Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

Change "The Chinese government has engaged in a propaganda campaign to defend its actions in Xinjiang" to "The US government has engaged in a propaganda campaign to destabilize Xinjiang". Currently, there are no solid proof of Uyghur refugees migrating outside of China, especially to the United States. China has released a 144 day visa program for tourists to visit Xinjiang, as a result, many tourist have found out that Xinjiang is nothing like what the USA proclaims and is merely propaganda from western media 118.101.169.94 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide

It’s honestly super weird that this page isn’t called “Uyghur Genocide”. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It was called "Uyghur Genocide", but time seems to have debunked that. Persecution is true, however. 131.111.5.131 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Only a relatively small number of sources and states refer to this as the “Uyghur Genocide”, which is our principal naming criterion.Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How is not a genocide? According to the UN's definition causing bodily or mental harm to members of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group and deliberately inflicting conditions of life that bring about its destruction in whole or in part all count as genocide. Just because they aren't outright killing every single Uyhgur, doesn’t mean that it's not genocide. The word genocide is also mentioned in the article 252 times at the time of writing. Chelk (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia editors to judge the genocide criteria - only to assess whether there is academic consensus.

There are academic sources that say that the label of genocide has not been substantiated yet, for reasons such as the underlying data from Zenz being speculative (as the disclaimer in Zenz's report says) and other claims being exaggerated or unverified. The 2023 Springer Nature book here is an example, summarizing: it is obvious that a campaign that aimed at Muslim minorities and abused their most basic rights definitely took place. However, the often exaggerated numbers, the way those numbers are presented—constantly repeating that millions of Uyghurs are being still and forever detained—and, principally, the unsubstantiated accusation of genocide, have to be criticized. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to make essentially the same point as MarkH. Some sources, including some academics and Govt sources say that what is happening is genocide and many others are more cautious. Ditto, some sources refer to the HR abuses by PRC as the “Uyghur Genocide”, the majority don't. We record those sources, but it isn't our job to 'endorse' or 'verify' claims made that the HR abuses are genocide, nor to endorse the 'name' of the event. You are engaging in what we would refer to as original research, ie assessing whether you think that the policies of the PRC fit the UN definition of genocide. We simply don't do that here, whatever the issue, merely record/reflect what has been produced by sources.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dead link update

Hi, I can't update the page but this link is dead: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/07/commerce-department-adds-eleven-chinese-entities-implicated-human

I found the current one here: https://2017-2021.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/07/commerce-department-adds-eleven-chinese-entities-implicated-human.html

Can someone please update it? Dilcoe (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I've replaced the web.archive.org link with the State Department's own archive, and I've changed the url-status parameter to "dead." JasonMacker (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling

The "Cultural effcts - Naming - Villege Names" seems to be having an incorrect spelling of the word "village". Not sure if it's a stylistic choice, but it may need to be changed to keep the spelling consistency. Princesan21 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ideas on Uyghur persecution

"Brainwashing" as a form of attack seems a bit ridiculous, and there should most definitely be an addition to this article about skepticism of the Uyghur persecution FrogOnGrog (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a subsection on brainwashing under the human rights abuses section. It has plenty of content, and sources are cited. Will see if that section needs to be expanded even more. I do not think it is for Wikipedia to decide whether this is ridiculous. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "Brainwashing" should indeed be re-assessed. If meant literally, it is akin to arguing the earth is flat. "Brainwashing" is non-scientific, asserting "brainwashing" in some literal sense would raise the WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. However, in most instances, someone saying "brainwashing" means indoctrination. We should avoid colloquial or metaphorical language and simply say indoctrination.

Feel free to bring forward more sources on your broader point. Editors on this talk page will read them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that 'brainwashing' is a) a loaded word and b) un-encyclopaedic. Blitterbug 22:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

There has been extensive discussion in the talk page and archive as to whether Adrian Zenz should be considered a reliable source or not. Generally, the consensus seems to be that he is at least not fit for direct citation. I would then suggest that these citations to Zenz be changed to citation needed, or removed if there is not a more reliable source to support the claim being made. This would bring the article in line with the reliable sources rule. 2600:100F:B122:7CA5:982E:6537:6A9B:BDB5 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per my understanding, it is a pretty blatant mischaracterization to say there is consensus among editors here that Zenz is unreliable. (Cards on the table, as someone who hasn't participated in those discussions to date, I do not think he is a reliable source.) Remsense ‥ 论 23:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Zenz was most notable for his book about the end times when Jesus would return and burn most of the Jews. His writings about Uyghurs are not rs and should only be included to the extent they are discussed in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

