Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Circular journalism.

(Redacted) FF toho (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

That isn't... remotely true. If you've read through all the citations, you'll note that there are a number of separate independent investigations into the issue conducted by reliable sources, such a literal Pulitzer-winning series and intense reporting by the New York Times. And, frankly, Zenz is one of the foremost experts in the world on this topic and has found a knack for doing good and well-respected investigative research. If you have particular sources you'd like to challenge, feel free to do so, but I don't really see anything in this comment that motivates a change to the article content. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) FF toho (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how few original sources there are, but the degree of coverage they have received. I would suggest however that when secondary sources say "according to Zenz, x happened," we don't report it as x happened. Wikipedia articles should no greater certainty for facts that the sources that report them.

I don't think that Zenz has expert status, as defined in Wikipedia. Certainly some of his claims, such as about the anti-Christ and end times, are not consistent with modern scholarship. While eschatological views are not a barrier to being an expert, it creates problems when they use them to interpret current events. TFD (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Zenz is a dreadful source. His eschatological focus creates some general doubts in my own personal analysis, he has been accused of significant mistranslations, and his IUD study's definition of "new" IUDs actually meaning "net" IUD placements is simply bizarre. If someone has the wherewithal to do so, it would be good to make sure that if a source in the article relies on Zenz, that it is described as so in-line to avoid the circular journalism problem and so readers can form their own judgments and assign appropriate weight. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

In what academic work of his on this topic are you noting eschatological focus? With respect to the net added placements of IUDs, I would point you to my comments in this discussion, where Zenz himself describes the statistic that way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

See Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation by Adrian Zenz PhD and Marlon L. Silas (WestBow Press 2012.) See p. 55: "The current world is dominated by global superpowers and alliances that either arose as a direct consequence of the fall of the fourth beast-empire or rose to a position of power and influence in the wake of the New World Order that ensued: the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and emerging developing nations such as India or Brazil." He also says that "the Jews" (with the exception of the 144,000 who are raptured) "will be refined in God's fiery furnace." One third will convert to Christianity and be saved, while the others will burn for eternity. Zenz says, "For the Jews, therefore, the wrath of God will prove to be both a blessing and a curse." In Chapter 10, he explains the role that the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon play in international events today.

This is not a mainstream view of current events.

TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is media outlets aren't doing their own investigations into the camps and simply repeating information and dubious extrapolation they get from slanted NGOs such as Zenz's. Simply reporting on Zenz's work as authoritative when he is neither an expert on China nor Uyghurs and Xinjiang inherently means the article is not presenting an unbiased perspective on the controversy over what exactly the goals and methods China is applying in Xinjiang and whether it fits the definition of genocide. Accusations that haven't been proven in any capacity such sterilizations are reported as fact when the truth is the only thing that can be proven is that Uyghurs are being detained in reeducation camps. Even the figures for how many have been detained total or at a given moment derive from horrible methodology employed by Zenz. It's one thing to cite Zenz as an accuser who has made unproven accusations about the camps, it's another to simply report them as fact in the article. Even minor changes to phrasing would a go a great distance toward making this article less biased, as would minimizing news media sources in favor of more direct investigative sources such as various government's reports, international organizations reports, and NGOs. There should more of a voice for sources that dispute the genocide label or claims of specific abuses, and using the term loaded term 'denial' in the 'denial' of abuses section implies there is proof of the abuses alleged when only a few can be credibly supported by available evidence. Archeoish (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The notion that media outlets aren't doing their own investigations into the camps is plainly false. There was a literal Pulitzer Prize awarded for an original investigation that mapped the camps and Nathan VanderKlippe's detailed reporting for The Globe and Mail won him a Canadian equivalent. Not to mention the investigations into the Xinjiang papers by The New York Times, reports on other leaks from AFP, the on-the-ground reporting from the LA Times, and countless interviews with former detainees. Does the reliable and well-respected academic reports from people like Adrian Zenz get mentioned in news reporting as well? Yes, because his work on Xinjiang is well-respected in the academic world. The existence of widespread abuses is extremely well-documented. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Adrien Zenz is not academic on any level and between frequent dubious extrapolations and potential mistranslation he cannot be considered reliable himself. That's not to say he doesn't incorporate reliable information as part of his activism, namely official Chinese government documents, but his own interpretations should not be reported as factual. His attempts to pin down the completely unknown number of people currently detained and detained in total are particularly dubious. While interviews are legitimate sources they should be taken as claims not confirmation of anything. For example, some witnesses, namely those with connections to Uyghur independence groups, have been caught changing or contradicting their accounts in different interviews.

