→Current title and documentation: another 2 in 1 |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
:::::::::::I see what you mean, {{u|My very best wishes}}, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... {{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::::::I see what you mean, {{u|My very best wishes}}, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... {{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::Well, I linked six RS above, and they all tell about "genocide" (whatever that means). So does this page in section [[Uyghur_genocide#Definition]]. That has nothing to do with me. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
::::::::::::Well, I linked six RS above, and they all tell about "genocide" (whatever that means). So does this page in section [[Uyghur_genocide#Definition]]. That has nothing to do with me. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}}Except you haven't provide six reliable sources and Uyghur genocide is not the common name. Common name means that's what it is normally called in reliable sources, not what you and your friends call it. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
{{outdent}}Except you haven't provide six reliable sources and Uyghur genocide is not the common name. Common name means that's what it is normally called in reliable sources, <strike>not what you and your friends call it</strike>. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|The Four Deuces}}, uh, a bit better decorum than "what you and your friends call it," if you will. {{u|My very best wishes}}, I, for one, am not as sure as you are. And, to put it even more bluntly, just not that convinced by you at this time. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
:{{u|The Four Deuces}}, uh, a bit better decorum than "what you and your friends call it," if you will. {{u|My very best wishes}}, I, for one, am not as sure as you are. And, to put it even more bluntly, just not that convinced by you at this time. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:24, 2 January 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- No, the 8.7% IUD isn't merely the
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You were already asked to examine such counter-argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:49, 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)
- Comment: 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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 20:17, 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)
- I changed the section title from
Wow, so wikipedia is officially a western state media mouthpiece now?
to the shorter and more descriptive section titleWestern media bias
done per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 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 referencedirectly supporting the contribution
. Looking at similar articles, the first sentence of the Armenian Genocide article gives citations to an article that directly saysthe 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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Vallee01: The cited references in your latest attempt here still do not directly support that
- This issue should have been resolved by now given the newly available reliable source below.[1] Normchou 💬 20:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- The U.S. Senate is only reliable for the views of that institution, not for statements of fact, especially from an institution that has abetted numerous wars of aggression and other war crimes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Will add a qualifier to reflect this. Normchou 💬 20:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaradhrasAiguo, take it easy with the politics here; what you say applies to almost every government entity in the world. Normchou, no--or really, NO. Even with proper ascription this is still undue for the lead. An organization would have to be more neutral to warrant such placement in an article. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of institutions, the International Criminal Court declined to inquire further into the case raised by the "East Turkistan Government in Exile". And the ICC rulings from 2018 and 2019 on the Rohingya render the PRC not being signatory to the Rome Statute irrelevant, since, in the complaint, there have been allegations of deportation from Tajikistan and Cambodia back to Xinjiang. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CaradhrasAiguo: Per WP:FORBESCON the article above should be considered "generally unreliable", but if there are other reliable sources to support this view, feel free to add it to the discussion or the article. Rather than arguing in a WP:WL style and mixing too many personal politics, it would be more helpful to use common sense and as Drmies have said, take it easy. Normchou 💬 21:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Will add a qualifier to reflect this. Normchou 💬 20:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- The U.S. Senate is only reliable for the views of that institution, not for statements of fact, especially from an institution that has abetted numerous wars of aggression and other war crimes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- A reference to the House of Commons of Canada re the designation.[2] Normchou 💬 21:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Menendez, Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Designate Uyghur Human Rights Abuses by China as Genocide". foreign.senate.gov. United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. October 27, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2020.
- ^ "Committee News Release - October 21, 2020 - SDIR (43-2)". House of Commons of Canada. October 21, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2020.
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. — MarkH21talk 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)
- I agree with LiaLearner. This is important new information that needs to be reflected in the lead, preferably in some form in the first sentence. The House of Commons of Canada also issued a statement that endorsed the use of the designation. The European Parliament is currently having a similar discussion. Editors of this entry should keep an eye out for this type of new information. Normchou 💬 21:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) 21:17, 18 December 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)
I have lived in China for more than 25 years and this article sounds like complete nonsense. Too many westerners have a Yellow Peril mentality when it comes to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.164.63 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Adrian Zenz is part of The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established by the US government in 1983. It was described by journalist Joe Conason as "the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries," according to US media outlet The Grayzone. Zenz claimed to have provided some statistics for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). ASPI has been exposed as a "right-wing, militaristic" think tank funded by US and Western governments, mega-corporations and weapons manufacturers. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197187.shtml GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:01, 22 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)
Why should articles from BBC used for this topic? BBC is clearly anti-China and would say ANYTHING to defame China. Using such sources would only make this page even less objective. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The title is not objective or impartial and should be changed.
