Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

24% Decline in Birth Rates in Lead

This figure has been widely reported in news: [1], [2], [3], etc. Linked to in NYT [4]. Debated in UK parliament [5]. I don't see any reason why it should not be included in the lead. It's well known that China fakes statistics so their response can't really "debunk" this number. In any case it's not the job of editors to decide but just add balanced content.Bogazicili (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's well known that China fakes statistics so their response can't really "debunk" this number WP:SOAPBOX-violating blockable nonsense that by itself merits ignoring of the entirety of the rest of the argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to decide widely reported numbers in media are fake or debunked. Add a counter argument if necessary.Bogazicili (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You were already asked to examine such counter-argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you not understand what I am saying? It's not my job or your to "examine" and decide something that has been reported by reliable sources should not be added into article. If there's any material that counters 24% decline in birth rates, add that sentence into the lead after the sentence that I want to add.Bogazicili (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Zenz's source report relies on an National Health Commission annual report on IUD placements and other PRC governmental statistics. Other editors have accepted that calculations in Zenz's late June report are flawed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The part you are arguing about is IUD's (Zenz's claim is 80% of all new IUD placements is in Xinjiang vs Chinese govt saying 8.7%). First of all, there are other ways to reduce birth rates than IUD's. Someone's random edit is not a counter to what I said about finding reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that says 24% decline in birth rates is not true, find it and add its content. For a balanced view we should add both (24% decline and why it might not be correct), unless most sources say 24% decline in birth rates is completely incorrect. As I said it's not your job to decide widely reported numbers have been debunked. Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the 8.7% IUD isn't merely the Chinese govt's claim, Zenz cited the document as the 38th footnote in the report I linked to above. It isn't our problem that Zenz has failed at arithmetic and media sources have uncritically lapped it up. I will look into the purported 24% decline, but it cannot be placed into the WP:LEDE as the article lede is meant to deliver a summary, not minute details. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kommentar: Debate about personal examinations aside, the IUD mention wouldn't be due in the lead because that section is a very small part of the entire article. The lead summarizes the most important points of the article body per MOS:INTRO, with relative emphasis based on coverage in the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Response to MarkH21: Yeah that's fine, I also didn't add that into lead in my second edit. However, we should add 24% decline vs 4% national decline, since it shows the scale of the problem. Right now the lead is too vague and this is not a minute detail. Bogazicili (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request Typo

I requested the page to be moved as "Uyghur cultural genocide" as china is not mass murdering thousands of people...but in my reasoning, I put "...are killing tens of thousands of people" instead of "...aren't killing tens of thousands of people." will this affect the request?

Original request reasoning: "The name 'Uyghur Genocide' is misleading because they aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however, China is practicing cultural genocide as they are trying to exterminate the Uyghur culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Zhong (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Colin Zhong: You didn't request a move – you actually moved the page to Uyghur cultural genocide. The correct procedure to request a move is described here (using the {{requested move}} template).

The consensus at Talk:Uyghur genocide#Requested move 30 June 2020 was to move the article from Cultural genocide of Uyghurs to Uyghur genocide and that was fairly recent, so a substantial reason would need to be given for another move request. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :@MarkH:! ~C.Z

Western media bias

So where do I launch a complain to the founder of wikipedia? It is increasingly obvious that the moderators in charge of such nonsensical and false articles are actively preventing voices from the other side to provide actual evidence. All the the articles here are from well known sinophobic outlets which have been caught to be lying time and time again. And this is not the first time I have seen this happening, from my contributions in the Syrian war to Venezuelan presidential crisis, I have been silenced and ganged up by pro western moderators who found all kind of excuses to shut me up. Anyone who refuses to comply are threatened with a ban for "edit warring".

What a joke this site has become. Nebakin (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nebakin: Jimbo Wales is one of the founders, but I don't think that launching a complaint to him would be productive in any way (considering your time, his time, and everyone else's time).

