body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

Birth Rate Decline vs Actual Birth Rates

There seems to be a significant focus on the percentage drop in Xinjiang birth rates, but less attention on the crude figures. The crude birth rate in Xinjiang (after the decline) is allegedly comparable to the national Chinese rate in 2018 (10.69 vs 10.94). Is there doubt on the veracity of these numbers?

2018: 10.94 births per 1,000 people in China. [1] "The Xinjiang government said in its response that the birth rate in the region had dropped from 15.88 per 1,000 people in 2017 to 10.69 per 1,000 people in 2018. " [2]

70.79.234.213 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the crude birth rate today is comparable and it is implied in the article. TFD (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will need reliable refs that make the connection. It seems some refs are using Xinjiang and Uyghur births interchangeably, we will have to be careful not to do the same. Also some seem to be using Chinese official information. If it is Wiki policy to take that a face value we may need to change quite a bit of this page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was it removed? Not sure which numbers were meant, but I don't see anything being even implied. CurryCity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN?locations=CN
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-response-sterilization-intl-hnk/index.html

Regardless of ones views of the morality of enforced contraception etc the data set out on the main page is selective and misleading. The same data source shows that the Uighar birthrate was previously several times higher than the Chinese average and has now simply been reduced to the Chinese average. This of itself cannot be considered genocide, at least not unless one believes that the whole Chinese nation who have been subject to exactly the same pressure to restrict family size have also been victims of genocide. The actual birth rate rather than just the reduction in the birth rate should be made explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.32.134 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references may not be accurate. If China is genuinely involved in forced sterilization (or anything of the sort), they could easily send out false or incorrect data. Animalmaster (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics like birth rates are irrelevant without context; This whole page needs to go.

Declining birthrates do NOT constitute a genocide (otherwise Japan would have genocided itself somehow). Statistics don't work this way. Declining birthrates can be explained by far less speculative means, e.g. people with increased earnings tend to have fewer children.

The only kind of valid evidence to constitute genocide are photographs or videos of muslims running from China towards the nearest international border, which we have ZERO evidence of. It is NOT the job of anyone to prove that there is no genocide, as that would put the onus of proof on someone to prove something's non-existence, which is ridiculous. A lot of people on this thread have good intentions but simply are out of their depth on this particular topic. This page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.192.120 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Genocide denial is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Second, the idea that the Uyghur Genocide is fake, is WP:FRINGE. Why do you consider "muslims running from China towards the nearest international border" to be the be-all end-all of proof? RandomPerson184729 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent RfC on this page about the term "genocide", and the conclusion was that the claim of "genocide" cannot be made in Wikivoice. Accusing someone of "genocide denial" is a personal attack, and it actually conflicts with the conclusion that the RfC came to, which is that "genocide" is a highly controversial claim in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title of genocide is controversial, yet consensus that "Uyghur Genocide" is an appropriate title was established twice. Being controversial doesn't mean it is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, claiming things such as genocides to be fake is not allowed, Pointing such out is nowhere in the ballpark of a personal attack. 65.36.70.48 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if you are denying the existence of a genocide, you are engaging in genocide denial? WP:ASPERSIONS applies here. Doanri (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very literal and wholly semantic argument. 'Genocide denial' as a term is virtually exclusively used to describe instances of people denying known, historically proven instances of genocide, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred, or that substantial numbers of people were murdered at Srebrenica. The term doesn't apply to legitimate disagreement about, for example, whether an ongoing situation, about which no one yet has the full facts, constitutes genocide and if so, according to which definition. According to the most common definition of genocide - ethnic mass killing - there certainly has NOT been any Uyghur genocide and it is denying nothing to say that. Serious human rights abuses, which are practically undeniable, do not automatically equal genocide. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is article II from the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. "Article II 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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Part D clearly states that preventing birth rates with the intention to eliminate and ethnic group is genocide. And if there's any one source that should be the outright definition of genocide, it's the very convention that made it an international crime. Granted, yes decreased birthrates cam be caused by other factors, like in Japan. But the Japanese people are not being put into concentration camps, and there is evidence of forced abortion and sterilization. The idea that birth rates are irrelevant is ridiculous when the UN's Genocide Convention itself says that it can be Genocide. OboTheHobo (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the UN definition and its provisions BUT, there has never been a prosecution, nor any notable instance of genocide, even disputed ones, which did NOT involve mass ethnic death, whether actual killing or denying the means of sustaining life. It's hardly surprising therefore if most people associate genocide with mass-killing. The least we should be doing IMO is make clear what definition is being used. This is like reading an article about rape in which no non-consensual sexual penetration of anyone is mentioned or has occurred, it's perplexing at least and defending the content by saying that some legal definition exists which is at odds with the everyday understanding of a term doesn't clarify a lot. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way you say "some legal definition" makes it seem like this isn't *the* legal definition. That's the convention that criminalized genocide in the first place and was made in direct response to WWII. And just because no one has been punished for it doesn't mean it isn't genocide. I'd agree that making it a bit more clear is a good idea, however, but there are already parts of the article that specifically cite that part of the genocide convention. OboTheHobo (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to belittle the UN definition. Still, the fact that this clause has never been employed, either in any legal setting, nor in the 'court of public opinion', means that to all but a handful of readers who know the legal definition, as opposed to the everyday, historical usage of 'mass ethnic killing' - the reason for using the word is obscure at best. The only reason I know is because I have edited the main genocide article and have read some of the work of Lemkin, but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite to understanding the article. Many of the sources which I have read are more explicit and thus clearer than we are. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources

This article released by the Associated Press does not seem to be included in the article and includes up to date information on the topic: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9 Wackword (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, it seems like half travel blog, half AP news piece (coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel). Given its collection of observations it would be hard not to just cherry pick. I have been on official tours before so remain skeptical, but it is not our place to judge. While I would pause on rewriting the introduction just yet, if this does signify a change in tact the current structure of the page does not easily allow for expressing it. I would favor getting confirmation through typical news articles then a new section may be in order (see also [1]). We would not change our DPRK page because a journalist went there and saw dancing happy people. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, our article is currently based heavily on opinion pieces (such as the New Yorker piece that is cited in the lede) and US government sources (such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is Adrian Zenz' employer). There needs to be a greater level of clarity in the article about where the various allegations come from, and we need to avoid putting claims by partisan organizations (e.g., government think tanks like ASPI) in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411:You appear to be mistaken. That New Yorker article [2] is a feature piece of investigative journalism not an opinion piece. Or are you referring to a different piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion essay in the "magazine" section, not the news section, and it's written in a highly personal style. It's fine for telling us the viewpoint of the writer, but it can't be used to make statements in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t labeled as opinion and The New Yorker publishes reporting in their magazine section. The writer is one of the finest investigative journalists currently alive, they don’t write opinion pieces (certainly not feature article length ones). Unless you have something other than your personal opinion which says its an opinion piece we’re going to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the article "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified" by Columbian university professor Jeffrey D. Sachs: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/apfjc5yg352d554k2ar2wwwkk8ryw9
In my opinion the label "genocide" which was first used by the then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is highly controversial and should not in any case be used in Wikipedia, who has thereby degraded itself to a weapon for the US foreign politics. A better name of the article would be "The Xinjiang rebellion" or something like that. 80.220.94.163 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wow, I could not disagree more with this IP. "The Xinjiang rebellion" would be an extremely POV pro-China title. Most available RSes rely to this as the Uyghur genocide, so we will as well. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don’t base article titles off of random opinion pieces. The article title has been discussed to death. I don’t think that a single opinion piece, even if written by a professor, is anywhere near enough to tilt existing consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is reflected by reliable sources. The characterisation of an ongoing "genocide" has been agreed by numerous entities including various parliaments around the world. Past move discussions have established a consensus that the page title is appropriate, and furthermore there is currently a one-year moratorium in effect on moving the page unless substantial new information arises. Citobun (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it is that many/most of the sources/commentators are using a definition of genocide (often explicitly so) which is very different from the 'common understanding' of the word (ethnic mass-murder, as opposed to ethnic mass-suppression) and we are doing nothing to make this distinction clear. Thus, intentionally or otherwise, the actual effect is to imply that mass-murder is happening, which no sources support. I happen to have read Lemkin and be familiar with various distinct legal and scholarly definitions, but it shouldn't be necessary to know Lemkin and international law in order to understand an article's title or its lead, which is currently the case IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a widespread view that the claims of genocide are, legally speaking, unjustified. This view is held, for example, by the US State Department's legal advisors ([3]), though they were overruled by the political decision-makers in the Trump administration. This view needs to be described more prominently in the lede. At the moment, the lede pretty much ignores the view that there is no genocide, which is strange, as that view appears to be the majority view of the world's governments and is held by many legal experts (including those at the US State Department, as I've mentioned).