Using a title such as 'Uyghur genocide' not only neglects the strong evidence that there is not a genocide in Xinjiang, but also mislead the reader automatically into believing things that the Western media has already indoctrinated them. I request for the title of this page to be changed. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- The title is less then ideal however the lead of the article makes it clear that these are accusations.PailSimon (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I support the renaming idea. Calling things like this genocide renders the word overused and meaningless.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @PlanespotterA320 Honestly, all I'm thinking about is how the world has almost forgotten about the situation with the Rohingyas in Myanmar. All genocides suck, but it's sad when the value of one's life depends on where you're in thanks to geopolitics. There's so much plight for the Uyghurs (e.g. World Ugyhur Congress, etc) but there are hardly any for the Rohingyas. ShelteredCook (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I support the renaming idea. Calling things like this genocide renders the word overused and meaningless.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- GrignardReagent007 Genocidal denial isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you deny that there isn't a systemic attempt to forcibly incarcerate, sterilize, and erase Uyghur ethnic identity I don't think you should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is banned in China due to censorship attempting to bring it here doesn't help. Des Vallee (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- To deny a genocide, there should be one to start with. Well maybe it is banned in China for good reasons, as many attempt to rewrite history in an extremely subjective manner. That, is in fact against WP:NPOV ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- GrignardReagent007 Maybe you shouldn't be on Wikipedia if you think Wikipedia is banned in China for "Good reasons" nor should you be on Wikipedia if you think there is no genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is my freedom and responsibility to make sure that content on Wikipedia is as objective as possible. If that is indeed what you are against, then maybe you reflect on your own approach. --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- GrignardReagent007, you do not have the freedom to start chattering about indoctrination by Western media or whatever: it is a violation of WP:AGF and disregards WP:RS. I urge you to drop those kinds of accusations from any future comments on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Drmies. Also, WP:NOTFREESPEECH; "freedom" is not an excuse for unacceptable behavior. Normchou 💬 23:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- GrignardReagent007, you do not have the freedom to start chattering about indoctrination by Western media or whatever: it is a violation of WP:AGF and disregards WP:RS. I urge you to drop those kinds of accusations from any future comments on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- PailSimon What do you think would be a better and objective title to reflect the current situation in Xinjiang? --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you're going to scream "genocide denial", there first needs to be strong evidence of an ACTUAL genocide or ethnic cleansing - ex, banning Uyghur script, stripping status as titular people of Xinjiang, etc. Arresting Islamist terrorists in a time of rising extremism, a few "eyewitnesses" that drastically change their statements over time, and "research" by end-times tinfoil hatter and his anti-China defense-contractor sponsored think tanks are hardly a slam-dunk. I pointed out that the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as titular people of the autonomous region, is nothing like that of people who have faced actual genocide, and instead of trying to support your argument, (ex, finding INDEPENDENT research and sourcing not tied to Falun Gong, Zenz, sponsored by governments in feuds with China and/or defense contractors that indicates a steep population drop), you went ad hominem and screamed genocide denial. We at Wikipedia must be consistent in what we call genocide. If we call what is happening in Xinjiang genocide (disproportionate incarceration and discrimination, but with a steadily increasing population permitted to live in their historic homeland and keep identity), we would render the word genocide near meaningless and then have to apply it to thousands of other articles (where there is a wide-held consensus that "genocide" is not a proper descriptor).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Disagreed. Aside from the obvious camel's nose fallacy in the above argument, what people call "atrocities" today might well be "business as usual" in the past, but that would not change the nature of such conduct. The goal of Wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia, NOT to act like some frozen-in-time "language police". By the way, to those who are pedantically obsessed with the title, the article genocide definitions might be useful. Normchou 💬 05:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Normchou, I'm not sure why you would call concerns about the title "pedantic." The goal in having Wikipedia reflect the prevailing historiography here is of significant import, I would challenge. As for the presumed usefulness of the genocide definitions page, I actually do not find that article that easy to parse, though admittedly, perhaps I'm missing something. El_C 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- El_C, I'm not sure why you would extrapolate my allusion to a specific type of behavior to all concerns of the title; assuming good faith, I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Reasonable concerns of the title are helpful for building a better encyclopedia; in addition to that, I suggest that an editor should not