just an assumption. I have never claimed any knowledge that birth rates do actually reach zero -- my earlier mention was in response to your two graphs which did not show it.
4. Stop playing word games. You know exactly what you are referring to when you first mentioned executed genocides like Nazi Germany did in your third point, two posts earlier. You are hinting at a comparison of Uyghurs with the Jews during WWII (from equates the repression of Uyghurs) even if you claim to not want to compare them directly yourself. I can accept your correction on not using the criteria of "deaths", that's it.
5. Where did I ever try to insinuate these camps are not existing? Of course they exist, but what is in dispute is whether they should be called "internment camps", "re-education centres", "concentration camps" or whatever other names, because there is actually no consensus. If you have problems with me mentioning "so-called", fine, I concede that.
Back on topic, the only issue on genocide you have brought forth from these camps is systematically sterilized -- to which I refer to your AP News source claim that it is done for Uyghurs that [Have] too many children, but this still fits the Two-child policy (see below) and is not any additional point aside from what you have already mentioned. You have not showed any information that states forced sterilization is done at the extent beyond the Two-child policy.
2. 6. I am NOT disputing whether treatment of Uyghurs meet section(d)! What I am pointing out is that, what is the justification of straight-up calling it genocide, when previous cases of forced sterilizations on Han women [9][10][11] (which would meet the genocide section(d) criteria too!) are not classified as such? If one argues that forced sterilization on Han women is under the context of One-child policy (and is not enough to constitute "genocide"), is there evidence to show forced sterilization on Uyghur women is beyond the context of Two-child policy for it to be constituted "genocide"? And lastly don't forget that Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well so it's not a Han-to-Uyghur one-way persecution.
7. Rephrased my earlier point to make it clearer. NoNews! 13:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I answer only to your claim that "Uyghurs form part of the Chinese government as well so it's not a Han-to-Uyghur one-way persecution": again you are using a narrative known from Chinese propaganda. And you are wrong: it's an asymmetrical one-sided and Han-centristic repression of Turkic and Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. You know exactly that it is scientific and encyclopedic knowledge of our time, that the succession of Chinese states gradually transformed Uyghur lands to a closely monitored, assimilationist, settler colony in the 21st century, ruled by a Han Chinese–dominated bureaucracy. So it's not true, that Uyghur practically participate in ruling Xinjiang. And it's not true, that Xinjiang enjoys the virtual status of an autonomous province. This is what CCP wants us to believe. The people in China - no matter which ethnic group - are not to blame. If you want to state, that Uyghur people really participate in ruling Xinjiang, you are not in the right place here. This is not Global Post. This is the free Encyclopedia. If you are living in Singapore, you have free access to information, right. Use it wisely then. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I shall neither support nor rebuff your underlined comment, but leave you with this link, a Quora answer referencing historical events, seeing that you are so interested in discussing about the history and present of Xinjiang. You'll find that Xinjiang has historically been a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures, and that Chinese dynastic rule long predates the first settlement of Uyghurs. Feel free to cross-check the listed events with the sources you consider unbiased. Perhaps this will give you a different perspective in understanding the region. Cheers. NoNews! 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You first said (diff) you "concede on [my] accreditation point" - that is the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History[3] as reliable scientific source. The author, Rian Thum, is historian and expert of Xinjiang and Uyghur studies (and author of "The Sacred Routes of Uyghur History"[12]). And it's the identical source (which you already knew), the same article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, which I have cited as well known enyclopedian and scientififc knowledge, which says that the: "succession of Chinese states gradually transformed Uyghur lands to a closely monitored, assimilationist, settler colony in the 21st century, ruled by a Han Chinese–dominated bureaucracy"[3]. This means, you knew this source, you even conceded its reliabilty and now - suddenly - because of this citation, you say you "shall neither support nor rebuff" this information. But you don't have to support it, Newfraferz87. Nobody needs your or my support to evaluate, that the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History is an excellent source for us. And now you respond with an online "source" on quora.com (!), written by "Janus Dongye Qimeng", who calls himself "Research Scientist at Dark Matter" since 2019. Are you serious? Do we talk here about Dark Matter or about the history of Altishahr (the old and still existing region of Uyghur majority settlements in Southern Xinjiang)? This history of Altishahr is very well explained by the above cited expert of Uyghur and Xinjiang history, Rian Thum, in the above mentioned Lemma "The Uyghurs in Modern China" of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History,[3] as well as in many other scientific sources, published since 1998. If you just want to stick to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, you can add Drompp (2017)[13], Brose (2017)[14], Kim (2018),[15] and Brophy (2018)[16] e.g. But I certainly appreciate your quora.com source for learning more about Aladdin, Ali Baba, Mickey Mouse & Co. As a gratitude I recommed you reading the sources cited in Thum, 2018. If you really do, you will learn what I call scientific sources. Enjoy you freedom of information. I do, too. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel that the difference between accusing China of "cultural genocide" vs "genocide" is hair-thin to most. Most arguments that can applied against the move could also similarly apply to having an article accusing China of "cultural genocide" in the first place. The fact that there's been birth control doesn't seem very much contested either: then it meets the UN definition of genocide without question. 2001:240:2406:1A0D:EDF0:951:281E:2030 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Supportive information from 2018: Uighur leaders warn China's actions could be 'precursors to genocide' (Genocide Watch) "Uighur leaders have called on democratic governments to confront Chinaover its treatment of ethnic minority Uighur Muslims, saying the government’s actions against the ethnic minority group are “precursors to genocide”.