Beyond that, readers will be misled by the lede as it is. The average reader will think of "genocide" as it's usually defined in the English language (which is essentially the same as the definition in the Genocide Convention, I'll add). That definition implies mass killing. Since no mass killing is even alleged in this case, that should be clarified prominently in the lede. I don't think any of us wants readers to come away from this article thinking that something entirely different (mass killing) is being alleged than what's actually being alleged (cultural assimilation, indoctrination, decrease in birth rates). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed that Foreign Policy article before [4]. The view isn't as widespread as you claim. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide, yet this view is barely discussed in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for "Worldwide, the dominant view appears to be that there is no genocide"? You have mentioned the US State Dept, which should probably be given more space in sections 6.2 and 7.2, but they are very much in the minority, apart from the official position of the Chinese state and its allies, which is a bit too WP:MANDY to give more space to, and a couple of random opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty also says that what is happening is not genocide [5]. We devote a whole section to the 'Uyghur Tribunal' an organisation with zero powers, zero history and almost zero credibility as being anything other than a campaigning vehicle, but ignore the opinions of two of the most established, respected and neutral human rights orgs - ie Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, both of which say that serious human rights are probably occurring, but not genocide. I was summoned here by bot for a previous RfC and haven't followed all the sourcing, but it is difficult to disagree with Thucydides411, sources that disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide, appear to be chery-picked or simply ignored or worse and a false impression is created by overuse of the word 'genocide' without ever clarifying explicitly what it means in this context, which is NOT the most generally accepted meaning, of ethnic mass killing. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility"? What are the sources that expressly disagree with the view that what is happening is genocide? Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? CutePeach (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
are there any RS putting your claim about the Uyghur Tribunal having "zero credibility" What a ridiculous question! There are sources that clearly state it has NO legal powers, NO affiliation to any legal body, has NO history, was expressly formed by people wishing to draw attention to these human rights abuses (a wholly homourable wish by them, but hardly a neutral nor a judicial one) and NO sources saying it DOES have any legal powers, structure, history, purpose etc.. It's formed by a campaigning group and if it were in any other country we would be calling it a publicity stunt or a show trial. The absence of sources saying what its authority, powers, structure, history, purpose etc are make my lack of credibility claim justified. Russell's teapot applies here.
The same BBC source which is used to detail the tribunals conclusions in the article states EXPLICITLY that neither Amnesty nor HRW consider what is happening to be genocide "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." Amnesty and HRW have long and honourable pedigrees of speaking against HR abuses (wherever they occur), I'm sure they know what 'genocide' is and know how it differs from mass incarceration. The conclusions of the tribunal are listed, the Amnesty and HRW position in the same source is ignored totally. It's called CHERRYPICKING I believe! Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article is the term genocide used where it shouldn't be? Lots of places, including the title. Acres of the article are devoted to arguing that this IS genocide, often beefing up what the source says AFAI can see, removing any hesitancy or qualification and failing to be explicit about exactly WHY genocide is being argued, despite there being no known deaths, which is crucial to the most common definition and EVERY previous prosecution and virtually every previous instance of genocide. The irony is, to my mind, that the attempt to get that 'bad word' to stick means the article is not covering the virtually indisputable fact that serious HR abuses are taking place. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, please don't ridicule my question. If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked. The holocaust became known during WWII through the accounts of victims who managed to escape, not from judicial or such organizations you deem to be significant. Until international organizations are able to inspect the Xinjiang camps, the only independent sources we have are the accounts of victims and their relatives, as reported by RS - like the BBC. If you want to change the page name, we will need something much stronger than Amnesty and HRW stopping short of calling it a genocide. If we go with what Amnesty calls it, it would be "Xinjiang dystopian hellscape" [6]. CutePeach (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the Uyghur Tribunal really has no credibility, then there should be sources supporting your position, which you should be able to provide - when asked I'm sorry, but that's an absurd assertion. AFAIK, there are no sources saying that Joe Biden isn't a Martian. Sources are explicit that the tribunal has no mandate, no legal powers and was formed by people wanting to draw attention to the plight of Uyghurs (which by the way is a very honourable thing for them to want to do. But, as I say not a neutral objective nor one with any judicial weight at all. The tribunal is a novel campaigning tool with no real claim to be anything other than that). AFAIK, the holocaust became known from accounts getting out though neutral couriers, not people escaping. But what does that prove? That itself is a campaigning logic on your part, not a reporting one. "We cannot establish the full facts of what is going on" does not translate into "the limited reports we have must be believed, because this COULD BE another holocaust". I would not want to exclude witness reports, but I'm aware of their limitations. No incident in human history has so far been described as a genocide, which did not involve significant human death. Substantial numbers commentators, news outlets and well-established orgs(such as HRW and Amnesty), use other terms - so how can it be the WP:COMMONNAME? Very dishonestly IMO, this WP article does not even make explicit that a 'non-standard' definition is being used to support the use of the term 'genocide' throughout. I happen to know a fair amount about Lemkin and the UN definition. What is happening here is that readers are being asked to already be Lemkin experts in order to understand the article title. Apart from being confusing and dishonest IMO, it's actually counter-productive. Boys calling 'wolf' comes to mind. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we don't have anyone claiming that Joe Biden is a martian... We do have you claiming that the Uyghur Tribunal is not credible so you're going to need to provide a source for that. I think you have the situation reversed, you're making a claim of substance not of absence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing on talk, not trying to insert text in the article about the legal authority and weight of the tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, since the views of the tribunal are reported, whilst those of HRW and Amnesty are ignored. It is very well sourced that the tribunal has no legal authority, no history, no supervising legal body and was formed explicitly to draw attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Individual witnesses there seem to have considerable reputations, but the body as a whole is a novel campaigning tool AFAI can see. It is also very well sourced that Amnesty and HRW have long honourable histories of researching and campaigning for human rights, and neither is exactly a friend of totalitarian regimes. The BBC reports the conclusions of the tribunal, HRW and Amnesty in the same article. WP reports the tribunal conclusion, but ignores that of Amnesty and HRW - who both consider that serious and widespread HR abuses are taking part, but don't consider it to be genocide. If that isn't CHERRYPICKING to promote a particular position, I really don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete you are advocating a change to the article text and even its title without providing reliable sources. When you provide the requested reliable sources, we will discuss them and make the proposed changes, if necessary. This includes your argument about the legal authority and weight of the Uyghur Tribunal relative to Amnesty and HRW, which is entirely your own. Your equating of victim accounts of genocide to claims of a teapot orbiting the sun is similarly quite novel, and would require very strong sourcing. CutePeach (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CutePeach I am not equating victim accounts to Russell's Teapot - whatever gave you that idea? Victims's stories are widely reported and are relatively consistent and credible, but inherently unconfirmable. Therefore there is no reason for us to either endorse nor question them - and to do so frivolously would be very insensitive of me.
I was equating the credibility of the Uyghur Tribunal to Russell's Teapot - ie of course there aren't sources saying that it isn't very credible. There aren't sources saying that it IS CREDIBLE either, but there are plenty saying it has NO legal, judicial or political AUTHORITY nor any prior history and (if I remember well), saying that it was formed specifically to draw the world's attention to the plight of the Uyghurs. Fine, but that's a campaigning role not an investigative nor judicial one. The credibility of an human rights org, as with a news source is an earned reputation not a presumed right, and the tribunal hasn't been around long enough AFAI can see to have acquired a reputation, nor has it inherited credibility by having judicial powers or authority from the UN or some other body. The tribunal is a faux-judicial campaigning tool, much as a poster or slogan might be used to draw attention to a cause. I'm not asking the article to say that about the tribunal as it's obvious, but I'm entitled to point it out on talk in a relative-weight discussion.
The same BBC source used to support the tribunal text, says specifically "In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." I have ALREADY posted that source THREE times in THIS section alone, and several times posted the quote.
I found that BBC source easily the very first time I visited this article, the HRW and Amnesty conclusions are NOT included, the tribunal ones ARE. Amnesty and HRW are also campaigning orgs, but both have long histories of impartial campaigns against HR abuses anywhere, unlike the tribunal. So if anyone has WEIGHT, it would be HRW and Amnesty, but they aren't included. It is difficult for me to not conclude that the reason the tribunal is included, but the other more established orgs ignored is simply because the tribunal says genocide is happening the other two choose other ways to describe the abuses. Cherrypicking to endorse a favoured position AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could also reflect a shift in mainstream U.S. thinking towards a less confrontational position on China. TFD (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be appropriate to refer to the dispute, but not to put it in wiki-voice or allow it to affect how we portray this crisis in Wikivoice. We would need better independent authoritative RSes referring to this as not a genocide to do that. The Sachs opinion piece above is not good enough for that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US left-wing denialism in 'Denial' section

The source for the claim that "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" is very inaccurately 'copied'. What the source actually states is that a small number US blogs have published articles saying that accounts of abuses are being weaponised as anti-Chinese propaganda and some of these blogs say some accounts are false or exaggerated, (if this were not sometimes true, it would probably be the first time in human history that SOME exaggeration did NOT happen. It would also probably be the first time in human history if SOMEONE were not sceptical about accounts concerning an unfolding issue. Even if these left-wing bloggers turn out to be wholly wrong - being sceptical about an unfolding issue hardly constitutes 'denialism', in the sense of being a 'genocide denier', which usually denotes someone denying a situation where pretty much all the facts are known or knowable). Most of these bloggers don't even appear to deny that persecution of Uyghurs is occuring, though they often dispute the scale and believe that the claims are being 'weaponised' against China.