There are some investigations media outlets have done on the camps, but it is important to consider the access they have little access to any information about the camps due to the intense secrecy and security surrounding them. Further, this issue is so tied to geopolitical conflict between China and the west every source on it should be considered biased and the article should reflect that. Instead it is over-reliant on the dubious work of Zenz, is written in a clearly biased way that favors the genocide interpretation without sufficient reason right down to the enormously biased title, and phrasing throughout the article frames nondefinitive information as confirmed when that is not the case. If this article weren't written with an agenda it would be titled "Uyghur Interment in Xinjiang" or "Uyghur Genocide Controversy" and include more sources critiquing the work of Zenz and others to provide some balance. This article utterly fails to allow readers to form their own conclusions in unbiased ways on a controversial subject matter with no clear answers.

Your biases are readily apparent from your replies here and it raises serious questions about your impartiality. The article does not need sweeping changes to bring it up to higher standard. Archeoish (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)— Archeoish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The articles sourced to Nathan VanderKlippe in this article are mostly about reports he has read or comments made by Zenz. Ironically, the article mentions a claim by Vanderklippe that he interviewed a woman who said she saw no violence.

Incidentally, Zenz is a scholar in the sense that he has written peer reviewed articles. It's just that he is not an expert on the subject matter. In any case, weight applies. We should include what news media say about his claims. We should only mention criticism of those claims to the extent they are reported in mainstream sources. But we should never show greater certainty of the claims than the sources do.

Compare this to the run up to the Iraq War. CNN never said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was behind the 9/11 attacks. They never claimed that his soldiers killed babies in incubators. They merely repeated the claims with few opposing views. As long as that standard is met, the article meets neutrality. TFD (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're saying that a PhD in social anthropology from Cambridge with a thesis on ethnic relations in China is not an expert on the subject matter? Pray tell what besides being published and having relevant degrees from leading institutions counts towards whether someone is considered a subject matter expert for our purposes here on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it would be strange to me to treat the claims of a hard-right Christian fundamentalist who understands his research into China to be part of a battle against the "anti-Christ" with the same weight as any other academic. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a religious litmus test for experts. Can you point me to that consensus? Just a note that most Christians consider themselves to be in a daily battle against dark forces... Its one of the core parts of that religion (and many others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and certainly doesn't mean they can't be objective about other matters. We would still consider an American evangelical forensic accountant to be an expert on the finances of a Chinese conglomerate, especially if they had published several books on the matter and had a PhD in forensic accounting. And even if they had a PhD in actuarial sciences, if they had published peer reviewed journal articles in topic-relevant journals about forensic accounting. And MOST importantly, if OTHER SOURCES treated them like an expert in this content. Which other sources do for Zenz. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is the man makes his biases clear and his reports should be treated as his own interpretations and allegations, not fact. Archeoish (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We allow the use of biased sources. We will treat his reports however WP:RS do because that is what is required of us by WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Zenz's thesis was "Tibetanness Under Threat? Sinicisation, Career and Market Reforms in Qinghai, P.R. China." In it, he "pioneers an analysis of significant recent developments in Qinghai's Tibetan education system." That doesn't make him an expert on genocide studies. Furthermore, according to an article in The Telegraph, he "has visited Xinjiang only once - more than a decade ago."[1]

Anyway, how can you can distinguish between his analysis of evidence about the "Uyghur genocide" and his analysis of control of the world by Satan? Or do you agree with him on the latter point? I note also that his religious interpretation of history was written after his thesis, so he may have moved away from rational interpretations of history after he completed his PhD.