    {...}
    Louisa Greve, director for external affairs for the UHRP, said: “Academics believe that when you look at the progression of policies that dehumanise ethnic groups, you have to say that mass murder cannot be ruled out. We see many, many of the precursors of cultural and possibly physical genocide.”Thomas Cliff, research fellow at the ANU college of Asia and the Pacific said what was going on in Xinjiang was “a form of genocide, although it’s not killing everybody”." Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This has been going on for years! (If we don't have a Tibetan genocide page we certainly should too.) GPinkerton (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The consensus on this is obvious at this point. There is no need for me to rehash what has already been thoroughly demonstrated. Any reasonable person would agree. Swmpshield2 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Buidhe's remarks on Genocide Watch and Hzh, and note the refutations below, which seriously undermine the sterilization claim that is the basis for the allegations of "genocide".
  • Any conclusions drawn from Zenz, who has continued to double down on his In 2018, 80 percent of all new IUD placements in China were performed in Xinjiang false claim (see citation to footnote 38), despite his own cited government source demonstrating an 8.7% ratio (see page 228 in the document, the statistic in question is "放置节育器例数"). This is a central factoid in Zenz's Jamestown Foundation report, yet it collapses in a far more flimsy fashion than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge did in 1940
  • Another glaring lie from Zenz's report is the reference (before footnote 42) to Tursunay Ziyawudun, with the report quoted as either underwent surgical sterilization or were given medication that stopped their menstrual periods, yet Ziyawudun was quoted in a Feb 2020 Buzzfeed News piece that The hardest part was mental. It’s something I can’t explain — you suffer mentally. Being kept someplace and forced to stay there for no reason. You have no freedom. You suffer. This is in reference to her second confinement in a higher-security compound. So someone, either Zenz, his media collaborationists, or Ziyawudun herself, changed her story.