narrowly focus on only the title when assessing the article. The content is equally, if not more, important. Normchou 💬 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Normchou, obviously, there are various facets to the subject that are of import. The title is just one of these. But approaching it, in particular, through the tone and tenor of a "language police," is probably a mistake. As far as rhetorical devices go, it just doesn't seem that useful. Whatever editors decide is representative of the prevailing scholarly and mainstream consensus, will be..., well, that. And that's it. No need to embellish further. El_C 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. When in doubt, it is always helpful to review the overarching goal of the project. Normchou 💬 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Normchou, obviously, there are various facets to the subject that are of import. The title is just one of these. But approaching it, in particular, through the tone and tenor of a "language police," is probably a mistake. As far as rhetorical devices go, it just doesn't seem that useful. Whatever editors decide is representative of the prevailing scholarly and mainstream consensus, will be..., well, that. And that's it. No need to embellish further. El_C 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- El_C, I'm not sure why you would extrapolate my allusion to a specific type of behavior to all concerns of the title; assuming good faith, I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Reasonable concerns of the title are helpful for building a better encyclopedia; in addition to that, I suggest that an editor should not narrowly focus on only the title when assessing the article. The content is equally, if not more, important. Normchou 💬 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Normchou, I'm not sure why you would call concerns about the title "pedantic." The goal in having Wikipedia reflect the prevailing historiography here is of significant import, I would challenge. As for the presumed usefulness of the genocide definitions page, I actually do not find that article that easy to parse, though admittedly, perhaps I'm missing something. El_C 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 We call it a genocide because the incarceration of 25% of the Uighur population, numerous eye witness, complete consensus, reports of forced sterilization are all consistent with genocides. Denying the Uighur genocide is genocidal denial, my good friend. What sources? What citations do you have to back up this bold and bogus claim offical records of Chinese government. Nearly every NGO like Amnesty International state it is a genocide, again nearly every independent board has found it as a genocide. All of which have also been active in exposing the western war crimes as well, so it can't just be "western propaganda". Des Vallee (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Two things, the article itself states that Amnesty International has no position on the "Uyghur genocide" so you're wrong to say every NGO calls it a genocide, even so the UN has yet to call it a genocide and most nations support China on this issue, secondly genocide denial is not neccessarily bad or prohibited, for instance Wikipedia denies "White genocide". PailSimon (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do we have any WP:RS which say that the Uyghur genocide is a conspiracy theory (I don’t even think official Chinese media goes that far, they tend to portray it as a misunderstanding caused by incomplete information available to the international media)? If not then thats an inappropriate comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory for the comparison to hold. The point is that Wikipedia quite often engages in genocide denial, which is not a bad thing per se of course. PailSimon (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Genocide denial is actually a bit more than the sum of the two words makes out which is how you are using it. Care to rephrase now that you’ve learned what the term means? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well I mean if you want to morphemically twist the term 'genocide denial' to define it as that then to say that denying the "Uyghur Genocide" is genocide denial and therefore should not be done is begging the question.PailSimon (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The term “genocide denial” only means one thing... Wikipedia has never engaged in genocide denial. You were mistaken about what the term meant, thats OK but now that you know better getting defensive isn't helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well sources are divided on whether or not it is genocide so the article should reflect that and not partisanly call it a genocide. PailSimon (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Glad we’re back on track. I think the outcome of the move discussion was clear and its too early to re-litigate it, the OP has also been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also just to be clear the WP:COMMONNAME could still be Uyghur genocide even if there was no genocide, your argument needs work so its a good thing you have a year or more to work on it before we reconsider this question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Generally Wikipedia calls contested things "X Allegations" or "Allegations of X" so if you are to be logically consistent it only makes sense that this article follows the trend. PailSimon (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not in titles we don’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Generally Wikipedia calls contested things "X Allegations" or "Allegations of X" so if you are to be logically consistent it only makes sense that this article follows the trend. PailSimon (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Glad we’re back on track. I think the outcome of the move discussion was clear and its too early to re-litigate it, the OP has also