Over and above the sourcing and accuracy considerations, which might well be fixable. Are the opinions of a handful of US left-wing bloggers notable AT ALL. Even if we accept the inference that these people are making themselves into useful idiots of China, so what! Even the sources used characterise these people as few and marginal. WP covering them is very parochial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a section "Denial," which begins with a "See also" link to Genocide denial is a clear violation of neutrality. It is not necessarily denialism to question the accuracy of unproved allegations or accepting them say that they do not constitute genocide. Also, the statement "some American left-wing media outlets" violates "Unsupported attributions." What percentage of "left-wing outlets" can be described as some? 40%? 1/100th of 1%?
Also, if we are going to cite "anthropologist and China expert Gerald Roche," writing in the left-wing media outlet The Nation of all places ("Xinjiang Denialists Are Only Aiding Imperialism" July 6, 2021), we should mention that he blames the United States for complicity in the genocide, hence the title of his article. Quoting his opinion seems undue anyway, since he isn't an expert on genocide or denialism and his views have not received attention beyond the readers of The Nation.
TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TFD... Its been explained to you at length by nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same... While you may feel that it isn't neutral there is no violation of our NPOV policy here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a persuasive argument, you might want to avoid basing it on a false premise, viz., that "nearly a dozen people at this point that your conception of neutrality and WP:NEUTRAL are not the same." Also, instead of an ad hominem personal attack, you might explain why you think calling a section "Denial" does not violate neutrality. Is it because reliable sources group people who don't classify human rights abuses in Sianking with holocaust deniers? If so, can you explain why the SPLC has a section on Holocaust Denial, but nothing about Uyghur genocide denial? TFD (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources use the term denial/denier, so our use of the term conforms with NPOV (specifically "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."). How do you think it violates NPOV? And please be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable because they have received extensive coverage in reliable sources, I don't believe that we are actually trying to source anything to the bloggers/outlets themselves. Your own personal opinions are irrelevant, please don't share them. This isn't a forum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source (an opinion piece in The Diplomat) quotes "a Uyghur American attorney and activist" who calls it "genocide denial." The second source, an article in ProPublica says, "In one clip [spread by the Chinese government], a woman denies accusations of forced labor." The third source, an article in The Guardian says that China's UK ambassador "denied claims of abuses." The fourth source, published in .Coda (you recently voted for its reliablity) actually uses the term "Xinjiang denialist," but it is referring to denial of "Uyghur oppression," which it does not call a genocide. The final source, in The Nation is an opinion piece hence expressing the author's opinions and not a reliable source for facts.
The most one can say is that some people have compared this with holocaust denial, although it seems to be a fringe position.
TFD (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked pretty hard in the Codastory source, I could just about find one person/one article in one blog that is implicitly denying "the existence of the camp network" - which WP is claiming is a sufficiently widespread phenomenon among "some American left-wing media outlets" for us to report it. A nameable group of other bloggers say that US State dept or media exaggerate the extent of the abuses and/or US sources "weaponise" the claims, which is not necessarily denying anything of course. Apart from our coverage, being fairly inflated and inaccurate, (and I would agree 'loaded' in its use of 'denialism' over matters that people should be able to legitimately disagree about) - apart from that, this is so damned parochial. Mud-slinging within minor US news blogs is wholly disconnected from the events in China IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That Diplomat piece is a feature piece not an opinion piece. What in the world makes you think its an opinion piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the author, who is an editor, not a reporter. In any case, it's a moot point. The source does not accuse anyone of denialism, but quotes an activist who uses the term. TFD (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can write as well, "Feature" is The Diplomat's highest level of article. We don't currently use that source to accuse anyone of denialism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
TFD and HEB, this section is about the paragraph relating to denial supposedly occurring in "some American left-wing media outlets", if you want to discuss other claims, can you please start another section - otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation. I claim that the "US left-wingers" paragraph inaccurately represents the relatively poorly sources it uses, is cherry-picked and fundamentally, fringe-ly parochial relative to the topic. No one seems to have answered any of those points, but I cannot tell because you seem to be talking about other things. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was fringe-ly parochial then we wouldn't have significant coverage in WP:RS. Are you disputing the reliability of Axios and Coda Story? Those don't appear to be poor sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are relatively parochial AFAI can see and two sources is pretty thin gruel for an unattributed claim and an unbelievably low-threshold for "significant coverage", especially as these are essentially opinion pieces about an inherently parochial subject - what a tiny group of left-wing US bloggers are/are not writing. But the issue is anyway academic if they don't say what we say they say, which they don't. The Nation is a better known source outside the US, but that piece doesn't describe the 'nay-sayers' as "left-wing", in fact it is at pains to not identify them and is at pains to distinguish between legitimate scepticism (including about whether what is occurring is 'genocide') and what the writer considers 'denial'. Furthermore the Nation article covers many other aspects and discusses "US complicity in ongoing colonialism in Xinjiang" and states explicitly "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror." None of these other aspects of the Nation article find their way into OUR article, so AFAI can see the Nation piece has been CHERRYPICKED to imply what someone here wants it to say. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two feature pieces in WP:RS is one feature piece away from meriting its own article WP:GNG wise, thats really strong and much stronger than we need to make the inclusion. They don't appear to be opinion pieces. If you would like to migrate more from the The Nation article into the article here you are more than welcome to as long as you abide by WP:DUE, but I would note that we don't actually use it as a source for "US left-wing" but the source we do use for that statement does "What is more, these fringe views appear to be creeping into other areas of the American left." "While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized." "Left-wing support and equivocation for authoritarian regimes is by no means a new phenomenon." "While a few fringe media outlets are unlikely to shift mainstream political opinion on China’s actions in Xinjiang, they can create significant problems in some areas of the left." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fact that the claim that this handful of "left-wingers" are "deniers' is in WP:VOICE - even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty. Therefore these 'denialism' accusations should at least be attributed to the two accusing sources. That person X wrote text Y is verifiable, that the opinions expressed in text Y amount to 'denialism', not legitimate disagreement is an unverifiable opinion. Two minor sources making sweeping generalisations may satisfy you, it points to me to how some editors here are wholly unconcerned with accurately representing the balance of sources on contentious issues, but are in fact amplifying anything that endorses their own position and ignoring anything that doesn't. If a broad swathe of major US sources pointed to a significant left-right divide on this issue, coverage would be justified, as it is, it's fringe-y sources writing about a tiny number of even fring-ier ones, but expressed in WP:VOICE and extrapolated to imply a general phenomenon.
Even more perversely, you are ignoring the fact that none of these sources actually claim what our text says. It takes a whole bundle of WP:SYNTH to get from the accusations made by Axios and Coda Story to "The abuses, and (even) the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets" -our claim. Certainly these bloggers are accused of down-playing the scale of abuses and of attacking the way the US State department has "weaponised" discussion, but by looking hard I could find only one named blogger who was actually accused of denying the existence of the camps and the abuses. If you attribute and accurately reflect the sources used at present, you are left with two minor US sources saying that one, completely un-notable, US blogger thinks there is no persecution or camps, while a very, very small number of other bloggers think claims about persecution are being exaggerated and 'weaponised' by the US State Dept and/or media. WOW! SEISMIC! All this before we consider the inherent WEASEL of 'some American left-wing media outlets', when what is actually supported by the sources is two named blogs, and the possibility of a very few others, all of which may or may not be meaningfully "news outlets" or "left-wing".
The Nation was being used to endorse the "left-wingers' claim until a few days ago, when I removed a linking word that implied the Nation writer was accusing Americans and/or left-wingers specifically, which he isn't. I also put the remaining sentence in a separate para to clearly 'delink' the topics. The remaining sentence is so vague and out of context that retaining it is pointless IMO, however I didn't remove but brought the whole subject here. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ps If you really want to write an article about this very fringe-y, far-left-ish coverage of what is happening to China's Uyghurs in the US-blogsphere, go ahead and write it. As someone from the UK, I'd like an article about the abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs to actually stick to that topic, not to WP:COATRACK irrelevant and obscure US domestic disputes into EVERYTHING. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV we go with what the sources say, if you want to disagree with the sources this is not the place to do so. I can't find support for "even though there is no agreed definition of when legitimate disagreement about the scale of abuses, or when the label "genocide" applies, even among those campaigning to draw attention to the abuses, such as HRW and Amnesty." which would appear to mean that its your opinion and not an actual fact. If however you mean that labels are tricky then yes, yes they are which is why we don't apply those labels ourselves but go with what the sources say which is in this case denial. If we get enough coverage we might break off the section into its own article, arguably we should be doing that with a few of the existing sections given the size of the article. Your own distaste for America is not a reason not to cover it on wikipedia, I think you need to read WP:COATRACK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the sources. In fact I would be fairly surprised if there were NOT bloggers (inc in US, UK and other parts of the Anglosphere) who did NOT dispute US state Dept, US media positions/claims and numbers - and equally surprised if a lot of these people were not 'left-wing'-ish. What I'm firstly saying is that the sources are not being accurately reported by us. Neither of the two sources talks about anyone denying the existence of camps or abuses, except one named woman, who is reported to have claimed early in 2020 that no mass detention or abuse was happening. Some of these bloggers certainly seem to question the scale of abuses, and say that the reporting of the abuses is being 'weaponised' against China, but that isn't what our text says. We claim that they say there is no abuse and no camps - which is patently not what the sources accuse them of. Nor incidentally does the source used claim that LA Progressive was the first such site -as we do - it merely states when LA Progressive started the 'nay-saying'. All that of course is fixable, but I cannot see how this is anything other than very fringe and UNDUE and would remain so even if fixed.
It is self-evident that there is no agreement, even among campaigning groups and parliaments, as to whether the apt term for these abuses is 'genocide'. Some use that term, some use it but qualify it, others avoid it or say they don't agree with its use - such as Amnesty. If there is no agreement about whether, or in what sense, 'genocide' is occurring, how can 'loaded' terms like 'denialism/genocide denialism' be more than accusations? You can only meaningfully engage in genocide denial iro instances where the genocide itself has been established as a historical fact. Accusations are ordinarily attributed to the accuser.
I find your label comments a gigantic cop-out I'm afraid. If the "US left-wingers" text and label were attributed and phrased as an accusation made by two news outlets against specific news blogs and bloggers, your comments might be apt. But the accusations are phrased in wiki-voice, needlessly weasel-led, and phrased so as to avoid making clear how very, very small the numbers of people thus accused are, they are also SYNTHed to 'beef up' the accusation as I say above. Effectively your defence of the text is that because two (relatively obscure US outlets) use the 'denialism' label - WP has to endorse their accusations and opinions by amplifying them and phrasing them in WP:VOICE. Disagreement about the scale of what is happening in China, or what to call it, is not genocide denialism, but we are implyimg that it is. To report this accurately as an accusation made by Codastory against named sites would be neutral, though undue IMO. To report this in-accurately as a fact against "some", unspecified, "left-wing media outlets" is none of the three. In fact the first source used is a good deal more careful and specific about precisely what it accuses these websites and bloggers of than we are.
I don't have any distaste for America. A momentary frustration is not an abiding antipathy and the two or three sources used to justify this text are a tiny percent of those who have covered these human rights abuses worldwide. If the "boot were on the other foot" and these were UK sources - writing about a couple of fringe UK news blogs - either of the right or the left - I would be arguing much the same case. Namely, that attribution of these accusations, including clarification of who is being accused of what should be a minimum. Sourcing is a necessary, but not a sufficient pre-condition for inclusion of text. I don't have any illusions about countries other than the US also being capable of being parochial. I also know what COATRACK says.
We have both made our views plain and we clearly aren't going to agree. I shall wait a few days to see if anyone else wants to chip in before deciding whether I want to take matters further. Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term. I also haven't seen where those Amnesty that use the 'denialism' term are considered 'obscure'. I would not consider Axios and Coda Story parochial, and while I would normally not object to attributing their statements, I am concerned about the inch that becomes a mile. Please keep your posts succinct, otherwise no one stands a chance in hell of following the conversation - as you said yourself above. Since this is a controversial topic, please formulate your arguments based on what we can see in RS, and not your own opinion. CutePeach (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen where Amnesty says it disagrees with the use of the genocide term - this is my FOURTH time of posting the same source, where both Amnesty and HRW choose to NOT say genocide. Incidentally, 'Genocide Watch' cited below also uses various descriptions, which do NOT include 'genocide', which is ironic given the name and stated purpose of the org is to highlight potential genocide.
I think I said the two US outlets were 'relatively obscure' ie they aren't major news outlets with international standing AFAIK. I certainly did NOT say that these sources were parochial, I said the content was, ie text about two US news blogs which hardly anyone in the US has ever heard of and certainly not the other 95% of the human world. To attribute is not something which WP editors deign to do, it is a requirement where the content has not been established as a fact to be rendered in WP:VOICE. I have a concrete proposal which I will attempt to make below, later. At present we are WEASELING a very sweeping accusation, although the number of those accused is tiny and their names are known, and we are not even accurate about what the 'some left-wingers' have supposedly said and written. How many policy errors does that add up to? Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Horse Eye's Back and CutePeach say. Hard to follow the objections due to lack of concision, but (a) "See also" is different from "Main article" - it's a clearly related topic; (b) we currently use the word "denial" in the section and not "denialism" and do not make any Holocaust comparisons, and the sources all clearly use the word "denial" too; (c) Gerald Roche is definitely a China expert; it's irrelevant that he isn't specifically a genocide expert. (I'd have no objection to more of his article being used elsewhere in our piece.) (d) to considerably expand the content on the left would become undue, but the minimal coverage we now have is definitely due; as evidence for this being noteworthy, there are plenty of (mainly RSOPINION) sources that draw attention to this, using the word "denial", which could be added as sources if we need more to show noteworthiness, e.g.:

The Coda Story piece we already cite was republished by Genocide Watch, further showing noteworthiness.[12] And a New Republic opinion piece says that "parts of the conspiratorial far-left remain convinced that the crimes against humanity in Xinjiang are simply Western propaganda".[13] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something expressed as an opinion in The Nation does not become a fact in Wikipedia. I am surprised that you and Horse don't accept that since you disagree with 90% of the opinions expressed there. TFD (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this at least needs to be elaborated a little. Done. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BobFromBrockley, what you say is all very well except that our text bears little relation to what the sources used say. OUR TEXT: The abuses, and the existence of the camp network, have also been denied by some American left-wing media outlets. The first such group to do so was a small left-wing blog called LA Progressive which began publishing denial articles in April 2020, while The Grayzone has been the most influential outlet to publish such claims.
The sources used - almost exclusively- speak of two specific named news blogs, 'downplaying' the scale of the abuses, not mainly denying their existence. Sources chiefly describe the 2 blogs as 'far'left' and sometimes as 'anti-imperialist' and don't say anything about who was first to publish these 'denial' stories. "Some American left-wing media outlets" is inherently and unnecessarily WEASELLY when the common thread is two named news blogs and vague mentions of a few others existing, while comments like Grayzone being "most influential are inherently judgements, not facts and should be attributed if included. Personally I remain of the opinion that what a very small number of US bloggers are writing is both too unsurprising and too obscure to be of much interest or importance to this topic, but if people want to include it, they should at least accurately reflect what sources say, including iro being less WEASELLY about 'the accused' and more accurate about the "accusation". Forgive me for saying but a small number of fairly marginal sources and one or two academics is a very low threshold to justify inclusion of ANYTHING in WP:VOICE, especially so since these are grave accusations.
I haven't looked closely at the Al Jazeera piece, but even at a glance, the writer attacks at least 2 other groups who have "let down" the Uighurs according to the writer: "And so, the Uighurs are wronged four times over: by China’s oppression, by American imperialist cooptation, by left-wing denialism, and by Muslim leaders’ dereliction" - none of the other accusations finds it way into the article, nor does The author's claim "For the Trump administration, the Uighur’s plight was yet another card to play in its China-bashing, along with Hong Kong and COVID-19. It is blatant CHERRYPICKING to single out his comments about "faux anti-imperialism", render it in WPVOICE and ignore the rest of his comments. Just as the 'Nation' quote ignores the author's claims that: "China’s designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror … … The US War on Terror made it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to redefine Uyghur resistance as terrorist extremism, rather than national liberation or anti-colonialism".
I would drop my objections if the text was written more accurately in terms of who specifically is accused of exactly what - which appears to be mainly two blogs "minimising" the scale of abuses. I disagree with you strongly about leaving the link to "genocide denial" where it is - it belongs as a REAL 'See Also', You cannot deny the existence of a genocide which has not been firmly established yet either in any court, nor in scholarly judgement nor in general usage. Apologies for my delay in replying! Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction, reference to Trump is now in "The Nation" text, though not reference to the "War on Terror"'s role in justifying Chinese actions. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

The mass protests didn't really kick off until at least April 2017, so the Uyghur "genocide" starting point of 2014 doesn't really make sense at my point of view. Maybe it should be changed to 2017? EvaTheWingdale, January 14th, 2022. EvaTheWingdale (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence on Xinjiang proves propaganda

Hey guys,

there is an organization named Xinjiang Victims Database. From those organizations that publish on Xinjiang they are one of the few that are not funded by the US government. They also accuse China of crimes against humanity so the are completely unsuspicious of being a Chinese op. They recently published two reports, the Primary-Evidence Report and the Facilities Report, you can find both directly on their homepage: https://shahit.biz/eng/

As the name suggests, the Primary-Evidence Report is a collection of mostly uncommented primary evidence, such as 51 detailed reports from people who had been detained. It also contains information on the Karakash list, one of the leaked Chinese government documents, that you may have heard about. It actually contains much more but these two chapters are the most important ones.

The evidence presented therein sums up to the following: In late 2016/early 2017 China started to build a prison network and began to arrest people, hundreds of thousands, possibly up to a million. They also issued a new family planing law. Before 2017 there was the one child policy but it was only enforced on Han. From 2017 on the new law allowed people in urban areas to have two children and three in rural areas. Since Han typically only had one child, it was primarily enforced on minorities. One of the main reasons that got people arrested was having too many children. China also declared Kazakhstan an untrustworthy country, which got many Kazhaks arrested for having traveled to Kazakhstan. People were sent to prison first and later to "Re-education camps". Torture occurred in these prisons and camps, when people disobeyd the were beaten or sometime put in a so called Tiger Chair. However, in early 2019 China released the prisoners, at least 90% of them.

In this interview from early 2019 at the end you can see how Adrian Zenz mentions that China had begun to release detainees. He also says that in his view the detention system was not meant to be indefinite and that he expected the majority of detainees to be released within the next one or two years. https://www.nzz.ch/international/china-jeder-uigure-kann-jederzeit-im-umerziehungslager-landen-ld.1457048

One year later, in early 2020, Zenz acknowledged in an article about the Karakash list that China had released 87.5% of the detainees (search Text for "87.5 percent"). https://www.jpolrisk.com/karakax/

What this means in total is that the genocide allegations are an Iraq/WMD style propaganda campaign, because everything except what I'm describing above are lies: The concentration camps, the genocide, the cultural genocide, the mass sterilization to prevent births, the claim that 1+ million were still in detention, the systematic sexual violence, the murders, all of those are bad faith fabrications.

I'm a veteran of online discussions. I know that the human brain is incapable of dropping firm belief in an instant. I know with absolut certainty that your very first reaction will be to throw some BS at me aimed at preserving your current view and to save yourself the trouble of reading anything.

I want you to hold yourself back there. I want you realize that I'm providing detailed information and sources and that there is a vast amount of evidence right in front of your nose. I want you to look at the evidence first and THEN you can reply. I want this to begin with a discussion on the evidence and not with a discussion on your your refusal to even take a look at it. This is your responsibility as Wikipedia editors.

Should you be capable to live up to this responsibility, you absolutely must brace your self for an emotionally challenging experience. Having been lied to like that, being this wrong on something is an emotional hell-ride. Most people are not capable of processing what you need to process here.

However, it is of utmost importance that the truth gets out. Now, not decades later. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laroop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an awful lot of WP:SYNTH to me. I'm not seeing how the websites you link support your claims, and on Wikipedia we follow what reliable secondary sources say – we don't make our own judgements about primary sources as that would result in original research. Unless you have specific suggestions on how to improve the page, this isn't really helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French recognition

The National Assembly of France has recognized the Uyghur genocide [14]--203.218.141.159 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. It is non-binding. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10423189/French-politicians-officially-recognise-Chinas-treatment-Uyghurs-genocide.html 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:3959:938:B59A:2376 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all the recognotions are 'non-binding', which the article accurately reflects. Crudely speaking, they are expressions of disapproval from parliamentarians, which do not bind their respective governments to any (particular) actions. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore it has as much meaning as my recognition that france is committing genocide of North African Muslim peoples in france, because many of them are homeless and beg on the streets and forced to learn french. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F00:ADFE:BD27:D1F7:8F44 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except you are not a parliamentarian! But legally you are quite correct, it's a formal expression of disapproval, nothing more. But in the case of the UK (and perhaps some other countries) it's the only kind of genocide recognition that ever occurs. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence does not make sense

The lead sentence says that "The Uyghur genocide is the characterization of the [ongoing abuses] as genocide." This is a circular sentence, and it seems like a classical case of confusing the use and mention of a term.

Now, I understand that the classification of something as genocide is complicated. By naming the article it seems we have, for now, decided that "genocide" is the most neutral or correct or standard way to describe what is happening to the Uyighurs. Judging from the section "Classification of abuses", which elaborates on the naming debate, this seems solid, again, for now.

The present article "Uyighur genocide" is obviously mainly about the abuse and persecution of Uyighurs, not about the classification issue. By saying that the Uyghur genocide is the characterization as a genocide we have a very contrived first sentece which really says that the main subject of the article is a terminological dispute. The Uyighur genocide is an ongoing series of abuses against Uyighurs. And, we could add, the characterization of these abuses as "genocide" is controversial. Then at least we would not bend over backwards to avoid using the title of the article to refer to its subject, which really should be frowned upon. ——St.nerol (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ongoing and basically everything the genoiced advocates claim are lies. This is an Iraq/WMD-style propaganda campaign. For example, China released the prisoners in early 2019, as you can see in this article (search text for "87.5 percent"): https://www.jpolrisk.com/karakax/
For the full story see my post above. Laroop (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice misrepresentation there, the following sentences say: "Release verdicts often state that a person first has to complete what is evidently a minimum one-year study period before they should then be released. It is important to keep in mind that “re-education internment” for all of these main persons exclusively refers to internment in VTICs. These camps will intern persons for designated periods of time before releasing them into either community control (社区管控) or, more commonly, forms of forced labor. In fact, a number of verdicts bluntly state that persons are to be released into “industrial park employment” (园区就业). Jr8825 • Talk 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naming an article using a disputed term is always going to result in problems of phrasing. Normally one would expect an article with this title to be about the claim that the Chinese government is committing genocide in Xinjiang. TFD (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse what St.nerol says. Present text is very unclear as to whether the subject of the article is the abuses against the Uyghurs, or whether the subject is some academic/legal/naming dispute about how to classify those abuses. I understand the compromises that have lead to this point, but, the outcome is a pig's ear I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "The Uyghur genocide is the the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, which is variously characterized as a genocide[1], a cultural genocide[2] or a crime against humanity[3]." (with suitable references inserted). ––St.nerol (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say "The Uyghur genocide... is variously characterized as a genocide, cultural genocide, or a crime against humanity" because then we are picking one in wikivoice. It wouldn't be "variously characterized" here, it would just be characterized as genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but every time we refer to what's happening we inevitably have to pick one characterization, right? Would it work better with "The Uyghur genocide is [...] in Xinjiang. It has also been characterized as a cultural genocide or a crime against humanity"? ––St.nerol (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree the current sentence is awkward, but I don't think there's any way around the problem other than changing the article title, which isn't going to happen. (Edit: sorry, I forgot about the avoidbold option as it involves overturning the last RfC, but I think this is a good alternative, see below. Jr8825 • Talk 12:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)) Starting off with "the Uyghur Genocide is X abuses" and then using "also characterised" suggests 1) the characterisation of genocide is broadly accepted, and 2) possibly that other labels are simply terms used in addition to genocide, rather than the labels preferred by those who disagree with, or cautious about, terming it genocide. I'm sure you can find alternative phrasing that makes your proposed text more explicit/clearer, but then you'll end up with a longer, more convoluted first couple of sentences, and I'm not sure it'll be any more elegant than the current wording. Also, I'm not keen on exploring the views of those who don't think it's a genocide in the first few sentences, as I think it distracts from the substance of the topic and actually has the unintended effect of placing more doubt on the abuses than necessary. Unfortunately, this has all been pointed out several times before and a clear majority of regular page editors are against a title change (repeated failed attempts at changing the title are pointed to as justification for keeping the current one). You're not the first new editor to come along and point out the current situation doesn't work well, but it's probably the best compromise available as we have to work from community consensus. I can live with it myself, because although I think the title's not strictly within policy, I'm sympathetic to why editors want to keep it, and the first sentence is probably the best that can be done with it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of all possible policy-violations-as-a-result-of-compromise, logical incoherence might be my least favourite. So I'll give another try. How about: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, if characterized as a genocide." ––St.nerol (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is not having the title bolded in the first sentence at all per MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Something like The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide. – Anne drew 22:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this version by @Anne drew, I don't think we should bend over backwards to have the bolded title, and this is an accurate summary in my opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I argued in favour of something similar at the previous RfC on the lead sentence for pretty much the same reasons as St.nerols, but the closer found a consensus in favour of the current lead sentence instead. I also think that dropping the bolding would be a better option, but there may be opposition as it will involve overturning that RfC outcome. My suggested formulation would be similar, starting with "Since 2014, the Chinese government has... (moving "since 2014" from the current second sentence, which was originally the first sentence). There's an explanatory supplement of MOS:AVOIDBOLD at WP:BOLDITIS, which clarifies that bolding the title shouldn't be done if it compromises on a natural first sentence outlining the article scope. I don't think St.nerols' suggestion here is better than the current sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what the best alternative is, but I totally agree the first sentence doesn't make any sense as it is now and it is more confusing than informative. Vpab15 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A mass ping to previous RfC participants might be good to gauge the level of opposition to a new lead sentence. If there's not much disagreement it might be possible to change it without needing a new RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 12:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support an explanatory first sentence without bolding like the one @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: and @Jr8825: suggest. Perhaps the part "has commited a series of ongoing human rights abuses" could just be shortened to "is committing human rights abuses"? But I guess details can always be honed once we agree on the type of solution we want. I have no idea about how to mass ping people, but open to see how it's done! ––St.nerol (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to drop in and add my two cents; Agree with User:St.nerol's original sentiment that the lede sentence as it stands is horribly circular and tautological. A simple and quick fix would just be to remove the repetition of "genocide" (i.e. "The Uyghur genocide is a term used to describe a series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.") NickCT (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Against current sentence "the Uyghur genocide is the characterization of the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang as genocide" on these points (1) characterization is not the article's focus although important, (2) "as genocide" at end redundant when it opens with "genocide", (3) it's "mainly Uyghurs" just say so instead of tying-in unspecified minorities, (4) probably unintentional but the word "ongoing" excludes past abuses, "a series of" suffices as current situation is adequately covered. Support AVOIDBOLD as a means to reach a more natural, neutral, and accurate first sentence. CurryCity (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity: Would The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang satisfy your concerns? — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: Why not, The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang? — 141.156.196.94 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
141.156.196.94, immediate response? - Far too many 'alleged's. There is near universal agreement that large scale human rights abuses are occurring. The exact scale, including the extent to which coercive medical interventions, such as forced abortion/sterilisation may be unestablished/able, and how best to characterise this programme may all be uncertain/unagreed, but no serious source doubts that a programme of oppression exists. Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this version, as it needlessly waters down the genocide as existing only in the minds of the west. When actually our sources indicate the belief that this is a serious set of abuses (often called a cultural genocide) is much wider than just Western academics. It's also from politicians, human rights watchdog groups, the UN HRC, etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that what's occurring in Xinjiang is a "cultural genocide" overloads the term genocide such that the belief *does* exist only in the minds of the West. We could just as easily say "cultural erasure" and this talk page would be empty. Pure propaganda. 141.156.196.94 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: First Sentence