  • Another farcical story is that of Sayragul Sauytbay, who witnessed no violence in her facility(ies), per reporting from Aug 2018, yet in Oct 2019 "reporting", somehow was disrobed and violated in front of 200 inmates. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The English-language mainstream media as well as genocide scholars have described this as complete genocide. This article's name should be changed to reflect this development. StellarHalo (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Per above. I also note that the most vocal opponents of the page move happen to be tankies with some sort of Chinese connection. I've had it with their prevaricating nonsense and genocide denial. See also Wikipedia:No Nazis. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading hate. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Retracted !vote from alt.account of Nutez (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Even though I expressed harsh criticism with regard to the arguments and discussion style of one opponent of the lemma move, I strictly oppose calling opponents of the page move "tankies" and suspecting them to spread hate. The move of the lemma from "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs" to "Genocide of Uyghurs" is not a small thing, nor is it self-evident. It has to be discussed thoroughly and all opponents are important and needed for considering different views and arguments - as long as their intention is to improve the Free Encyclopedia. There are competing narratives existing. Of course we will find them colliding here and we have to do it together. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support What is happening to the Uyghurs meets at least four out of the five criteria required to classify an action as genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Only one is required. If reports that Uyghurs are being killed for their organs are true (which is highly probable), then it meets all five. This genocide is not only cultural, but also physical. Calling this a "cultural genocide" implies that physical destruction is not taking place when it clearly is.--Franz Brod (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Many academic sources believe the Chinese repression meets the definition of genocide.VR talk 14:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an extremely serious allegation, and should be based on very strong evidence. Referencing China's strict family planning policies is not enough - these policies have long been applied to the Han majority, and to my knowledge, nobody has yet labeled those policies "genocide of the Han people." This proposal risks turning Wikipedia into a US-centric propaganda outlet. Wikipedia shouldn't turn into Radio Free Asia. Again: a claim as serious as "genocide" needs exceptionally strong evidence before it is put in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia should describe things by their common meaning; it should not be deciding based on how often a description is given in the media. If we're making a decision on that basis, we should change the name; but if we're not, there is even more reason to change, because there is plenty of evidence of the CCP implementing clearly genocidal policies (including punishment for reproduction, forced sterilizations and abortions, not only "re-education") - and that evidence is only increasing. Note as always that these discussions are not supposed to be votes, so really anyone just saying "support/oppose per above" etc should be ignored, and that some opposing say "per buidhe" despite buidhe having changed to support. ··gracefool 💬 07:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Important note - I do want to point out that most people who support the move on the basis of the limitation of reproductive rights neglect to mention that Han Chinese women (and indeed all women) in China are still subject to China's restriction of the number of births due to China's family planning policy. In the past, Han women were subjected to the most severe restriction with the one child policy whereas ethnic minorities - including Uighurs - were always exempt from the one child policy and instead subject to the two child policy. This has been a fact of life in China since the 1970s. And in fact many users, such as User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki have falsely made the claim that China has begun encouraging Han women to have more children in contrast to suppressing Uighur births. However this is not true. The simple fact is that China still discourages births among Han women, and that the restrictive two-child policy is still in effect for all women in China. This recent push to have this page moved is essentially based on this one report by the Associated Press, https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c , which admits that China's policy of limiting the number of children born is essentially the same for both Han-Chinese and Uighurs. In fact the report of Associated Press, specifically cited instances of Uighurs only getting punished when they exceed the limit of two to three children, for example, a Uighur man having seven children. As taken from the article on Compulsory_sterilization#China, for instance describes how China systematically suppressed birth among the majority Han Chinese population,

In 1978, Chinese authorities became concerned with the possibility of a baby boom that the country could not handle, and they initialized the one-child policy. In order to effectively deal with the complex issues surrounding childbirth, the Chinese government placed great emphasis on family planning. Because this was such an important matter, the government thought it needed to be standardized, and so to this end laws were introduced in 2002.[17] These laws uphold the basic tenets of what was previously put into practice, outlining the rights of the individuals and outlining what the Chinese government can and cannot do to enforce policy.

However, accusations have been raised from groups such as Amnesty International, who have claimed that practices of compulsory sterilization have been occurring for people who have already reached their one child quota.[17] These practices run contrary to the stated principles of the law, and seem to differ on a local level. An especially egregious example, according to Amnesty International, has been occurring in Puning City, Guangdong Province. The sterilization drive in this city was in accordance with regulations outlined by the government in the Population and Family Planning Law of 2002. This drive, also known as the Iron Fist Campaign, also is said to have used coercive methods in order to ensure that close to 10,000 women were sterilized, including detaining elderly family members.[citation needed]

The Chinese government appears to be aware of these discrepancies in policy implementation on a local level. For example, The National Population and Family Planning Commission put forth in a statement that, “Some persons concerned in a few counties and townships of Linyi did commit practices that violated law and infringed upon legitimate rights and interests of citizens while conducting family planning work.” This statement comes in reference to some charges of forced sterilization and abortions in Linyi city of Shandong Province.[18] However, it remains unclear to what extent the government has prosecuted or disciplined the officials in charge of family planning in the country.

There are also similar high-profile cases on Han women being forced to have abortions due to having a second pregnancy, such as Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, which generated shock throughout all China. I should again re-iterate that traditionally ethnic minorities in China have never been subject to the one child policy like Han women were, and were always allowed to have two children or three. This is something that users like User:TheBlueCanoe and User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki have been ignoring/dismissing.