been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also just to be clear the WP:COMMONNAME could still be Uyghur genocide even if there was no genocide, your argument needs work so its a good thing you have a year or more to work on it before we reconsider this question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well sources are divided on whether or not it is genocide so the article should reflect that and not partisanly call it a genocide. PailSimon (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The term “genocide denial” only means one thing... Wikipedia has never engaged in genocide denial. You were mistaken about what the term meant, thats OK but now that you know better getting defensive isn't helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well I mean if you want to morphemically twist the term 'genocide denial' to define it as that then to say that denying the "Uyghur Genocide" is genocide denial and therefore should not be done is begging the question.PailSimon (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Genocide denial is actually a bit more than the sum of the two words makes out which is how you are using it. Care to rephrase now that you’ve learned what the term means? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory for the comparison to hold. The point is that Wikipedia quite often engages in genocide denial, which is not a bad thing per se of course. PailSimon (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do we have any WP:RS which say that the Uyghur genocide is a conspiracy theory (I don’t even think official Chinese media goes that far, they tend to portray it as a misunderstanding caused by incomplete information available to the international media)? If not then thats an inappropriate comparison. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Two things, the article itself states that Amnesty International has no position on the "Uyghur genocide" so you're wrong to say every NGO calls it a genocide, even so the UN has yet to call it a genocide and most nations support China on this issue, secondly genocide denial is not neccessarily bad or prohibited, for instance Wikipedia denies "White genocide". PailSimon (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Disagreed. Aside from the obvious camel's nose fallacy in the above argument, what people call "atrocities" today might well be "business as usual" in the past, but that would not change the nature of such conduct. The goal of Wikipedians is to build a better encyclopedia, NOT to act like some frozen-in-time "language police". By the way, to those who are pedantically obsessed with the title, the article genocide definitions might be useful. Normchou 💬 05:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you're going to scream "genocide denial", there first needs to be strong evidence of an ACTUAL genocide or ethnic cleansing - ex, banning Uyghur script, stripping status as titular people of Xinjiang, etc. Arresting Islamist terrorists in a time of rising extremism, a few "eyewitnesses" that drastically change their statements over time, and "research" by end-times tinfoil hatter and his anti-China defense-contractor sponsored think tanks are hardly a slam-dunk. I pointed out that the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as titular people of the autonomous region, is nothing like that of people who have faced actual genocide, and instead of trying to support your argument, (ex, finding INDEPENDENT research and sourcing not tied to Falun Gong, Zenz, sponsored by governments in feuds with China and/or defense contractors that indicates a steep population drop), you went ad hominem and screamed genocide denial. We at Wikipedia must be consistent in what we call genocide. If we call what is happening in Xinjiang genocide (disproportionate incarceration and discrimination, but with a steadily increasing population permitted to live in their historic homeland and keep identity), we would render the word genocide near meaningless and then have to apply it to thousands of other articles (where there is a wide-held consensus that "genocide" is not a proper descriptor).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is my freedom and responsibility to make sure that content on Wikipedia is as objective as possible. If that is indeed what you are against, then maybe you reflect on your own approach. --GrignardReagent007 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- GrignardReagent007 Maybe you shouldn't be on Wikipedia if you think Wikipedia is banned in China for "Good reasons" nor should you be on Wikipedia if you think there is no genocide. Des Vallee (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Current title and documentation
Why are there no archives available for this talk page? What happened with the matter of the cultural genocide versus the current "genocide" (per se.) titles? I think this ought to be better documented.
My impression has always been that, above all else, genocide is associated with the liquidation of a population or population segment. Which is to say, ultimately, their murder. But this doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to the human rights violations that Chinese authorities are subjecting the Uyghurs to (though, regardless, these are obviously highly egregious violations). What we have, ostensibly being termed re-education, consists of the abduction of adults, followed by their confinement and torture for the purpose of breaking their collective spirits. At the same time, this is accompanied by the abduction of children so as to subject them to an intensive system of brainwashing ultimately aimed at assimilation through cultural erasure. I can't stress enough that this system of family separation constitutes child abuse on a mass scale. Child abuse of the most severe variety, sparing cases of outright physical torture and sexual exploitation. Obviously, contemptible beyond measure. Myself, I would like to see that notion of child abuse better explored by this article.