But even if he were an expert, he is writing an opinion, which is reported as such in mainstream media. As a tertiary source, it is not our role to decide his opinion is correct and report it as fact, but merely to summarize what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This sort of speculation about a BLP is explicitly forbidden, unless you have a source which says that Zenz is an issue this conversation is over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I would point you to Shibbolethink's comment above, with particular emphasis with respect to the fact that other academics have vetted the work and regularly cite it for facts about the Xinjiang internment camps and other related abuses. His (co-authored) work with open source government procurement data in Tibet (such as Fischer and (Zenz 2017)) is connected to his work proving the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps inasmuch as Zenz took the same sorts of government big data research methods from the context of Tibet to the context of Xinjiang (frankly, these sort of social science research methods involving analysis of government big data are even in his expanded thesis/book). The praise for the rigor Zenz's work on proving the existence of the internment camps from respected scholars, where he used that similar sort of government big data analysis, dates to as early as 2019 (Smith-Finley (2019)), and has continued since. If you don't like him as a source, please take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think that there is any reason to treat his scholarship as deficient on this topic merely because Zenz is an evangelical Protestant who believes in millenialism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issues taken with the article in its current state and Zenz as both a direct and indirect source (through the press). Nobody is arguing against using him as a source or that he doesn't use more credible sources which should be cited more directly, such as those Chinese documents, as part of his work, but Zenz engages in provably shaky interpretations of his data and makes extrapolations that cannot be verified from the data, especially when it comes to the number detained. Archeoish (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Archeoish: Agreed. The numbers seem to be sourced from thin air. Britishcook (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize was not awarded for "an original investigation that mapped the camps," but for "comic, featuring art by Fahmida Azim, tells Zumrat's story as told to Insider through a series of interviews as well as testimony given to the United Nations Human Rights Council." TFD (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting was issued for a series of clear and compelling stories that used satellite imagery and architectural expertise, as well as interviews with two dozen former prisoners, to identify a vast new infrastructure built by the Chinese government for the mass detention of Muslims. That is clearly an original investigation that mapped the camps.

You appear to be referring to the 2022 Pulitzer Prize in Illustrated Reporting and Commentary, which was issued for [f]or using graphic reportage and the comics medium to tell a powerful yet intimate story of the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs, making the issue accessible to a wider public, but that isn't the same Pulitzer Prize I was referring to in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Red's biases are readily apparent because he created the page with like 3 other people back when he was named MikeHawk. Read the early draft versions of the page for a good laugh. Convocke (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure to get some good rules lawyering or sanctions on my talk page when he reads this. It's almost like it's his job to protect the narrative on this page. I would never make that accusation though. :) Don't need to tag them directly either, they'll read it soon enough. Just need Horse Eye's to come add a "very few edits outside this topic" tag to my comment too. Convocke (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed a few comments for copy-vio. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is quite biased

1: this is not confirmed, therefore it should be called alleged uyghur genocide 2. since it is not confirmed, it should not say the chinese government has committed human rights abuses, they should add allegedly. 3. this is written like it is a report from the usa. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the #FAQ at the top of this page. We go by what reliable sources call it, which is overwhelmingly a genocide. — Czello 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Czello: Actually, previous discussion here has determined that sources overwhelmingly avoid calling these events a "genocide." When the term is used, it is almost always couched as an allegation or claim. There is also heavy criticism of the use of the term, because these events do not resemble any widely accepted example of a historical genocide (e.g., no allegations of mass killing). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. i understand Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To address your comment regarding the article being like a report written from USA, the nature of English-language Wikipedia is that most editors are in the United States and in Europe. The language skills of editors, and media environments in which editors exist, impact the kinds of sources that make it to Wikipedia. This is not ideal, of course. The discussion in WP:Global is good and important. One area that this and other articles on international topics can benefit from is the addition of non-U.S. and non-European reliable sources. Perhaps that is an area where you can help contribute. It is always helpful when editors raise specific sources and propositions from those sources which could be included in an effort to address a bias, perceived bias, or gap in an article. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands most of the sources are not American. This article already reflect a global perspective better than the vast majority of English wikipedia articles do. Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement but I note that some of the strongest sources we have on the "its a genocide" side are sources like Al Jazeera which are the ones we generally use to balance out western bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In which article does al Jazeera refer to it as a genocide? TFD (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like my characterization of Al Jazeera's reporting you are welcome to provide your own. I don't think anyone would argue that their position is pro-China or pro-denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no genocide taking place to even deny. Euglenos sandara (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you both agreeing on? That there are no human rights abuses against the Uyghurs? (If so you are in a fairly small minority). That some sources don't agree with the description 'genocide' - (in which case, the article agrees with you, though that might not be sufficiently clear). Or that you personally don't think the description 'genocide' applies? (if so, that's WP:OR, and frankly not very relevant to anything).Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article should make it abundantly clear that "some sources don't agree with the description of genocide." As it stands, the article does not satisfy WP:NPOV as it does not mention in the first section how a majority of UN countries do not categorize the event as a genocide, including the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries. Britishcook (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you said "(If so you are in a fairly small minority)" is completely false. According to The Diplomat, there are 39 countries who accuse China in the list sent to the United Nations Human Rights Council and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights by German Ambassador Christoph Heusgen, which is less compared to the 45 countries who defend China in the list sent by Cuba’s U.N. Representative Ana Silvia Rodríguez Abascal. In addition to this, most of the 45 countries who defend China are muslim countries. So, "That there are no human rights abuses against the Uyghurs? (If so you are in a fairly small minority)" doesn't make any sense. Tryute (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"If so you are in a fairly small minority" doesn't refer to countries, nor to genocide, rather to abuses. Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere. Nor does any country NOT claiming abuses equate to that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring. If I didn't vote for Trump it doesn't mean that I supported Biden. I agree that the fact that the genocide 'label' is not universal - indeed is contentious- could be made clearer, but only to the extent of how to describe the 'abuses', not genocide or whitewash. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To make things clear, I was just saying that the number of people believing that there aren't any human rights abuses against the Uyghurs is NOT in a fairly small minority, which doesn't relate with how you responded: "...doesn't refer to countries, nor to genocide, rather to abuses. Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere." For your Trump-Biden example, I do agree with you, but in my previous message I clearly mentioned that 45 countries DEFEND China, not IGNORING what's happening in China. As you say: "Nor does any country NOT claiming abuses equate to that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring.", but I said DEFEND, so it is clearly the second one: "...that country saying that abuses are NOT occurring." Tryute (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add, by "Nor do countries (alone) get to vote on whether crimes are taking place elsewhere":