I'd like to again point out that all of these "new sources" that these users are citing are using this primary source from the Associated Press https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c , in all of the cases among Uighur women cited by the primary Associated Press report, it was due to Uighurs being alleged to exceed the two/three child limit imposed by the government, and specifically cites a Uighur father punished for having had seven children.

I have yet to seen any user on this talk page properly address this. --2601:249:C01:3990:F1F9:F885:E26E:141E (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you've addressed me explicitly: Of course I know the argument, that all ethnic groups in China are treated in the same way. This is exactly the official Chinese state narrative. You can hear that in each statement of Chinese officials. But as I already mentioned (for sources see my earlier posts):
  • there is no recent internment of Han women because of birth control - but there is a recent mass internment of Turkic women because of birth control as well as of other "reasons"
  • there is no recent growth of mass sterilization rate of women in China - but there is a massive growth of sterilization rate in Xinjiang - and in extreme proportions in the two biggest Uyghur dominated areas Hotan and Kashgar.
There is no way to equate the situation of Han women in Xinjiang or elsewhere with those of the Uyghur or other Turkic women. Not to mention the young Uyghur men, who are a main target of the recent internment and general repression campaign as well. Comparison with Han-Chinese women and men might look like an easy way to relativise the breakdown on Uyghur lifes. But you won't be able to cite a single scientific source for it. Right? --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"all women"--- As far as I am aware, even under the one child policy, minority women were still permitted to have more than one child. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
There is punishment granted to anyone who exceeds the 2 child limit in China. You falsely stated that China encourages Han Chinese to have more children, which is simply a fabrication on your part. Give me any source that states that the Chinese government has been encouraging population growth. You won't be able to find such a thing. Birth rates over all of China have been steadily declining over the past few decades. Also, we should not confuse sterilization with IUDs, it appears most fo the allegations regarding Uyghur women in the Associated Press report that prompted this discussion appear to involve the use of IUDs, which are contraception not sterilization, and reversible. --2601:249:C01:3990:ACDF:C6CA:A4AF:42AD (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said. You are providing no single source for your claims. Instead of that you are even stating, that my claim, that the Chinese state "has to encourage women of other provinces (in some provincves with financial extra support) to get more than one child" (diff1) was "simply a fabrication on [my] part" (diff2). Let's start with two sources then:
  • "In February, a leaked government document called the “Karakax List” (after its origin from Karakax County) showed the reasons given for hundreds of camp detainees being detained. Surprisingly, the most common reason was having had too many children. Frequently, the detainees had only had one more child than permitted by the state. Birth control violations were often the only stated reason for internment. In contrast, in January 2016 China abolished its one-child policy, and it has since encouraged its citizens to have two children in order to maintain positive population growth. Some provinces are doling out financial rewards such as tax breaks and wedding or childbirth subsidies in order to boost birth rates."[8]
  • "Despite government policies encouraging childbirth since the repeal of the OCP in 2015, PRC citizens have shown themselves to be resistant to having more children (Caixin, December 20, 2018). The fertility rate in China remained virtually unchanged in 2016 and 2017 even though families were allowed to have two children those years (World Bank, July 6, 2018).[19]
You are calling this a "fabrication". So which are your sources? Do you have any - or not? --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Having two children isn't even population growth. You need a total fertility rate of 2.1 or above to have population growth. The simple fact that China still maintains a two child policy is simple proof that China is not encouraging population growth, otherwise it would repeal the policy. Also, what source can you provide that Uyghurs aren't allowed to have two children as permitted by the two Child policy? All your sources seem to imply that Uighurs only receive punishment after exceeding the two Child limit as determined by the two child policy. For example, the example cited by the AP report, was for the crime of having seven children. You also deny the fact that the main target of China's sterilization/IUD implantation program were Han Chinese women. Let me quote from the article on IUD#China:
"In China, the use of IUDs by state health services was part of the government's efforts to limit birth rates. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million women were inserted with IUDs, in addition to the 107 million who had tubal ligation. Women who refused could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to public schools. The IUDs inserted in this way were modified such that they could not be removed in a doctor's office (meant to be left indefinitely), and surgical removal is usually needed.[20] Until the mid-1990s, the state-preferred IUD was a stainless steel ring,[21][22] which had a higher rate of complications compared to other types of IUD. It gave rise to the idiom 上环(Shànghuán) meaning "insert a loop". Nowadays, the IUDs include T and V shapes, the former being the most common and easiest to remove.