If you have a specific improvement to suggest here, supported by reliable sources, then please do so on the talk page (such as here)! Any suggestion should have evidence from reliable published sources (whether they be academic sources, reliable journalistic sources, or other reliable publications) in order for it to take effect. Keep in mind that all content has to be verifiable to reliable sources and claims solely from an editor though may constitute original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well Mark, I've been editing long enough to know that that is just patronising words. Only western MSM are reliable and credible sources to the most of you. I even have racist idiots trying to block my edits on the Bayonet page when I've shown actual evidence and sources just because they ain't happy I'm actually proving that we invented the bayonet, much less a page like this that is so politically charged. We will always be outnumbered here and silenced. To give a perfect example, why is this page claiming that Uyghur numbers are dropping when it increased by 2 million from 2010 to 2015? And this is just from information on Wikipedia. So tell me Mark, what is "reliable published sources" to you and tell me what steps are you taking to make sure my suggestion doesn't get outvoted by biased users to remained stuck on the talk page forever? Nebakin (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What in the flaming flamingoes does the Bayonet page have to do with this article on the Uyghur Genocide? Also, who the hell is we? "We invented the bayonet". Who? You and your mum? Please engage in serious discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nebakin: The thing is that Wikipedia is based on consensus, i.e. decision-making is built on the consensus of editors. There is a wide spectrum of reliability across published sources. At the top end are major academic sources such as research papers from high-quality academic journals and well-reviewed academic books (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). After that, there are also well-established news outlets (see WP:NEWSORG). For the latter, some of the sources that have been deemed (by past consensus) as generally reliable or unreliable are listed at WP:RSP. These are very general guidelines though, as reliability of the same source can vary depending on context (e.g. American politics vs. Asian sports). Since decisions are based on consensus, there is naturally a bias based on the biases of the overall body of Wikipedia editors; if you are interested, you can participate in WikiProject Countering systemic bias which specifically aims to reduce that bias.

Many of the discussions that lead to such labels are done at the reliable sources noticeboard, where any editor can contribute and participate in the decision making. If you disagree that the usage of a specific source in some particular article, then you can always raise concerns on the talk page or the reliable sources noticeboard. But again, decisions are made based on the consensus of editors, which includes the evidence & concerns that you raise as well as the evidence & concerns that others may raise.

Generalities aside, if there is content and published sources for the Uyghur population that you would like to add (or remove), please point them out specifically. If you have multiple concerns about the article, it might be helpful to separate them by different subsections on this talk page or using a bulleted/numbered list. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I changed the section title from Wow, so wikipedia is officially a western state media mouthpiece now? to the shorter and more descriptive section title Western media bias done per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

First sentence rewrite

@Vallee01: None of the three cited sources in the first part of this new first sentence (reverted by CaradhrasAiguo) are RSes directly supporting what the first half of the sentence says. One is a list of tagged articles, one doesn’t mention the word "genocide" at all, and one is a blog.

Placing such a definition needs reliable sources that directly support it. By the way, Bitter Winter from CESNUR is unreliable at WP:RSP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up that the Cato Institute link is in fact a blog. At this hour I may have missed it from the url alone otherwise, but, regardless, the Cato link's Neo-Malthusianism claim seems WP:FRINGE even for this inflammatory political topic / situation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: The cited references in your latest attempt here still do not directly support that The Uhygur genocide refers to the forced deportation, incarceration, forced sterilization and mass surveillance enacted by China against the Uyghur population. The first three do not even mention the word "genocide", while the latter two give the general definition of "genocide" and do not use the term "Uyghur genocide".

Per WP:CHALLENGE, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (later emphasis mine). This is the basic Wikipedia policy for verifiability. Furthermore, you need to engage in the talk page here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that says ___ was part of the Uyghur genocide, the Uyghur genocide is ___, or something similar, then that would be a reference directly supporting the contribution. Looking at similar articles, the first sentence of the Armenian Genocide article gives citations to an article that directly says the deaths of nearly 1.5 million Armenians who died in what would later be known by many [...] as the Armenian Genocide. Other articles like Assyrian genocide and 1971 Bangladesh genocide do the same. Larger articles like The Holocaust move the citations and discussion to its "Definition" section. Either way, it has to be directly supported by a citation in the lead or article body.

Such reliable sources would also be useful in the "Labeling as an ethnocide, cultural genocide, or genocide" section, which is currently quite sparse. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC); copyedited 22:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun adding some more material and references to the Uyghur genocide#Definition about sources calling this a genocide, with more details to come about its components. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Cultural genocide?

