Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mgasparin (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 14 November 2021 (OneClickArchiver archived Requested move 5 September 2021 to Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Internees or detainees

Some recent edits have been changing these words around (mostly 'detainees' to 'internees') out of step with the given references. I am fine in principle with us using the same word throughout the page but I have a rather basic understanding of what they mean. I just want some reassurance that no one is being silly. Do these words even matter? Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what that edit was getting at as they also changed it in direct quotes. I’m fine with us picking one to use more consistently, but changing quotes is not an option even if we do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that from a quick survey sources seem to overwhelmingly use detainee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]