1. When did I even say they voted??? What they did is tell if they defend China or not about them abusing Uyghurs. There is absolutely no vote to decide if there is a genocide or not, here. Countries just presented their opinion.

2. Even if they voted, if, it's the UN! You can't say that countries don't get to vote unless you don't trust the UN. (if.) Tryute (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think using "(If so you are in a fairly small minority)" would be a good argument to use to convince people that China is abusing Uyghurs, to conclude my replies above. Tryute (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

All articles about Uyghurs from Al Jazeera don't have proof, plus they were actually written by americans or british. Also, one non-American source doesn't determine if there is a genocide or not. Tryute (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. All it would take is just sprinkling a few instances of the word "allegedly" to make this already very un-neutral article a lot more neutral. Allegations have been made, we don't know whether it's an actual thing or not. Some groups say it is, plenty say it's not. Why people are so insistent on defending a problem that could be mostly solved by putting one word before a few other groups of words is beyond me. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The 45 "Cuba letter" signatory countries say they support China's "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" and oppose "the politicization of human rights issues and double standards.". This isn't quite the same thing as simply denying abuses or arguing against characterising those abuses as 'genocide. We can all abhor double standards (Guantanamo bay?), but what are the "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" that these countries support China doing? That position doesn't quite align with the 'no involuntary incarceration is happening' position presented by China itself. Either people are being locked up or they aren't and they are either being publicly tried for clearly stated charges or they aren't. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

For "The 45 "Cuba letter" signatory countries say they support China's "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" and oppose "the politicization of human rights issues and double standards.".", can I please have a look at the reference where you got the information? Tryute (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, for your question, the "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang", if it's what I think you are talking about, have been preventing terrorist attacks, and there hadn't been any terrorist attacks since it was put in place. It made the lives of Xinjiang habitants better, not worse by "genociding" them. Tryute (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

can I please have a look at the reference where you got the information? I believe these are direct quotes from the Cuban letter - which I got to from following our reference, possibly via a link, or directly from our refs I think that it takes a very vivid imagination to think that locking up thousands of people for cultural reasons, for 'thought-crimes' rather than criminal acts somehow improves the lives of a population - even if I agree with you that the 'genocide' interpretation is at least novel and probably inapt. Some sources use it though. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They aren't locked up for cultural reasons. Actually, in Xinjiang there are prisons, but there aren't any of the so-called "concentration camps". The "counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" may have locked thousands of people in prisons, they aren't there for cultural reasons. It's because they have committed crimes or because they are terrorists. What do you mean by "thought-crimes"? There have been a lot of terrorism in Xinjiang, and there was a lot of victims. I think that it takes a "very vivid imagination" to think that locking up terrorists for their crimes to the Xinjiang population means locking up "thousands of people for cultural reasons". Tryute (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It takes a very vivid imagination to ignore all the material published in reliable secondary sources. See this interactive explainer by the New York Times based on 400 leaked Chinese documents, which examines in detail the arbitrary nature of the detention - causes for which include people simply having long beards and studying Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw the 400 "leaked documents" presented by New York Times. It's pretty simple.