What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: First Sentence

Academic and mainstream press sources

Notes

  1. ^ Note that this is a piece from the news desk explaining that the New Yorker had translated the below piece into Mandarin
— Mhawk10 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (last updated: 05:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Just a note that I don't mind A at all. With NickCT's suggestion below, I think it becomes just as good as B. I will scream bloody murder if this is closed as C or E. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I'll be screaming with you. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MW lists as the specific definition "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" which would seem to fit the current situation perfectly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the debates is whether a group is being destroyed. CurryCity (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean it fits one interpretation of the current situation perfectly. In any case, I assume that you would agree that the meaning of the term to most people would be killing people. If a different meaning is used, it should be explained in text, per Technical language. Also, could you please take your opinions to the discussion section below. This section is for the survey and your repeated arguments with editors is distracting to contributors. TFD (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably use an "Introduction to Genocide" article, also we have WP:RS reports of people being deliberately killed. What we don't have is reports of mass killings but per the meaning you provided apparently "mass" is not part of the common meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take your opinions to the discussion section below. This section is for the survey and your repeated arguments with editors is distracting to contributors. I will not reply to your questions here because I don't want to be part of the problem. TFD (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, as has been explained to you multiple times thats just not how it works. Either point to a consensus or stop being disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't been explained to me. Why do you think there is a discussion section in the RfC? (Rhetorical question.) Anyone coming to vote here would have to wade through walls of text explaining your views. It's not as if these views are unfamiliar to editors familiar with the topic. Lots of sources such as the Epoch Times give them extensive coverage. TFD (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re "should not label something a genocide" - This sounds like an argument for a move discussion. Not for this discussion about the lede sentence. Fact is, while the title is what it is, we've already labeled it genocide. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The past move discussions have affirmed this is the proper term to describe this series of events in Wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Wikipedia:No original research Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused, this discussion is about article content, I am not saying you violated the original research policy, but that inclusion on that basis would violate it. Xoltered (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of what on what basis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on the basis that the MW definition "would seem to fit the current situation perfectly." We need to rely on reliable sources not your own personal view. Xoltered (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include what on the basis of that MW definition? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? What does that even mean? I am going to stop engaging with this bludgeoning of discussion. Xoltered (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think its perhaps because I didn't actually argue to include anything and you didn't know what WP:OR actually was when you accused me of violating it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You argued against what TFD said, that we should not label it a genocide in wikivoice. Therefore, you wanted to include the wikivoice label. Now please stop replying. Xoltered (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:AGF. I know you have failed to assume good faith in numerous other discussions. This seem to be a recurring issue for you, please take a step back and consider the policy. Xoltered (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very active imagination, I just pointed out that the technical definition fit better than the common meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the article should not call it a genocide in wikivoice? Xoltered (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? None of the explicit options do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A does. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a genocide is often a judgment call not a factual assertion, and this case is contested. CurryCity (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the plethora of sources above? ––FormalDude talk 23:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe we use factual assertion differently. To me factual assertion is something objectively measurable, like distances. Judgment call is deciding whether something observed fits under certain definitions not directly measurable. CurryCity (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we put things in wiki-voice if they are widely accepted in our best RSes, even if there is some dispute. Because wikipedia is not about truth or absolutes. It's about verifiability. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth in English-speaking countries is going to publish any counters in the current climate? When you rely on judgment by people and non-measurable definitions, personal biases often come on top. CurryCity (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity: arguing there's a global conspiracy/tendency to limit sources of a certain view isn't a relevant argument on Wikipedia. See WP:VNT and WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT. We approach issues on the basis of their relative coverage in well-established sources, and those sources' reputations – that's just how we work. Jr8825 • Talk 05:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: And yet we have sources that explicitly talk about a consensus emerging among scholars as early as 2020. The source doesn't even mention a consensus, but even if it did, an "emerging consensus" would be a very different thing from a consensus - it says "a growing number". "I provide the background to the crisis, explain why the label “genocide” is now being used by growing numbers of scholars, activists, rights advocates, barristers, and politicians" What does "growing numbers" mean? 10% where previously it was 5? We have no way of knowing and the author is very much an advocate FOR use of the term. Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A>>>B>D. Oppose C, E. per MHawk10 and the extremely good sourcing we have that shows the consensus position is that this is a cultural genocide. Is there dispute? Probably, there is always dispute when it comes to genocide. But we still are beholden to the position most widely accepted in our WP:BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re "the lede sentence should not directly label the events as a genocide" - Seems like a silly point given the title has already labeled the thing "genocide". Having the title label something "genocide", then arguing the lede sentence should not, only sets up contradictions. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: there problem is there are two (actually three) groups of editors who each have a consistent stance. (1) Editors who believe the term genocide is appropriate for wikivoice as the sources stand, (2) editors who believe the term genocide isn't appropriate for wikivoice as the sources stand (and (3) editors who take a line similar to CCP propaganda, because, in all fairness to them, they are consistent in their denialism, maybe they're even salaried). There have been two different community discussions, one on the title (protracted across multiple RMs), and one on the first sentence (the last RfC). A consensus was found in favour of group 1 in the RMs and a consensus was found in favour of group 2 in the RfC. That's what's causing the contradiction. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: - Alright. Well thanks for the history. And for the record, I don't know what the "right" answer is for the "genocide is appropriate for wikivoice" question. I do know that we should avoid contradictions though. And while the title is what it is, I think B2 maintains that contradiction. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: - Follow-up thought; did anyone in those previous conversations consider "ethnocide"? NickCT (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT:, yes, "Uyghur ethnocide" was the original title of the article prior to Feb 2020, you can check the page move history at the top of this page. "Ethnocide" hasn't been discussed much since we moved towards the title "Uyghur cultural genocide" (another title I have no issue with), which eventually led to the current title "Uyghur genocide". I presume this lack of discussion is because it's seen as insufficiently strong compared to genocide-related terms, and discussion/disagreement over the genocide label has become a notable part of the RS literature and coverage in this time too. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825 and NickCT: The move discussion from Ethnocide of Uyghurs to "Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs can be found here. Original title was Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China and it was WP:BOLDly moved to Ethnocide of Uyghurs because an editor thought there was no need to disambiguate with the "in China" piece. The original discussion that resulted in moving the page to Uyghur genocide can be found at Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_2. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825 and Mhawk10: - Thanks for the background guys. My initial thought was that "ethnocide" may be a less loaded and potentially more accurate title. Rethinking that a little a though, WP:COMMONNAME would probably seem to oppose "ethnocide" in the title.
It's sorta unfortunate b/c attaching the word "genocide" to anything is tremendously touch-y, and will inevitably lead to the kind of debates we're having in this RfC now... ah well.... That's life on WP I guess. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time squaring this argument with the one you made above "We're not supposed to be voicing our own opinions, we're supposed to be following sources, and their agreement stops at "crimes against humanity" and "cultural genocide"." because all cultural genocides are genocides by definition. Would you support an opening that went "The Uyghur genocide is the cultural genocide..." ?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: "all cultural genocides are genocides by definition": not by all definitions though, such as dictionary definitions that only use "mass killing", or the Genocide Convention's definition, since "cultural genocide ... was excluded from the UN Genocide Convention, and destruction of dignity is not considered genocide in international law, which requires the intended physical destruction of members of a group (quote from Finley paper we were discussing above). Jr8825 • Talk 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would the "demographic genocide" component here fit into "cultural genocide"? I'm seeing sources that list them as separate components of the abuses, such as 1, 2, 3, 4. Nor would that fit the extensive unqualified descriptors of genocide listed in my collapsed thread above. It seems that this is broader than "Uyghur cultural genocide". — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, and I suspect most readers, would not know what a "demographic genocide" was anyway. My best guess is that it means suppressing the birth rate of a group, so just as that might not fit a "cultural genocide", it doesn't fit most definitions of 'ACTUAL' genocide either. Certainly no known examples in human history. Why would this not be seen as a "crime against humanity". I think the argument proves nothing other than that some sources characterise this as genocide, or some qualified variant of that word, others use other, less extreme, terms. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Academic and mainstream sources that qualify, avoid, or debate the classification of genocide
  • Polaschek, Rosa (2021). "Responses to the Uyghur Crisis and the Implications for Business and Human Rights Legislation". Business and Human Rights Journal.
    The Chinese state's treatment of the Uyghur peoples and other minorities in Xinjiang province involves systemic human rights abuses, if not rising to the level of genocide under the Genocide Convention.[1]
  • Ryan, Sophie (2021). "Atrocity Crimes in Xinjiang: Moving beyond Legal Labels". Global Responsibility to Protect.
    This article considers the legal tests for establishing genocide and crimes against humanity in relation to the situation in Xinjiang. It suggests that the currently available evidence is likely sufficient to establish atrocity crimes and that the situation in Xinjiang requires urgent international attention, regardless of the precise legal label applied to it.[2]
  • Rossabi, Morris (2022). China and the Uyghurs: A Concise Introduction.
    Loaded terminology such as “genocide,” “atrocities,” and “terrorists” frequently characterize these reports, and the sources are either not cited or not fully identified.[3]
  • Slawotsky, Joel (2021). "Is China Guilty of Committing Genocide in Xinjiang?" Chinese Journal of International Law.
    Drawing all inferences against China, there are no colorable claims, let alone proof, that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang.[4]
  • "Analysis of YouTube Videos Used by Activists in the Uyghur Nationalist Movement: combining quantitative and qualitative methods" With the strict definition of genocide as ‘organized and unilateral mass killing on the basis of ethnicity’35 one can hardly qualify the Uyghur position in the Han–Uyghur equation as a subject of genocide. On the contrary, it is evident that the victims’ claims are over-exaggerated.[5]
  • "Xinjiang Year Zero" In compiling this book, we have been mindful of three key controversies that have held sway in debates about Xinjiang in recent years. The first is whether we should resort to the term ‘genocide’. While particular aspects and effects of the post-2017 system in Xinjiang do meet legal definitions of the term ... the system does not seem to be one of intentional mass death.[6] (Key point being that they describe it as an active debate and ultimately come down on the side of avoiding the term.)