...What? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:34, 30 December 2024 (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). TFD (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

From an unreliability perspective, it’s the way these eschatological writings intersect with geopolitical stances which is troubling. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The ...What? was more with respect to Zenz was most notable for his book about the end times when Jesus would return and burn most of the Jews. That... just isn't true, more or less at any point in Zenz's life. And his work is extremely well respected in academic circles; for example, his October 2018 journal article "‘Thoroughly reforming them towards a healthy heart attitude’: China’s political re-education campaign in Xinjiang" has been cited just under 300 times in 5 years. That he's been subjected to a wide disinformation campaign from the Chinese State doesn't make him any less reliable here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This bizarre text he and his father-in-law wrote is not disinformation. They wrote the thing. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Original research from me! I reflexively avoid these discussions onwiki because our necessary policies can't help but reflect a fractured discourse. If there were any appetite on "either side" to cross-pollinate, our wiki's coverage of China could be so much more—instead for all the reasons you can think of, we're stuck relying on figures like Zenz when we would never need to in a healthy geopolitical and intellectual climate. Maybe that sounds weirdly flowery given the pathos involved in this particular topic, but I dunno—we're able to write articles about the persecution of Muslims in France, Myanmar, or the United States without the constant tinge of it being a proxy conflict in our clash of civilizations in that way. Remsense ‥ 论 04:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That he holds a millenialist/dispensationalist sort of Protestant eschatology is not contested. But it's also entirely a non-sequitur here, and it's certainly not the thing for which he is best known, nor is it the thing that his academic work focuses on. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a circular journalism problem with Zenz, where his factual claims became repeated by other political actors and in western media. It would be good to reduce this.

From a reliability perspective, more troubling than his eschatological writing already mentioned in this section is his flawed IUD study. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

The date for source #27 is from 1944-1946, not 1944-1949. the war ended before that. it was reabsorbed into China after 2600:8807:2882:4200:E1BC:1024:3B65:DCE7 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The source you may be talking about could be #52, since that one (and its related text) are the only mentions of 1944 I can see. "1944-1949" is part of the title of the work reffed, therefore not something we can change.

According to the linked article, Second East Turkestan Republic, the reabsorbtion took place in 1949/50, so I'm not sure what you think the error here is (though this is far from being my speciality). Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It is technically true that Xinjiang was reabsorbed into the People's Republic of China in 1949, but that is because Communist China was fighting a war with the Kuomintang which controlled Xinjiang at the time. However, the sentence is misleading since Second East Turkestan Republic was absorbed into Xinjiang Province by the Kuomintang in 1946.

In 1944, the Ili Rebellion led to the establishment of the Second East Turkestan Republic, which was dependent on the Soviet Union. In 1946, it was legally absorbed into Xinjiang Province by the Kuomintang, although the Ili National Army continued to operate autonomously until being absorbed into the PLA in 1949. 155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

The estimated number of victims detained in this Wikipedia article currently reads: "est. ≥1 million detained". I am proposing that we remove this estimate, and replace it with the actual number of Uyghurs which we know are detained.

The methodology for coming to this "1 million detained" number is extremely faulty, and I do not believe it lives up to Wikipedia's standards to warrant it being used as the official Wikipedia estimate.

This "1 million detained" calculation from the BBC had the following methodology, from their original article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

"Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults."

To illustrate how faulty this methodology is, let's apply this methodology to the United States, I could say, "well 10% of the black population in one county (i.e.: the south side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) is currently imprisoned. If applied to the United States as a whole, the figures would mean the imprisonment of more than 4.2 million black Americans."

This estimate would be off by a factor of 10x. You cannot simply take one county, which likely has a much higher black incarceration rate in this example, and state that the entire United States has this incarceration rate.

Similarly, we do not know if that one particular county that the BBC cited has a much higher Uyghur incarceration rate than the rest of Xinjiang.

I am proposing that we remove this "est. ≥1 million detained" figure, and replace it with the actual number of Uyghurs which we know to be imprisoned, such as "almost 23,000".