Note that the article on Reeducation is a redirect to the Brainwashing article. That makes sense when it comes to the children being abducted, but as for the abducted adults, the article (and notion) of Re-education through labor is probably more apt. Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are. Are they quantitatively greater in scale? That I am unsure about. Finally, with regards to the current title, does it make sense for Wikipedia to take the side of defining it as a "genocide" (per se.) versus that of the more diffused cultural genocide descriptor? If so, why?
Myself, I'm pretty much agnostic about all of these questions at this point, but this is what crosses my mind as I glance at the current state of this article and its recent title change. The problem, again, is that upon attempting to investigate any of this, surprisingly, not only is there no documentation specifically about this title question at the top of the talk page, but there isn't even ordinary talk page archives being displayed anywhere for one to consult. What is happening here? This is a sloppy way to engage such an important topic, and the argument can be made that this sloppiness is harmful to the project's reputation. El_C 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Why are there no archives available for this talk page?
Not sure why it's not showed above, but there are some here 1, 2, 3. — Czello 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)- I see. Adding {{Talk header}}, so at least there's that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I mean all of that is just your unsubstantiated opinionPailSimon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jeez, is this what passes for discourse here? Yikes. El_C 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- PailSimon, the irony is that I am asking pretty much the same question you asked above, about
whether or not it is genocide.
Except, unlike you, I'm noting that I'm actually agnostic on the matter — so how is that an "opinion" (unsubstantiated or otherwise)? There's a point when extremely terse responses to detailed comments simply come across as being so vague, they basically amount to diversionary noise. So, please do better. El_C 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)- I mean what are you supposed to say to this for example - "Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are" What exactly are you basing this on? You just assert it without explanation. There's not really much to respond to here.PailSimon (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not much to respond to with respect to what? That component (question) alone? My view is that there is nothing wrong with me having noted my current leaning toward answering that particular question in the affirmative — yes, that's right, based on my own overall impression. Which may or may not reflect reality or its prevailing perception therein. Ultimately, I think you calling it an "assertion" (outright) is too strong a word. It was not meant as a rhetorical question. El_C 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I mean what are you supposed to say to this for example - "Are conditions in Xinjiang re-education camps qualitatively worse than those experienced over the course of other past (or present) Chinese reeducation campaigns? I get the sense that they are" What exactly are you basing this on? You just assert it without explanation. There's not really much to respond to here.PailSimon (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Change the title The U.S. National Security Advisor Robert C. O'Brien recently said, "If not a genocide, something close to it going on in Xinjiang.” The U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said, "When the United States speaks about crimes against humanity or genocide ... we’ve got to be very careful and very precise because it carries an enormous weight.” ("'Something close' to genocide in China's Xinjiang, says U.S. security adviser", Reuters, OCTOBER 16, 2020) Per neutrality, we should not use descriptions that even the avowedly anti-Chinese U.S. government is reticent to use. TFD (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It clearly is a genocides, it is the common name and almost all NGOs describe it as a genocide. Those who think this is all some sort of propaganda. The Four Deuces So wait is China not forcibly incarcerating 25 of the Uyghur population? So have mosques and other places of worship not been closed by Chinese government? What about the extremely widespread reports of sterilization, or rape? I get a bit sick speaking on these subjects, the term isn't "anti-Chinese" nearly every NGO refers to it as a genocide, this isn't some conspiracy at all TFD. If so there is no position you can state this. Per Common name there is absoultely no justification for renaming it. If we look at other reliable citations of independent NGOs like Amnesty International if anything they are more harsh towards China, this isn't a POV title it's a clear definition used by most independent organizations. Anyway we have an archive on this we can bring this up if this happens again. Des Vallee (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't a move request to change the title back to the cultural genocide title — rather, it is more of a query as to how and why the title was changed from that to the current "genocide" (per se.) title, in the first place. As to whether we should define the incarceration, assault (sexual and otherwise), forced sterilization, as well as any other abuses, as a "genocide" (again, per se.) is a perfectly legitimate question to pose. One which may be worthy of discussion — dispassionately, Des Vallee, if you will. Simply arguing that it's the COMMONNAME does not necessarily makes it so. Again, from my perspective, compiling decent documentation about how and why we are where we are would be a good thing. El_C 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why exactly are you placing so much weoght on the opinions of certain NGOs? Where does the absolute authority of these NGOs come from exactly? NGOs aren't the only reliable sources, if they are to be called reliable at all. PailSimon (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per the BBC, genocide is "the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence." ("How do you define genocide?", BBC 17 March 2016) Your description does not meet that bar. The article then quotes experts who say that by overusing the term, it loses its meaning. They mention a speech by the renowned human rights expert, Michael Ignatieff. In the speech, he said, "Genocide has no meaning unless the crime can be connected to a clear intention to exterminate a human group in whole or in part. Something more than rhetorical exaggeration for effect is at stake here. Calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking place."