To implement the two-child policy, the government announced IUD-removals be paid for by the government.[20] IUD removals are free for women "who are allowed to have another child" (see one-child policy) or "who cannot continue to have the IUD for health reasons."[23]"
The vast majority of the women who were sterilized or implanted with IUDs were Han Chinese women. Keep in mind that in 1982, the entire non-Han minority population of China was only 67,233,254 (so the number of non-Han minority women in China was probably around 33,616,627, see Demographics_of_China#Ethnic_groups. "2-1 全国各民族分年龄、性别的人口" (XLS). Stats.gov.cn. Retrieved 31 August 2017.</ref> The Uyghur population has more than quadrupled over the past 50 years, and they were exempt from the one child policy. The simple fact is that Han Chinese have always faced harsher restrictions on births than Uighurs ever had, even western media admits so, see https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/08/chinese-official-floats-plan-to-stabilize-fertility-among-some-uighurs/ --2601:249:C01:3990:2192:86D5:A588:7ADA (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2020 (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.

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization". apnews.com. 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-07-31.
  3. ^ a b c d e Thum, Rian (2018-04-26). "The Uyghurs in Modern China". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.160. Retrieved 2020-07-31.
  4. ^ Xinjiang documentary shows necessity of anti-terrorism effort: Foreign Ministry, cgtn.com, June 20, 2020
  5. ^ Austin Ramzy, Chris Buckley (2019-11-16). "The Xinjiang Papers: 'Absolutely No Mercy': Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims". nytimes.com. Archived from the original on 2019-11-16. {{cite web}}: Invalid |url-status=1 (help)
  6. ^ Didi Kirsten Tatlow (2016-03-23). "Yi Fuxian, Critic of China's Birth Policy, Returns as an Invited Guest". nytimes.com.
  7. ^ Linda Zhang (2020-02-28). "China's Declining Birth Rate and Changes in CCP Population Policies". jamestown.org. Veröffentlicht als: China Brief, Volume 20, Nr. 4.
  8. ^ a b Adrian Zenz (2020-07-01). "Argument: China's Own Documents Show Potentially Genocidal Sterilization Plans in Xinjiang". foreignpolicy.com.
  9. ^ Zhang, Junsen (2017). "The Evolution of China's One-Child Policy and Its Effects on Family Outcomes". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (1): 141–160. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  10. ^ Gietel-Basten, Stuart; Han, Xuehui; Cheng, Yuan (2019-11-06). "Assessing the impact of the "one-child policy" in China: A synthetic control approach". PLoS ONE. 14 (11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220170. Retrieved 2020-08-01.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  11. ^ Settles, Barbara H; ShengYuan, Xuewen; Zhao, ZangJia (2012-09-01). "The One-Child Policy and Its Impact on Chinese Families". International Handbook of Chinese Families: 627–646. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  12. ^ Rian Thum (2014), The Sacred Routes of Uyghur History (in German), Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-59855-3, JSTOR j.ctt9qdt35
  13. ^ Michael R. Drompp (2017-03), "The Uyghur Empire (744–840)", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.53 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).
  14. ^ Michael C. Brose (2017-06), "The Medieval Uyghurs of the 8th through 14th Centuries", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.232 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Kwangmin Kim (2018-03), "Xinjiang Under the Qing", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.13 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ David Brophy (2018-09), "The Uyghurs: Making a Nation", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History (in German), doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.318 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ a b "Thousands at risk of forced sterilization in China". Amnesty International. April 22, 2010. Archived from the original on March 14, 2012. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  18. ^ "China acts on forced abortion". BBC. September 20, 2005. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
  19. ^ Linda Zhang (2020-02-28). "China's Declining Birth Rate and Changes in CCP Population Policies". jamestown.org.
  20. ^ a b Wee, Sui-lee (7 January 2017). "After One-Child Policy, Outrage at China's Offer to Remove IUDs". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2017.
  21. ^ "Chinese ring". www.obgyn.net. July 14, 2011.
  22. ^ "Intrauterine Devices (IUDs)". www.fhi360.org.
  23. ^ "One Child Policy Leaves Millions of Chinese Women With Unwanted IUDs". Radio Free Asia. January 13, 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China/Archive_2&oldid=1210656578"