Additional sources below contributed by CurryCity (talk) (updated 04:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)):[reply]

  • Holdstock, Nick (2020). "Long march towards cultural genocide ...". Index on Censorship.
    When one considers Chinese policy in the region in toto, it amounts to cultural genocide.[7]
  • (2021). “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang. The Economist.
    By the common understanding of the word, it is not.[8]
  • Roberts, Sean R. “Cultural genocide, 2017–2020.” The War on the Uyghurs: China’s Internal Campaign against a Muslim Minority.[9]
    growing accusations of cultural genocide ... accusations that the Chinese government is committing cultural genocide in Xinjiang
  • BBC 1. (2022). "Beijing Winter Olympics: Why are they controversial?"
    The Beijing government is accused of committing atrocities against the Uyghur Muslim population in the northwest province of Xinjiang."
  • BBC 2. (2021). "How do you define genocide?"
    It is defined as a mass extermination of a particular group of people ... "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" ... Some have argued that the definition is too narrow; others that it is devalued by overuse ... the former secretary-general of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), Alain Destexhe, wrote: "Genocide is a crime on a different scale to all other crimes against humanity and implies an intention to completely exterminate the chosen group."
  • Reuters. (2022). "UK, Canada join diplomatic boycott of Beijing Winter Games". Scott Morrison said Australia's decision came because of its struggles to reopen diplomatic channels with China to discuss alleged human rights abuses in the far western region of Xinjiang"


References

  1. ^ Polaschek, Rosa (2021). "Responses to the Uyghur Crisis and the Implications for Business and Human Rights Legislation". Business and Human Rights Journal. 6 (3): 567–575. doi:10.1017/bhj.2021.44. ISSN 2057-0198.
  2. ^ Ryan, Sophie (16 February 2021). "Atrocity Crimes in Xinjiang: Moving beyond Legal Labels". Global Responsibility to Protect. 13 (1): 20–23. doi:10.1163/1875-984X-13010003. ISSN 1875-984X.
  3. ^ Rossabi, Morris (15 January 2022). China and the Uyghurs: A Concise Introduction. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-6299-6 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Slawotsky, Joel (1 September 2021). "Is China Guilty of Committing Genocide in Xinjiang?". Chinese Journal of International Law. 20 (3): 625–635. doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmab029. ISSN 1540-1650.
  5. ^ Vergani, Matteo; Zuev, Dennis (1 March 2011). "Analysis of YouTube Videos Used by Activists in the Uyghur Nationalist Movement: combining quantitative and qualitative methods". Journal of Contemporary China. 20 (69): 205–229. doi:10.1080/10670564.2011.541628. ISSN 1067-0564.
  6. ^ Byler, Darren; Franceschini, Ivan; Loubere, Nicholas (25 January 2022). Xinjiang Year Zero. ANU Press. ISBN 978-1-76046-495-0 – via Google Books.
  7. ^ Holdstock, Nick (2020). "Long march towards cultural genocide: As news emerges of the present horrors happening in Xinjiang, an expert on the region looks at its recent history". Index on Censorship. 49 (4): 56–60. doi:10.1177/0306422020981277. ISSN 0306-4220.
  8. ^ ""Genocide" is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang". The Economist. 13 February 2021.
  9. ^ Roberts, Sean R. (2020). The War on the Uyghurs: China's Internal Campaign against a Muslim Minority. Princeton University Press. pp. 199–235. ISBN 978-0-691-20218-1.
For controversial topics, a "literature review" that consists of just one side of what is clearly an active debate among top-quality sources has no value - simply saying "sources exist that use this term" is not enough to justify usage of a term like genocide in the article voice once significant high-quality sources have been presented that disagree. Also note that many of the sources cited in support of flatly calling it a genocide in the article voice are careful to only use the term cultural genocide (something even some people arguing for A concede!) - if we rely on such sources, we can only call it a cultural genocide in the article voice. In fact, using such sources weakens the position for A, since cultural is a qualifier in this context - the sources in the review above that use only the term "cultural genocide" are plainly additional evidence against using the "generic" term genocide in the article voice, since if signfiicant numbers of authors are careful to make that distinction then we must be careful to make it as well. --Aquillion (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: You've gotta be kidding me with chooisng including some of those sources and how you've represented others in this attempt at a rebuttal.
  • "Analysis of YouTube Videos Used by Activists in the Uyghur Nationalist Movement: combining quantitative and qualitative methods" is from 2011! Considering that the article covers abuses after 2014, why did you think that this souce was at all relevant to the current conversation?
  • The Chinese Journal of International Law, while imprinted under OUP, is actually run by the Wuhan University, a Chinese state institution, and the Beijing-based Chinese Society of International Law. The editor-in-chief of the journal is a professor at China Foreign Affairs University. Do you believe that the Chinese state does not input into the journal's review process?
  • The way you framed the stance of "Xinjiang Year Zero" seems like a misreading of the source. The full quote that you're pulling from is available below indicates that the authors agrees that the legal threshold for genocide is met and lists particular examples of how it is met! Like literally everybody else, they discount mass death of people already born.
  • While particular aspects of the post-2017 System in Xinjiang do meet legal definitions of the term—namely, the transfer of children from one ethnic group to another that is facilitated by a widespread residential boarding school system and a negative eugenics program named 'Complete Inspection and Handling of Illegal Births'... that along with widespread rates of family separation has produced a dramatic decrease in birth rates—the system does not seem to be one of intentional mass death (emphasis added). The goal of the book isn't to analyze this, the authors say, but to focus on analyzing the logics and effects of the system, and on documenting the lived reality of the people who are experiencing it.
When looking at it broadly, it's pretty clear what the consensus in mainstream sources is: that the Uyghur genocide is the series of abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang since 2014. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 source is probably outdated. I'm on the fence about CJIL since the author is named; and there might be difficulty finding a good publisher for these arguments. About XJY0, are you saying that the authors agree with calling it genocide for the reasons quoted? CurryCity (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity: What is the meaning of this edit? Are you adding comments to remove the source from the list because you believe their use was well-refuted? And I think I was pretty clear above w.r.t. XJY0. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the best source. I've undone the change. Although I have something else to say about this source, if you would like to continue below under discussions. CurryCity (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at least one of Aquillion's sources is poor. So we are left with the BBC, Washington Post, Reuters and a few others - and his pointing out that some sources - including Finley - does not say what people here seem to think she says. Are the BBC etc funded by China too or are they just out of date and unreliable? Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's quite disingenuous for @Aquillion to not list the year after the Youtube analysis article. I was actually feeling Aquillion was pretty convincing until I read Mhawk's analysis of the listed sources. Among other misreadings/cherry picking in Aquillion's quotations... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your postion is that Amnesty and HRW are in the pocket of the Chinese government? Do you have 'any' source suggesting that? BSMRD (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't formed a position, but human rights now constitutes a major billion dollar industry. In 2012, the heads of HRW accepted a secret donation of US$470,000 from a Saudi billionaire who was himself was involved in certain human rights abuses. The money was conditioned on an agreement that the organisation refrain from criticising Muslim majority countries for violating LGBTQ rights, according to this report. It is an issue of credibility and damaged reputation. --Nug (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you can find some entities denying any genocide is occurring Why would I even want to? My position is that there is almost zero doubt that very serious abuses are occurring . The doubt among sources - including many of the very best - is how best to characterise those abuses. I don't doubt for a milli-second that some good sources use 'genocide' or some modified or qualified version of that word. I am arguing that the use of unqualified 'genocide' is nothing like the near- universal levels which it should be for it to appear in WP:VOICE. Even those sources using the term are using it in a sense familiar to genocide scholars and international lawyers, but completely alien to most WP readers and to the 100s of generally accepted historical instances of 'genocide' including all those documented on WP AFAIK. They are talking about conscious suppression of birth rates among a group, not mass killing of that group. We don't at present even make clear this -relatively novel - use of the term is what those using the term mean. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended sources contesting a full conclusion of genocide
  • Human Rights Watch April 2021 report, The United States State Department and the parliaments of Canada and the Netherlands have determined that China’s conduct also constitutes genocide under international law. Human Rights Watch has not documented the existence of the necessary genocidal intent at this time.
  • As mentioned above, Amnesty International very conspicuously avoids the term genocide in its June 2021 report. The only mention of "genocide" is citation to the above-mentioned Economist article arguing the word is inappropriate.
  • I want in particular to re-highlight Xinjiang Year Zero by Dr. Darren Byler, Franceschini, and Loubere. Byler specifically earned his PhD based on the fieldwork and thesis he did resulting from living in Xinjiang. He speaks Uyghur, is a leading scholar on the oppression of Uyghurs, and lived there during the early stages of the present crisis (see also his Terror Capitalism. That he and the two other scholars are specifically saying that this is an ongoing controversy, and moreover concluding against calling it genocide, is important to note.
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's November 2021 report similarly avoids concluding that a genocide is occurring; rather, it "may" be occurring.
  • (Mentioned by Aquillion) Sophie Ryan's "Atrocity Crimes in Xinjiang: Moving beyond Legal Labels" in Global Responsibility to Protect.
  • The Sachs and Schabas article in Project Syndicate. As someone who closely follows academic debates on genocide, I will admit I view Schabas in particular very unfavorably. But they are experts on the subject of genocide, and while this is not a full-length report like the Holocaust Memorial report or the HRW one, their opinion is still notable when we speak of whether or not the rejection of the term genocide is fringe among mainstream sources.
  • Note that the US Department of State's lawyers also made a similar determination — that genocide was not provably occurring — in early 2021, just before Mike Pompeo's announcement to the contrary. We do not have access to the underlying sources, to my knowledge, by there is plenty of coverage of the conclusion as such, e.g. in Foreign Policy
  • There are also various academics who have done extensive work on the atrocities against the Uyghurs and who have acknowledged the difficulty surrounding the term genocide. These are not strictly RS (one is a personal statement on social media), but I include them to show the extent of the debate and reinforcing that it is still, indeed, active, as already demonstrated by the other RS:
    • Timothy Grose, professor of China Studies with an expertise in ethnic minorities in the PRC, on Twitter: I fear--regardless of whether the decision was right--Pompeo's announcement [of genocide] (especially considering the timing) will mobilize and impassion those denying CCP violence against Uyghurs. The atrocities are documented by the CCP itself and can't be debated; terms, however, can be.
    • Michael Clark, editor of the forthcoming The Xinjiang Emergency: Exploring the Causes and Consequences of China’s Mass Detention of Uyghurs, in the Smithsonian Magazine Clarke argues that cultural genocide is a more accurate description for China’s systematic campaign against the Uyghurs—but emphasizes that this designation shouldn’t be taken any less seriously
    • James Leibold, professor at La Trobe University who specializes in race and nationality issues in China, in The Diplomat: There’s little doubt China’s pernicious repression of Uyghurs and other Indigenous people is a crime against humanity and human dignity. Yet these charges of genocide misdiagnose the problem and moreover distract us from understanding and ultimately holding the Chinese government accountable for the wider pattern of abuse occurring inside the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
  • Moreover, there are plenty of reliable sources that describe the debate around the term, and the potential difficulties applying it to Xinjiang, which represent further evidence that this is indeed an ongoing, unresolved debate. In addition to those cited above, examples include "China’s Abuse of the Uighurs: Does the Genocide Label Fit?", a Feb. 2021 article for the Council on Foreign Relations by John B. Bellinger III.
  • Finally, in contrast to the RS that use the term genocide without qualification cited above by Mhawk10, here are some of the similarly reliable sources that behave differently, opting to use attribution and qualification regarding the word. We need to be clear on why Wikipedia should actively choose a more assertive characterization over the style used by these and similar news organizations.
    • The New York Times always qualifies coverage of Uyghurs and the word genocide by attributing the term to determinations by the US government
    • The Washington Post is also careful to avoid phrasing in line with sources like Axis cited by mkhawk10; it always attributes the determination to specific bodies like the US or UK tribunal and opts for “persecution” or similar terminology in headings (see examples here or here)
    • Ditto for the Wall Street Journal, such as in recent coverage of the proposed Tesla plant here.
    • Many other groups, such as ProPublica, Buzzfeed (which won a Pulitzer for its reporting on the atrocities), and Reuters likewise maintain a similar practice of unqualifiedly labeling the atrocities as such (or as repression, oppression, crackdowns, crimes against humanity, etc.) but only referring to “genocide” in quotes or with attribution specifying the source of the accusations.
    • On 2/4, NBC's Olympic coverage likewise followed the above tendency to name and describe the human rights abuses while also noting the "genocide" term is contested; this has drawn condemnation from the right (see e.g. FOX News' coverage here)