Thank you for reading this edit request. Classicace (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You have a point. The source says, "if applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults." It doesn't actually claim this is an estimate. I suggest we remove the field. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I could support the removal of the field and covering the 'numbers' issue in text as the source does ("if applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean …). I think Classicace's suggestion of using the 'known' figure (almost 23,000), would be wholly the wrong approach. To use his own analogy, this would be like presenting the 'South Side' black Americans as being the only US blacks incarcerated. Pincrete (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Requested edits are for uncontroversial changes. Also, Classicace, you may find it helpful to read Wikipedia's guidance on original thought. We base article content on what is said in reliable sources, not our own analysis of those sources. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Genocide

Why doesn’t this article refer to the Uyghur Genocide as a Genocide? Seems pretty sus to me. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Because, per policy, articles cannot make statements of fact unless there is consensus in reliable sources. We had the same discussion for Gaza. TFD (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So you’re saying that the Uyghur Genocide isn’t happening? Are you Chinese? 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The Uyghur genocide isn't real. Anyone can just walk around Xinjiang and see that there's Uyghurs everywhere and they're just fine. No one who goes to Xinjiang comes back thinking that there's a Uyghur genocide. It's entirely a western propaganda invention for the low-IQ diabetic fox news watchers.

The Gaza genocide, on the other hand, is real (albeit incomplete). If you walk around Gaza (note you'll need to be an aid worker to get in), you'll see dead bodies and starving children everywhere. You'll see lots of destroyed buildings and people with horrible injuries from the mass bombing campaign. 2600:4041:4234:C600:CC48:17F9:254E:527D (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not like Auschwitz. It's more like reeducation. Which is an abuse of human rights, but isn't genocide. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

To state the obvious, the Auschwitz concentration camp also included several extermination camps. The prisoners were not supposed to survive for long. China is more interested in forced labor and seems unlikely to completely exterminate its involuntary work force. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This conversation is beginning to get a bit forumy. the decision not to call the persecution of Uyghurs in China genocide is derived from the inconsistency of the appellation within academic best sources. This is in part because there is disagreement with academics as to what constitutes genocide. There are certainly broader genocide definitions that would include the actions of China. These are unpopular with international organizations largely because the same definitions would describe current actions of several western Liberal Democracies as genocide too. When there is a dispute among otherwise reliable sources Wikipedia describes the dispute, we don't take sides. That is what this article should do. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah they claim that there isn't a consensus on the subject, but checking all the other language Wikipedia pages on the subject shows that most them call it a genocide. Languages that seem to not describe it as a genocide such as Hebrew, Korean and German are clearly in the minority here.

Also many sources on this very article descibe it as such. As you said there is clearly something suspicious going on in here. Chelk (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a conventional genocide is a debate that is ongoing, but that is a separate matter from the article title. We document the genocide terminology in the body, and the subject is the persecution of Uyghurs in any case, culminating in what some have described as a genocide. The article is more than just the terminology. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion that resulted in this article's title being changed to the current title. JasonMacker (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The closer of that discussion summarises the title issue well: "if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". It was demonstrated with evidence that although some independent reliable sources use the term genocide, many others describe the matter … without ever using that word. As such, the use of genocide here isn't yet generally accepted, and the alternative of persecution, which I think all agree has fewer POV implications, is what the guideline instructs us to do. That Uyghurs have been/are being persecuted is fairly universally agreed, whether that persecution is properly characterised as a 'genocide' is not. Nothing in the article itself diminishes what is/has been happening to the Uyghurs but it isn't part of our task to adopt condemnatory language before most of the world has done so.Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that the persecution of Uyghurs does meet some definitions of genocide (notably the Raphael Lemkin definition) but many international bodies do not prefer those definitions as they are quite broad and would likely lead to the actions of many other major states (like Canada) being described as genocide too. This has led to an unclear situation in the literature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Because there's 1.4 billion Chinese people and the second strongest economy / permanent UN Security Council member that denies this as a genocide. This is the same reason why there's no single page for the Tiananmen Square Massacre-it's only a small subsection hidden in the Tiananmen Square protests page. Teutonkahmun (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Believe it or not we don't actually check with the UN security council before posting articles. Please avoid WP:NOTFORUM speculation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)