[6] TFD (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that whether or not this rises to the level of genocide is a topic of ongoing discussion, at the very least it is two or three worst human rights situations currently occurring on our world. I though that this Quartz (I will admit they have a generally pro-China byline) piece [7] on the naming issue presented a good balance of views. Apparently there has been a change in academic/media consensus on the issue in 2019 and 2020. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It clearly is a genocides, it is the common name and almost all NGOs describe it as a genocide. Those who think this is all some sort of propaganda. The Four Deuces So wait is China not forcibly incarcerating 25 of the Uyghur population? So have mosques and other places of worship not been closed by Chinese government? What about the extremely widespread reports of sterilization, or rape? I get a bit sick speaking on these subjects, the term isn't "anti-Chinese" nearly every NGO refers to it as a genocide, this isn't some conspiracy at all TFD. If so there is no position you can state this. Per Common name there is absoultely no justification for renaming it. If we look at other reliable citations of independent NGOs like Amnesty International if anything they are more harsh towards China, this isn't a POV title it's a clear definition used by most independent organizations. Anyway we have an archive on this we can bring this up if this happens again. Des Vallee (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces and El_C, there seems to have been rough consensus for the move to Uyghur genocide at Talk:Uyghur_genocide/Archive_2. 5 oppose votes were stated as "per Buidhe", and Buidhe later changed their vote to move, further weakening the opposition to the move. Regarding El_C's point about lack of murder - we do have solid evidence of forced sterilization of Uyghur women. This biological component is what takes it from "cultural genocide" to "genocide, period". That said, I think we should better explain all this in the lead.VR talk 19:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Vice regent. Again, I'm not sure whether forced sterilization should be seen as a novel interpretation of the "genocide" (per se.) definition, or whether instead it can be seen to accurately reflect the definition's modern iteration (and/or to what extend it is a combinations of both). But that is an interesting point to consider. El_C 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- By definition genocide is largely timescale agnostic and that lack of clarity is on purpose as the important elements are intent and effect with the rest being highly secondary, forced sterilization would 100% count as would much more subtle strategies of eradicating populations over long periods of time (such as failure to provide medical care, forced economic destitution, marriage restrictions etc). Historically we find cases such as the California genocide or Circassian genocide where there was little of the industrialized killing that we associate with certain famous modern genocides. On the larger issues you raise I think there are both practical questions of how to address this specific issue at hand and how philosophically wikipedia should handle occurring or alleged to be occurring genocide, one of the problems with the term is that it can only be applied with absolute accuracy after the conclusion of events (by which time of course such a discussion is on a level of academic much beyond WP:COMMONNAME). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well said, Horse Eye's Back. I'm still not certain you're right about it being 100 percent a genocide, but that is certainly a cogent argument that leaves me with much to think about. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: That would be a bold claim and not one I would be willing to make, as far as I know the allegations of systematic forced sterilization are still allegations and are likely to remain so for a while even if true. There may be a better overarching term for the pattern of abuse we are currently seeing in western China, I’m not convinced that the current title is perfect but it represents a decent consensus as well as satisfying our naming requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, Horse Eye's Back, sorry for partially misrepresenting what you said. I still don't know if I agree with your conclusion, but I do take your more nuanced points on-board. El_C 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals.[8] In the linked article, the California governor apologized for the genocide, referring to the murders. Genocide, deportation and forced assimilation were three distinct but related actions taken against aboriginals. Similarly 400,000 Circassians were murdered. But the Uyghur genocide articles doesn't mention any mass killings. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you would like to completely re-write what we have now to change it to your "strictly speaking” definition per the publishers of Ancient Aliens, Pawn Stars, Swamp People, American Pickers, and Truck Night in America be my guest. Just FYI of their current lineup Ancient Aliens actually does the best job at actual history and the linked article doesn't even say what you’re claiming it does, but I digress. Back on topic: Mass murder is not now and has never been a necessary component for something to qualify as genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I was relying on experts such as Michael Ignatieff, whom I mentioned above. Now it could be that your interpretation of the definition of genocide is right, and most of the experts are wrong, but policy says we follow the experts. Don't know what the ancient aliens, etc., reference is meant to convey. But I think we should follow expert opinion there, rather than your personal interpretation of the evidence. TFD (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- You cited History (American TV network). Thats not my personal interpretation, I actually have issues with the traditional definition of genocide but thats as you said irrelevant. Ignatieff raises the exact same issue about intent being at the core of the traditional definition of genocide in the quotes you provide that I did in my comments. Lets get back on track: the source you provided does not say that "the California genocide refers to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals” it say "Up to 16,000 Native Californians died in the genocide” which does not limit the genocide to the murders at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I cited an article by Erin Blackmore, a journalist whose articles have appeared in "The Washington Post, NPR, National Geographic, TIME, Smithsonian, and The Atlantic."[9] I used the article to refer to the fact that the governor of California referred to the murder of 16,000 aboriginals as a genocide. Do you have any doubt he said that? If not, you're just being argumentative. TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was a strange discussion. The reasoning for the move was that it met the UN definition of genocide. But that's OR - we would need to show that experts share that opinion, which for the most part they don't. It seems more like forced assimilation to me. TFD (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you knowingly push forced assimilation just a *little bit* too far it becomes genocide, the primary difference between the two of them is with the intent not the effect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Logically speaking, how can deportation lead to genocide when according to your definition it is genocide? TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Deportation alone could not make a genocide, it would need to be combined with other elements. Deportation could lead to genocide as it did in Nazi Germany but I can’t think of any case in which it qualified alone. Can you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, Horse Eye's Back, but it is a rather vague distinction. Regardless of whether one places more weight on motivation or outcome, I'm not sure an analysis of the teleology and epistemology of that question should happen sort of in the abstract. As for deportations, it largely describes the Armenian Genocide, for example. Of course, deportations are not automatically genocidal. Finally, I doubt I'm the only one who is drawing a parallel between the Uyghur atrocities and those encountered in the American Indian Residential Schools. El_C 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Labeling the current situation as genocide is completely premature and improper given the lack of key genocidal elements (ex, official second-class citizen status or stripping of citizenship, banning of language, sharp population drop, etc). Furthermore, this article isn't even just about the situation of Uyghurs - it also brings up allegations by other minorities that do not consider themselves Uyghurs (like Kazakhs). It seems that the title "Uyghur genocide" was chosen simply because Uyghurs are the largest (and titular) people of Xinjiang and there was strong desire to use the g-word among a small group of POV pushers, even though the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, (the proper and original article title), is not focused exclusively on Uyghurs but rather at various Muslim groups of Xinjiang experiencing separatist sentiments. At the very least, we should be consistent about the article corresponding to the title. Is this article about what one thinks is a genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or a listing of grievances and allegations from various Turkic peoples in Xinjiang with "Uyghur genocide" slapped on as title to be clickbait?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PlanespotterA320: thats not exactly right... This page was created in 2019 by Mikehawk10 and then rapidly built up by a large variety of editors. Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism still exists, it does not appear to be "the proper and original article title” as you asserted. Perhaps you are mistaken? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Synthesis of published material says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you explain why your assessment that the human rights abuses constitute genocide is not synthesis? Or if it is, why we should make an exception in this article. TFD (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PlanespotterA320: thats not exactly right... This page was created in 2019 by Mikehawk10 and then rapidly built up by a large variety of editors. Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism still exists, it does not appear to be "the proper and original article title” as you asserted. Perhaps you are mistaken? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The current title is very much justifiable, as reflected in scholarly sources [10], books [11] and reliable news sources [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, after looking at the "Definition" section of this page and sources there, it appears the majority view right now it is probably a genocide. What would be an alternative title you think? My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Being able to correctly represent scholarly and mainstream consensus often proves challenging. It isn't that clear to me that "genocide" reflects the "majority view right now" — even though, at this point, I am leaning toward the "genocide" definition (which I wasn't at the beginning). Still, I will strive to keep an open mind. El_C 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There's no challenge for the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and a number of other incidents. What concerns me is that by taking a side in the debate, we are no longer neutral. Of course each editor can have their own opinions, but they're not supposed to influence editing. TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Right (official Turkish narrative and Holocaust deniers, respectively, aside), but those do involve mass fatalities, which does not seem to be the case here. Thus, the classical genocide definition isn't actually hazy with those as it is with the subject, so I'm not sure it makes sense to draw such parallels about the challenges it faces when defined as a "genocide." El_C 18:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but speaking about the casualties, we do not really know them, given the information "freedom" in China. One should realize that people in such camps are staring dying for a number of reasons including diseases, malnutrition and abuses. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same. Still, I'm not sure how practical it is to hide mass fatalities, in general, even in a country like China. Even in a country like North Korea, in fact. That much mass death usually ends up being leaked, or otherwise discovered, like with satellite imagery, and so on. Anyway, until actual data, even of the most tentative nature, has been made available, it largely remains in the realm of speculation. El_C 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, this is not Holocaust or Armenian genocide, I agree. But an imprisonment of a million people based on their ethnicity and religion, allegedly with forced sterilizations [13] is significant. Some Uighurs were taken from Tajikistan and Cambodia into Xinjiang [14]. They did complain about genocide [15], to the International Criminal Court, but it said China is not party to the court’s founding treaty. Hence my personal inclination would be to keep current title. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even those who aren’t saying genocide are saying some very dark things. See the op-ed by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the Guardian [16] where he describes it as "an unfathomable mass atrocity.” Seeing as no-one else has been willing to suggest alternate titles “Persecution of the Uyghurs” would probably satisfy WP:COMMONNAME but a small standalone Uyghur genocide page to explain that argument would be needed as the topic passes WP:GNG on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, My very best wishes, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... Horse Eye's Back, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. El_C 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I linked six RS above, and they all tell about "genocide" (whatever that means). So does this page in section Uyghur_genocide#Definition. That has nothing to do with me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, My very best wishes, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that it can be a slippery slope for Wikipedia itself to come across as (figuratively) having said to China: 'so long as you keep giving the ICC the middle finger, expect your reputation to suffer accordingly.' A position which, otherwise, may not be unreasonable. Myself, however the atrocities being inflicted on the Uyghurs end up being defined as, I would prefer for that definition to find its basis in the prevailing historiography, above all else. Well, at least as much as is available post-2017... Horse Eye's Back, you could always redirect to a section. Not saying a standalone page is or isn't the way to go, but my sense is that we're not yet at the stage where we can answer that definitively, one way or the other. El_C 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even those who aren’t saying genocide are saying some very dark things. See the op-ed by British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the Guardian [16] where he describes it as "an unfathomable mass atrocity.” Seeing as no-one else has been willing to suggest alternate titles “Persecution of the Uyghurs” would probably satisfy WP:COMMONNAME but a small standalone Uyghur genocide page to explain that argument would be needed as the topic passes WP:GNG on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, this is not Holocaust or Armenian genocide, I agree. But an imprisonment of a million people based on their ethnicity and religion, allegedly with forced sterilizations [13] is significant. Some Uighurs were taken from Tajikistan and Cambodia into Xinjiang [14]. They did complain about genocide [15], to the International Criminal Court, but it said China is not party to the court’s founding treaty. Hence my personal inclination would be to keep current title. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same. Still, I'm not sure how practical it is to hide mass fatalities, in general, even in a country like China. Even in a country like North Korea, in fact. That much mass death usually ends up being leaked, or otherwise discovered, like with satellite imagery, and so on. Anyway, until actual data, even of the most tentative nature, has been made available, it largely remains in the realm of speculation. El_C 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but speaking about the casualties, we do not really know them, given the information "freedom" in China. One should realize that people in such camps are staring dying for a number of reasons including diseases, malnutrition and abuses. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Except you haven't provide six reliable sources and Uyghur genocide is not the common name. Common name means that's what it is normally called in reliable sources, not what you and your friends call it. TFD (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, uh, a bit better decorum than "what you and your friends call it," if you will. My very best wishes, I, for one, am not as sure as you are. And, to put it even more bluntly, just not that convinced by you at this time. El_C 05:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)