On a final note, that news articles regularly still attribute the term in quotations or note that it has been called by some as a genocide should make it clear that Wikipedia ought to do the same. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling out a tweet? Really? If we're going to do that, we might as well account for James Millward, who is one of the most cited scholars on Xinjiang generally, who calls this a genocide. There's not really a need to create a long list of tweets here; doing a headcount on tweets is not going to be useful because tweets don't carry any weight on Wikipedia. If we're looking for where a lot of experts stand on the issue, why not look at the Raoul Wallenberg-Newlines Institute report, whose authors include Gregory Stanton, Adrian Zenz, Darren Byler, Stephen D. Smith, Irwin Cotler, Jo Smith Finley, and over two dozen other experts on international law, genocide, and/or the XUAR? We should really try to avoid stretching tweets and op-eds into relevant sources here as some proxy measure of where the experts actually stand. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that it is not a genocide, but that scholars contest that it is. You're clearly not reading the sources here — Byler is indeed on the Newlines Report, but as stated above, in his most recent book, he explicitly rejects the term genocide (to clarify: the book declines to use the term to describe the atrocities; noting your above characterization of the book, I'll point out that acknowledging aspects of genocide does not equal acknowledging genocide because of the complex nature of the term — for example, mass death is a feature of the United States' bombing of Japanese and we interned them en masse as well, but we do not classify this as genocide just because some features that may be present in genocide are there). (The report also includes Grose as an author, strongly suggesting that inclusion on the report is a poor indicator of their overall position). As I disclaim, they are not RS, but further proof of the controversy among scholarship. What is your opinion on the recent reports by the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Human Rights Watch? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall it very much seems that you want to prove that a genocide is occurring rather than acknowledge and account for the divergence in academia's and related advocacy organization's treatment of the issue. I am well aware of e.g. Millward's work and his position; that's why I didn't cite him above. My goal was to simply show that there are other highly cited and respected scholars, as well as in-depth reports by relevant organizations, that do not endorse the term genocide, meaning that we are abrogating WP:NPOV by doing so without attribution. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look buddy, if I were trying to convince you that this is a genocide I would be listing all of the human rights abuses and making a crap ton of references to the research that exposes intent of Chinese government officials. I'm not doing that here. What I've shown here is that the mainstream academic position is that this is genocide; though it was not always this way, the mainstream consensus shifted after the revelations of forced sterilizations came to light in mid-2020. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia; that there is a minority of scholars who disagree with this does not mean that we should falsely balance the article to present them on equal footing. In contrast, WP:NPOV commands that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Much like the existence of an orthodox Kemalist school within Turkish scholarship doesn't make us hand-wave around the first sentence of the A-Class Armenian Genocide, I see no reason to hand-wave here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, you do not need to relitigate the abuses to me. If you are curious, you are more than welcome to peruse the translations and essays I have written debunking arguments of those who deny atrocities in Xinjiang in my free time here. But the analogy you draw with the Armenian Genocide illustrates my frustration here: are we really comparing the conclusions of Human Rights Watch and the Holocaust Memorial with outright denialism? How do you account for the divergence from these two respectable, research-paper length sources? Are they fringe or handwaving? It's certainly not unfair to say that a majority of relevant scholars do think the word genocide is increasingly appropriate, but unless you think that the institutions and scholars listed above are completely fringe, then Option A seems too categorical. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option A is essentially the same as Options 2-3 in the previous RfC, since which not a lot has changed in terms of academic RS or news RS usage. MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS are still guideline/supplements (so it is not necessary to bold the title), and the NPOV/WIKIVOICE concerns expressed by other editors remain about asserting that the "Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses". There are RSes of both types since April 2021 that use genocide in their own voice (e.g. some from Mhawk10's list) and that don't use genocide in their own voice (e.g. some from Aquillion's list). It's well-documented that there is controversy over the classification and there aren't really significant review articles documenting a consensus.
From the last RfC, we had an academic journal article that commented explicitly on the trend in classification, the 2020 Finley article: The new statistical evidence on forced sterilizations in Xinjiang [in June 2020] has led scholars, media commentators and international barristers to consider the possibility that a full genocide – rather than what had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide" – might be taking place. (note that many academic sources, including the Finley one, make the distinction that Cultural genocide, however, was excluded from the UN Genocide Convention, and destruction of dignity is not considered genocide in international law, which requires the intended physical destruction of members of a group). At that time, the "full genocide" was increasingly common over "cultural genocide" but had not yet become the predominant classification. It's not clear from academic articles commenting on the state of academic consensus (it has only been 6 months since the last RfC, so there aren't that many more journal articles) that it has since become the predominant classification.
I am reproducing one of the two lists from the last RfC for convenience (the other list from 10 months ago has already been incorporated into Mhawk10's list in this RfC).
Examples of RSes that only attribute or qualify "genocide" for Uyghurs/Xinjiang from the April 2021 RfC
Option B/B2 is a concise version of Option 1 from the last RfC (which was actually the pre-March 2021 version of the first sentence) - it is precise, descriptive, short, and less awkward. Option C gratuitously inserts "allegations" and "alleged" (not supporting C probably does not need much elaboration). Option E is slightly less direct in wording than B/B2, so would be less prefereable to those two. Option D is unspecific and seems to just mean "none of the above"? That would be almost the same as picking an option here and opening another RfC shortly after (e.g. this RfC is only 10 months after the last one). — MarkH21talk 23:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option B2. A is far too definitive and controversial, as it implies there is no question that genocide is actively being committed. If may even be ambiguous at the same time as it implies "genocide" is synonmyous with "human rights abuses" of specific ethnic groups. It's not. B2 is preferrable simply because of the context "Since 2014" gives. C is far too argumentative. Also, personaly, I'd change the "often characterized" to "characterized by some experts and governments as genocide". To me, that would be peak NPOV :-) Option B3 anyone? It's an essential vitamin? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang. Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide." Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide." Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang

Now this UN Convention, was the kinda occasion the idiom "a camel is a horse designed by committee" was invented for. Reems and reems of literature have been published on this, but you only need to read it yourself, it says: "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole 'or in part,"'. So (a) is killing, but we immediately run into problems with (b), which is "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group". So, legally, it's useless. Because according to it's own definition, say, playing defeaningly loud music at night-time over England, well, not all England, just part of it, Yorkshire say, this person really hates Yorkshire folk and would like to kill as many as he can. If he managed to do that to the point that it caused them "serious mental harm" and "part" of the population were killed from it because his tech was so good - Genocide, innit?
And it was demonstrated to be useless at the UN-sponsored occasion that was the Rome Conference, in 1998, when they established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now because the 1948 convention had already been written, they couldn't exactly ignore it or contradict it. So, despite knowing it was legally unenforceable, they came up with a very clever solution. In Part II, which lists the crimes the ICC claims jurisdiction over, they simply fenced "genocide" off into it's own section, Section 6, copied word for word from the 1948 Convention. Then, in Section 7, they list all their "Crimes Against Humanity" which includes everything from murder to apartheid to a very ill-defined "persecution", but instead of genocide, it says "extermination".
So, in reality, no one will ever be convicted of "genocide" by the ICC. This was proven when the ICC was under enormous political pressure to charge him Omar al-Bashir with the crime, because that's exactly what he was doing according to the dictionary definition of the word. But of course, they couldn't, citing "insufficient evidence". This led to the infamous statement from the Court Panel's spokesperson that Bashir is to be tried for crimes against humanity, namely: "intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians and pillaging their property." So, genocide by another name. When the follow up question was used of her, why not genocide, she apparently started giving a very politician-type answer of talking but not really answering the question, but that nevertheless ended with words "...but there was no evidence of genocide."
The point of all this is that this kind of absurdity is a end result of not being careful in the way you use and define words. I know there are many definitions of genocide, Wikipedia has a good article on it,[21] but it's not our place to adjudicate on that - we can only go off what the RS sources say. But they do get it wrong, I should know, I work for one. In sensitive areas like this, it's so important that we apply the highest standards to our sourcing. We should defer to the most respected academic journals and experts on this case as much as we can, or this will turn into a neverending battleground. -