Why don't the critics complain that Muslims committed cultural genocide of the current uyghur peoples, and many other peoples, because the muslims completely destroyed the cultures of the ancestors of the people and replaced them with islam, with nothing but islam allowed? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:5421:F1AC:398C:20A (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to be very related to improving this article. If you have suggestions for something to add to this article (or Islamization and Turkification of Xinjiang which may be what you’re trying to refer to), you must base them in reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very related to improving the article. Culture and cultural traits are always shifting. The article accuses China of cultural genocide without reliable sources. I don't see mentioned anywhere else that the Vatican and the muslim religion and the USA have always engaged in cultural genocide? And the use of the phrases beginning "It is alleged that.." or "there are allegations that...", should these sentences be deleted for being unreliable? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A58B:7ECE:FDF9:353 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We already discuss the Uighur’s role in the Qing's Dzungar genocide on that page, we also discussion the other atrocities you mentioned on the appropriate wikipedia pages. I also see a whole ton of reliable sources here, what aren’t you seeing that you want to see? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

New information added under United States, from the section International Responses.

I am working with two other people to improve this Wikipedia article. I have included responses from US Senators regarding the Genocide. How they are requesting Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to issue a genocide determination.

This is the edit I made after the first paragraph:

US Senators Menendez and Cornyn lead a bipartisan group which is pushing to appoint the CCP's crimeful actions occurring in Xinjiang through a way of a Senate resolution. This would make the United States Senate as the first government to "officially recognize the situation as a genocide."[190] Senators Cornyn, Merkley, Cardin, and Rubio signed a letter to request Mike Pompeo-the Secretary of State- issuing a genocide determination. National Review reports that "U.S. government genocide determinations are an incredibly tricky thing. They require solid evidence to meet the criteria set out under the 1948 Genocide Convention." When determinations are issued there isn't much change or an effect that they will bring in the short run. Although, "there's a strong, well-documented case for a determination in this case."[190]

--LiaLearner (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently someone asked a question about the title of this article on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/Wikipedians-have-been-trying-to-formalize-the-article-name-Uyghur-genocide-What-is-your-opinion-on-this-matter Félix An (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting takes by the Quora community. As the RM closer from a few months back, this was without a doubt a difficult close, and while no consensus certainly could’ve been an option, I felt then, as I do now, that there was a marginal consensus in favor of moving the article to its current title of Uyghur genocide, given the arguments and sources provided during the RM. If editors still feel that it was in error, they are more than welcome to start an WP:RM on the matter. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz as a source - really?

This article is pretty bad already, perpetuating a lot of repeatedly debunked propaganda to hype the new cold war against China. It's one thing to use "respectable" sources that then depend on Zenz's "research", which helps at least preserve the verneer of credibility. But the use of Adrian Zenz as a source for anything in an article about China ought to be taken with a heaping grain of salt considering his inability to do basic math and his comedic religious beleifs about g-d wanting him to fight big bad China. This is hardly a neutral academic, mind you, perhaps some of the claims coming from him should not be taken at face value? If China ACTUALLY wanted to genocide Uyghurs, it would take away their passports, revoke their status as the titular people of Xinjiang (which is officially Xinjiang UYGHUR Autonomous Region), demote Xinjiang to a regular province, expell every Uyghur from Xinjiang, not give them an exemption to the 1-child policy for decades, ban the their Perso-Arabic alphabet, force them to call themselves Hui or Tatar, (per the Soviet model for de-Crimeanizing indigenous Crimeans). But they are doing the exact opposite. This article smells like propaganda and hasn't lived up to scrutiny nor time.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Source to be added? Forced labour and cotton in Xinjiang

There is another BBC article like the 2018 exposé, this time focusing on forced labour and cotton and textile production in Xinjiang. Whether anyone wants to add that as a source or not is up to them, I'll admit to not knowing quite how to phrase an addition about that. But here is the link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/nz0g306v8c/china-tainted-cotton Navvvrisk (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Even from what I have read from Adrian Zenz's report itself, as well as his own tweeting, the standard Zenz uses to determine what constitutes "forced labor" is not rigorous. There does not seem to be much grounds to not contravene WP:NOTNEWS. Pinging @MarkH21: on this matter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)