1. My neighbor's cousin could have wrote the pages "leaking information". There is absolutely no authentication here in the presented "leaked documents". Where do you see that the docs have been written by the Chinese government?
2. Where is the proof in the whole "interactive explainer"?

Also, have you analysed the "secondary sources"? Have you ever found valid proof in them? Why should I trust the sources? I ignore them because I see no proof from what they tell. Please reply to me if you find any.

Lastly, please, do not accuse anyone as guilty until proven. Tryute (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced the sourcing clearly indicates that "genocide" is the best label at this time, the number of new editors appearing on this talk page and denying widely reported human rights abuses is disruptive. Perhaps it's time for a discretionary sanctions remedy that limits participation on this page to extended confirmed users? I think it would be helpful and save editors' time. @Tryute: please see WP:RS for guidance about why sources such as the NYT are considered reliable, regardless of your own personal opinion on them. Jr8825 • Talk 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Please do not say that we are disruptive. What you are saying now is like if you were telling your point of view, and ignoring "disruptive" people that had a diffferent point of view, and telling them to shut up. I don't agree with this. Maybe that's what you think WP:NPOV is. The present article is directly, without any actual valid proof, assuming that there is mass imprisonment of Uyghurs for racial and religious reasons. That's what I'm trying to say. Also, if you are thinking that an administrator should restrict access for participation on this page for people who have a different point of view and it would save editor's time, well, no. By this you are only worsifying the already wrong WP:NPOV situation. Isn't Wikipedia used for informing, instead of influencing?
2. You say that we are denying "widely reported human rights abuses"? Seems like they're only reported in anglosaxon media.
3. In WP:RS, it clearly mentions that "no source is "always reliable"", that "sources may provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement", and that "editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." And so it is for the statement we are talking about now.

Tryute (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means balance with respect to reliable sources, i.e., with a sensitive subject such as this, WP:RSP. Reliable sources stating things is all we need to repeat those statements. It is not the role of editors to analyze secondary sources; that is not how Wikipedia works. If the analysis of the NYT leads it to believe that the 400 leaked Chinese documents are genuine, we repeat that - unless WP:CONFLICTING WP:RSP sources say something to the contrary. If you have examples of conflicting reliable secondary sources, you must produce them to be heard. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says not to be biased. This article is extremely biased, unproved, and it states opinions as facts. WP:NPOV also says to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Also, for your statement " It is not the role of editors to analyze secondary sources; that is not how Wikipedia works." I want to say that I may have misunderstood WP:RS, but I need to say that what I said is the exact thing that is written in the Reliable Sources article. For an example of conflicting reliable secondary sources, see my reply on the Xinjiang Internment Camps talk page where you asked to me a similar thing. Tryute (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV "means 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." (my emphasis) WP:NPOV does not say balance all/any views, but the significant views in reliable sources. To make a case, all you need do is bring some. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to add: I don't know if Wikipedia considers it like that, but saying that I am disruptive when I am just trying to say that this article is extremely biased and unproved, is insulting. Tryute (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not being disruptive. However, it is more productive to suggest specific sources for inclusion, or suggest specific changes. The policies that have been identified in the discussion here will be helpful. For example, I see your user page indicates you have significant language skills which might allow you to raise sources that anglophone editors might miss. That would be a productive contribution, particularly due to the issues discussed in WP:GLOBAL. You might also find it more productive to begin your time on Wikipedia by editing less controversial topics. Of course, these are choices for you to make -- whether and how you see fit to contribute to the encyclopedic process. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jr8825: For what it's worth, there is WP:GS/UYGHUR, so any admin could place page restrictions if they were to feel it warranted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement in lede not supported by references provided

"Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies that incarcerated more than an estimated one million Turkic Muslims in internment camps without any legal process."

This statement in the lead is not supported by the three references provided, because the references are from 2018, 2019, and 2019 respectively. It is now 2023, which is 4 years after 2019 and it doesn't make sense to claim "since 2014" because it implies that something has been going on up until the present day, but the sources provided obviously are not accounting for 2020-2023 since they were written before those years. The sentence should be clarified to be 2014-2019, or something that is more in line with the sources. This is especially true when there's another part of the article saying that:

The use of vocational and education training centers appears to have ended in 2019 following international pressure. Although no comprehensive independent surveys of vocational training centers have been performed as of October 2022, spot checks by journalists have found such sites converted or abandoned. In 2022, a Washington Post reporter checked a dozen sites previously identified as reeducation centers and found "[m]ost of them appeared to be empty or converted, with several sites labeled as coronavirus quarantine facilities, teachers’ schools and vocational schools."

So the usage of "since 2014" is unjustified because it gives the false impression that the sources are current and up to date, when in fact they are not, and another part of the article seems to contradict it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is good and correct. I will make an edit to this sentence reflecting the closure of VETCs. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources (including this Pullitzer-prize winning report) that indicated active construction of new detention facilities through 2020. The so-called "Vocational Education and Training Centers" were replaced into a series of straight-up detention camps, the construction of which continued after the VETCs were declared closed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My original edit cabined this in terms of VETC closures, although it was later revised by someone else. What do you think is the best way to revise the sentence to better address @JasonMacker's comments on the closure of VETCs and the WaPo findings with your observations about new detention centers? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem, in my view, is that many sources are news articles that don't restrict their claims in terms of time and place, but instead focus on what was happening at that specific point in time and say "this is what is happening". The problem is that there's very little follow-up to see if what they claim is happening has continued into the present day in 2023. Even the 2020 Buzzfeed article offered here cannot be used to make claims regarding has happened in 2021-2023.

There's also the issue where one source makes a claim, and then a bunch of other sources continue to cite that source for many years after the original source's publication, with little regard as to whether what is claimed to have been happening is still happening.

For me, the solution is to carefully look at what each source is specifically stating, and provide a time frame in terms of when the report was published, and avoid making generalizations. The article is heavily implying that millions of Uyghurs are currently held in camps, yet the sources are from many years ago. We should search for scholarship from 2022 to 2023 that provides estimates for how many are being detained in camps. JasonMacker (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Wiki group subjected to pressure from US to publish this kind of unreliable & biased article. I am sad to see it and read it as well. Urwbeg (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Title should be changed to 'Uyghur Cultural Genocide'

China's actions have mainly amounted to destroying the culture of the Uyghur people, not the people themselves. A more appropriate title would be 'Uyghur Cultural Genocide', 'Uyghur Ethnocide' or 'Uyghur Cultural Erasure'. Wikipedia seems to hold China to different standards than other countries on this issue; for example, Plantations of Ireland are not described as genocide despite meeting similar standards. The word 'genocide' is also generally associated with mass killings, making the clarification important. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been had here numerous times, and the matter is considered settled. The title isn't changing any time soon. Deagonx (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The massive drop in fertility rates driven by forces abortions, sterilizations etc. in Xinjiang and particular among strongly Uyghur populated areas within this province such as Hotan shows a different picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.57.229 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is always a drop in fertility when previously oppressed women are given access to contraceptives. Fundamentalist Islam gives a woman no right over her own reproduction, while the Chinese State says she does, and the Chinese State moved in and supplanted the fundamentalist locals who were allowing Muslim men call the shots. Repeating propagandist claims of NGOs does not a genocide make, and you are conflating unsupported claims of acts with results that do not necessarily follow. There needs to be scientific proof that Uyghur women are being restricted to a reproduction rate that is less than the other ethnicities in China to support unequal population control. Note that if an extremist woman has 16 children and the Chinese State swoops in and forces her to be sterilized, this is not "genocide," it is merely limiting her to 8x replacement rate. Given the Han are declining in population, this would be by no means a restriction against the Uyghurs designed to keep them at below the Han's rate of population advancement to keep them a pliant minority, it's just reasonable population control policy. And note that if women had high birth rates in the years preceding access to contraception (which they did) decide to exercise their newfound reproductive rights and stop reproducing, the short-term negative overshoot is not indicative of a genocide. Without scientific proof of Uyghur women being forcibly sterilized before having had a single child, or population data that shows a long-term population decline so far in excess of the Han that it strains belief that any difference in socio-economic factors could be the cause, there is no valid claim of "genocide" in the data. The pugilistic need to see "genocide" stemming from a hatred of the Chinese is not NPOV. The Chinese are 100% entitled to follow a policy arc that is outside anti-Chinese prejudices. 2601:19E:427F:9D2B:F474:5FB9:FB5B:9158 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Errrr. Where is the evidence that Uyghur women have previously been denied access to contraception or - more astonishly - that Uyghurs practice Fundamentalist Islam? Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, a voice acknowledging forced sterilization and justifying it. WP:DFTT people. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We need accurate and NPOV tags on the top of the article

Because of all the discussions I see here challenging the claims. I agree with them. I can't place the tags because it's protected it seems. Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is almost continuous, and cyclic. I don't think either tags would be beneficial, though I agree that the extent to which the event is generally referred to as 'genocide' is overstated by the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)