Discussion

Who wrote "A or B, in that order ... " above? Also, would a better sub-section heading above be "Voting" since it seems to be where editors are casting votes? Burrobert (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was me (sorry for not signing earlier). I've also changed it to be labeled "survey" in line with the common way RfCs are structured, and also since consensus is not determined by a vote, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rightho. Good choice. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in Project Syndicate, "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified" by Jeffrey D. Sachs and William Schabas. Whether or not there is a genocide is a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an opinion piece to me not an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think TFD meant to say (also explained previously) that the authors themselves have enough credentials even though their piece might not be the publisher's position. CurryCity (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that this is an WP:RSOPINION. It helps us frame that there is controversy, even if theirs is the minority viewpoint. Per WP:MAINSTREAM, just because a controversy exists does not mean we cannot label this a genocide in wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does C feel intentionally poorly constructed? It's a tautology that misspells Uyghur, you could make the same effective sentence with something like The Chinese government has allegedly committed a series of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, characterized by some Western academics as genocide. while avoiding the poor grammatical construction. It feels like a subpar option has been chosen to represent this sentiment in comparison with the other choices. BSMRD (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s verbatim from a suggestion in the discussion above the RfC. If you’d like to put the thing above in as an option, feel free to add it to the top as its own option (Option F) or to advocate for it as a sort of Option D (say, Option D1). — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think option C is helpful myself, and it seems rather silly to include it. I would suggest linking the previous RfC on precisely this sentence in the brief though, as it's relevant. Jr8825 • Talk 06:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few different accepted spellings given that we are translating a word from a Turkic Central Asian dialect through Mandarin as a demonym over into English. It's amazing that there is any consistency in how to spell the word. See: Uyghurs. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention a couple points. First, FormalDude has said that per WP:YESPOV, factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. But is calling something genocide or not a factual assertion, or at some level a judgment call, in this particular case? CurryCity (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're implying that the labeling of something as a genocide is always subjective. If so, I don't think that's true at all. ––FormalDude talk 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It almost always has subjective components. I wouldn't lump it together with factual assertions. CurryCity (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide is a pretty measurable claim, considering how hard it is to hide the effects of one. Could you explain what the subjective components are? ––FormalDude talk 23:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine whether it's a group being destroyed versus only families with more children sterilized? How do you measure intent when the rest of the country is under the same policy? CurryCity (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all besides the point unless you're trying to undermine what reliable sources claim to have determined. ––FormalDude talk 03:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "factual assertions made by reliable sources", that means RS plus factual. And I'm saying, genocide determinations cannot be 100% factual assertions as something measurable. They intrinsically involve judgment calls. CurryCity (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second, a popular topic always gets a lot of coverage, and you may find say a hundred sources using "genocide" without qualifiers, but if an equal or greater fraction of all coverage couches the term "genocide", uses "cultural genocide", or "ethnocide", how is it fair to pick only one wording for the first sentence? CurryCity (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is decent point. The classification of the abuses is described in the body (Special purpose tribunals, scholars, commentators, journalists, governments, politicians, and diplomats from many countries have labeled China's actions variously as genocide, cultural genocide, ethnocide and/or crimes against humanity.) and therefore the terminology should probably be described in the lede section as well. I'm not sure it needs to be in the first sentence of the lede though. ––FormalDude talk 22:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that already in the third paragraph of the lead? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. I wonder if that will satisfy CurryCity's concerns. ––FormalDude talk 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every coverage uses unqualified "genocide." Say, 40% use genocide, 30% cultural genocide, 20% ethnocide, 10% something else, why pick only genocide? CurryCity (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your numbers are off; you're vastly overestimating the prevalence of "ethnocide" as a descriptor in the literature here. My classmates and I picked it initially because that was what we thought the best description of events was given the facts that had been publicly reported in Autumn 2019, but the word never really got picked up by literature in any significant way. Where are you getting your numbers from? — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: They're just giving a theoretical example.
@CurryCity: In what way are we only picking genocide? The lede section lists the other notable classifications. We use 'genocide' in the first sentence because it's the most common. It would be redundant to have the first sentence list multiple terms for the same thing. ––FormalDude talk 03:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we debating here in order to remove any wording of characterization, classfification, etc and state in wikivoice that what's going on IS/EQUALS a genocide without qualification whatsoever? CurryCity (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We use 'genocide' in the first sentence because it's the most common. Firstly I don't accept that is true, but even if it were, what about the huge number of sources (including many of the largest news sources, and major human rights orgs such as Amnesty) which do not use ANY "overarching" term in their own voice, (any variant of "genocide" or any variant of "crimes against humanity" or similar) but simply report specifics - detention, coercive contraception etc. Are these sources simply being ignored? Their choosing to NOT use any "overarching" term is NOT a 'vote' for or against any specific term - it's a vote in favour of there being no clear agreement - even among the best and most sympathetic sources - as to how best to describe what is happening. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that already in the third paragraph of the lead? Actually the wording of the third para "At first, these actions were described as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang, and an ethnocide or cultural genocide" strongly implies that any term OTHER THAN genocide is a thing of the past and that there was universal acceptance of the terms previously. Half of that para is true, that the use of unqualified 'genocide' has increased, but the para also implies that a whole range of other descriptions have now been abandoned, thus ignoring not simply "ethnocide" and "cultural genocide" but many other descriptions widely used, including the simplest "human rights abuses". Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to cite this piece there, but the shift in the how people who study the Uyghurs talked about the human rights situation from "ethnocide"/"cultural genocide" to unqualified "genocide" is definitely noted by scholars. In fact, it's the work that revealed the presences of a forced sterilization campaign that brought this shift in language about. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that the numbers using unqualified 'genocide' have increased. Actually the numbers using ANY descriptor, or no "over-arching" descriptor, have probably also increased as news coverage and consequent awareness have increased. However this para is the nearest thing to an acknowledgement that some "governments, activists, independent NGOs, human rights experts, and academics" ever have used any term other than genocide - and it implies they no longer do so. WP is supposed to cover all significant PoV's. Where is the coverage of the immense number of parliaments, NGOs, news sources etc which STILL think that serious human rights abuses are almost certainly happening in China, but which use other descriptors or no "over-arching" descriptor? The NGOs include Amnesty and HRW and a significant number of parliaments etc. which have all chosen to use other terms. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here, the BBC says: "The issue of whether China's alleged abuses amount to a genocide has divided the international community. The case for genocide is based on reports that China is taking steps to erase the culture of the Uyghurs and assimilate or diminish the population through programmes of forced relocation and birth control. In a report published in April, the US-based charity Human Rights Watch concluded that China was responsible for crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - but stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide. Amnesty International reached the same conclusion in its own report." The reporting by the BBC and the viewpoints of Amnesty and HRW are ignored, the claims of a single Newcastle academic (Finley - in an excellent piece, but not the only viewpoint) are bolstered and championed.
Over and above the issue of whether this amounts to genocide, the BBC piece actually explains the grounds on which the genocide claim is made (cultural erasure, forced assimilation and forced lowering of the birth rate) - while our aricle largely presumes that the reader is sufficiently familiar with international law to understand that these elements can constitute genocide - even though there is not a single accepted historical instance of 'genocide' which did not involve mass killing. Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again I note that the standard way to deal with this sort of problem is to create an Introduction to Genocide page or similar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good point from Pincrete. Wouldn't it make sense to use this BBC language in the first para to make the first sentence (whatever it ends up being) clearer? It would also help perhaps to move the first sentence of para 2 up to the first para, to flesh this out further while still remaining at a high level of generality, and then' breaking the para before it gets to the internment stuff?
Re the shift in the how people who study the Uyghurs talked about the human rights situation from "ethnocide"/"cultural genocide" to unqualified "genocide" is definitely noted by scholars: I think that's right, and this is the point of para 3. It might be sensible to add dates there to make that clearer, e.g. "From 2014, these actions were described as etc. From around 2019 as more details emerged, some governments---"
Finally, while we're on the lead, I don't think all the country by country stuff at the end of the lead should be here; it's unhelpful info. The stances of AI and HRW might be more relevant there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How exactly would a new article address the matter of our failure to mention that a significant number of news sources, human rights orgs, parliaments and others consciously use terms other than genocide, a term which the BBC says is highly disputed? It would partially address the issue of what is meant by genocide in this instance - but as the BBC text shows - an entire article isn't needed to clarify that. Only the wish to be clear, rather than to use the most super-heated term available whilst expecting readers to "read the fine print" to actually understand this article. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors have stated that their main issue is with the name of the page, not the first sentence per say. Unfortunately the "superheated" term also appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME which ties our hands a little bit, its not used more than all other names combined (majority) but it is the most used (plurality). Also we do mention that other terms are used, both in the lead and in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about whether the fact it is qualified (due to the lack of consensus among reliable sources) should be changed, to use an unqualified sentence. Other terms are used by a significant number of reliable sources and so the first sentence should have qualification. Xoltered (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
its not used more than all other names combined (majority) but it is the most used (plurality) Given the extreme nature of the term, and the less 'drastic' nature of many of the alternatives (oppression, repression, HR abuses, ethnocide etc) and that many (such as the BBC and Guardian I think) choose to NOT use any overarching characterisation, but to report specifics (detention, sterilisation etc), given all of this, that's a very weak argument for choosing to almost exclusively use one term IMO. Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately our naming conventions instruct us to pick just one term for the article title, I agree that its far from an elegant solution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete:, we have discussed that BBC article before in #Additional Sources. The way you describe the BBC as saying the genocide term is "highly disputed" is a WP:MISINTERPRETATION of the source. The BBC article says HRW and Amnesty stopped short of calling the state's actions a genocide [23], and explains how the Uyghur Tribunal was established due to the inaction of bodies like the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. This article can be used to describe a "divide" in the "international community", but it does not support the very broad changes you are proposing. CutePeach (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a misinterpretation, it isn't even an interpretation, it's a direct quote in BBC's own voice "The issue of whether China's alleged abuses amount to a genocide has divided the international community". Later it also clarifies what the basis of the genocide claim is, which we signally fail to do. The HRW and Amnesty text is elsewhere. HRW and Amnesty both used other terms = they chose NOT to call it genocide.
The tribunal was set up by the Uyghur congress. It's a charity using a novel way to draw attention to the plight of the ethnic group it represents. Fair enough, but let's not pretend that it has a farthing's worth of judicial authority, weight or experience. Its 'verdict' was a foregone conclusion because it was explicitly set up for that purpose. Individual witnesses may have credibility, but the tribunal itself was a publicity exercise. Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be prepared to have more papers, groups, and sources turn up to nudge the narrative in certain ways, even though they all cite one another in one gigantic circle. CurryCity (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Byler

I recently created an article for Darren Byler. He has written extensively about the Uyghurs and mass surveillance. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories