Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 26 June 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 25 days

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: When was consensus established to name the page Persecution of Uyghurs in China? A1: The current title reflects the consensus established in the most recent move discussion (22 January 2024). Two previous widely attended move discussions (30 June 2020 and 1 April 2021) had resulted in this page being titled Uyghur genocide. Please see Logs and discussions below for the full list of move discussions. In these discussions, editors discussed reporting from reliable sources in light of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA, the first two times establishing an affirmative consensus that the title "Uyghur genocide" is an appropriate name for the article. The third debate, immediately following a 12 January 2024 discussion that was closed as "not moved", citing WP:NCENPOV as the naming convention guideline justifying a shift to the new name.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Ethnocide of Uyghurs Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs Cultural genocide of Uyghurs Uyghur genocide allegations Uyghur cultural genocide Uyghur genocide Discussions: RM, Ethnocide of Uyghurs → Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs, Moved, 4 February 2020, (discussion) RM, Cultural genocide of the Uyghurs → Cultural genocide of Uyghurs, Moved, 16 February 2020, (discussion) RM, Cultural genocide of Uyghurs → Uyghur genocide, Moved, 30 June 2020, (discussion) RM, Uyghur genocide → Persecution of Uyghurs, Not Moved, 3 February 2021, (discussion) RM, Uyghur genocide → Uyghur cultural genocide, Not Moved, 1 April 2021, (discussion)

Persecution of Uyghurs in China was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 11, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese politics (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mass surveillance Mid‑importance Persecution of Uyghurs in China is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History: Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Contemporary History Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Low‑importance Persecution of Uyghurs in China is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 25 days

Revising Lead

I propose that we insert the following sentence as a lede:

The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

References

1. "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.

I believe that this is accurate, direct, and in line with WP:Lede (notably MOS:OPEN), though this insertion has been twice reverted by other editors. I am looking to see if there is consensus surrounding this change, and how we should proceed moving forward. Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above and I don't really see any point in rehashing recent discussions.PailSimon (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The lede addressed above was in terms of getting proper sources for the lede that currently exists and debating whether or not to use the term “genocide”. I am proposing a new lede that I believe is more direct than the current one. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Right your lede uses the term genocide which is relevant to all the discussions above.PailSimon (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This was discussed in the section First sentence rewrite above (particlarly the comments in December 2020), where using the reference you give (the introduction of a resolution by US senators) to write such a first sentence was pointed out by Drmies as insufficient. This doesn't preclude giving a direct definition of "Uyghur genocide" if it can be cited to other sources (e.g. published academic journal articles or books). — MarkH₂₁ 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. There is NO WAY (sorry to be so emphatic) in which we can accept a judgment by a US Senate committee as somehow unbiased and authoritative enough to allow us to state their conclusion in Misplaced Pages's voice. They shouldn't even be cited unless ascribed. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @PailSimon: I had found 10 non-government sources for the revised lede, and used them when I updated it. If the issue at hand was the U.S. government being the source used to justify the prior lede, why has it been taken down when I inserted 10 independent sources instead? Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In considering whether the testimony before a U.S. congressional committee is reliable, remember the Nayirah testimony. I think congressional testimony is a primary source, and therefore WP:OR. And one of the requirements of a WP:RS is that they do fact-checking. If the New York Times ran the Nayirah story verbatim from a congressional committee without fact-checking, I think that would still not be a WP:RS. Al Jazeera is reliable for some purposes, but I wouldn't accept their unverified claims about atrocities against Muslims. And I've seen some unverified accusations against the Chinese on ABC News (Australia). I would take Human Rights Watch seriously -- when they do serious fact-checking. But I'd have to read their source documents. --Nbauman (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • Since the only people calling it a genocide are those who have understood neither the legal definition of genocide nor the dictionary definition, I don't understand why the title of the article uses the word genocide. Testimony of victims can go to proving that crimes against humanity happened, but without evidence that the intention of those crimes was to wipe out the Uighur race, the definition of genocide is not made out. To argue otherwise is just extremism.

--Bacon Man (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: See this discussion among others.PailSimon (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see this section (I did not see it before). So what? The suggestion by Mikehawk10 is very much reasonable. I do not think this phrase is an assertion of anything made in WP voice. This is just a definition of this page subject, which is something different (i.e. how reliable sources define this subject; when I see "Uyghur genocide" in a newspaper, what the authors mean?). As far as we have such subject/page, we must have the definition. This is not really based on views by US Congress or whatever. I would check more, but I do not see clear links to previous discussions. One should realize that the situation with coverage of the Uyghur genocide in sources has changed significantly after previous discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you, and the lead has now been re-added as there are clearly 5+ editors who are now in favour. — Czello 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Add agreement.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that this is not a Wikivoice statement. The first sentence of the lede comes across as an unequivocal statement that there is an ongoing genocide in Xinjiang. The title of this article is already bad enough. Above, PailSimon wrote that, The title is less then ideal however the lead of the article makes it clear that these are accusations. The new lede does not make clear that these are accusations - it states, in Wikivoice, that there is a genocide. We obviously have POV problem here. Both the title and the lede should make clear that there are accusations of genocide. The lede should explicitly state who is making those accusations, and should reflect the contested nature of these accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not state in wikivoice that there is a genocide it says "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks to me like a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide, and I'm sure that that's how many (probably most) readers will interpret it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But we don’t and they won’t... Its explicitly *not* "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The title absolutely will make them view it as such. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is titled "Uyghur genocide," and it begins with, The Uyghur genocide is .... It's simply not credible to claim that people will not read this as a Wikivoice statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats because Uyghur genocide is the WP:COMMONNAME, if you want to change the page’s name we can discuss that but please don’t fib about what we currently say in wikivoice, which is "ongoing series of human rights abuses” not genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're being reasonable here. A reader who comes to a page titled, "Uyghur genocide," which begins, "The Uyghur genocide is ..." is very likely to interpret that as a definitive statement by Misplaced Pages that there is an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs. You can claim that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for issues of human rights in Xinjiang (which I find doubtful - "genocide" is just one of the several charges described in the article, and it's a highly contentious and heavily disputed charge at that), but you can't seriously dispute that readers are very likely to interpret the title and opening line as a statement that there is an ongoing genocide. Given your above statements, I take it that you agree with me that this article should not depict the claims of genocide as established fact. If that's the case, then would you support changes to the lede to make it clear that "genocide" is a claim (and to make it clear that the claim is not being stated in Wikivoice), and to attribute that claim? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Again it seems like you want to change the name. The reader will interpret that there is an ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China which is called the Uyghur genocide. Which is exactly what we intend to convey and is established fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't see how a statement that begins with "The Uyghur genocide is" could be reasonably interpreted to mean that there's a genocide against the Uyghurs? Even if you think it can be interpreted otherwise, do you agree with me that that sentence can very reasonably be read to mean that there is a genocide? Finally, do you agree that the lede should not present the claim that there is a genocide as a fact? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable interpretation, which is different from saying something in wikivoice. Again it seems like your issue is with the name of the page and you’re just obfuscating because we already have consensus on that point and consensus went against you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Since, as you admit, a reasonable person reading the lede might well interpret it as a definitive statement that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs, we should alter the lede to make it clear that we are not making a definitive statement. It would be unreasonable to insist on a wording that could be reasonably interpreted as a definitive statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead in question is fine and is in line with established consensus that has been recently reaffirmed. In a recent ANI thread, TimothyBlue and Czello both correctly noted that a consensus had been achieved regarding the first sentence in the lead, with Timothy specifically citing comments made by themselves, me, Oranjelo100, and My very best wishes. It also appears that Horse Eye's Back supports the current lead. While consensus can change, I don't think it is a good use of community time to re-litigate this issue twice in the same month, especially considering how emphatically the previous discussion on this topic ended. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement (if any) was made by the title of the page (i.e. Uyghur genocide). So, yes, a reasonable person reading the title "might well interpret it as a definitive statement", sure. But now we simply need to explain in the lead what "Uyghur genocide" is. And yes, I think a consensus was reached. If anyone does not like it, please make an RfC to change the title of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those objecting to the title. It does not make sense to title the article "Uighur genocide" and then explain immediately that when we say genocide, we mean something that might not be genocide. "Uighur repression" would be a better title. It is true that many respected scholars have said they think that what is happening in Xinjiang is genocide, but then again many have disagreed. Yet almost everyone outside China who has studied the subject agrees that the Uighurs are being repressed. The article then does an excellent job of detailing the various forms of repression.

--Bacon Man (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Restarted discussion

Mikehawk10, When you say that the lede is fine, do you mean that you do not think it could be interpreted as a Wikivoice statement that there is a Uyghur genocide? I think any reasonable reader is going to view it as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, so unless you're arguing that we should make such a Wikivoice statement, I don't see how you can view the lede as "fine". -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re beating a dead horse, its not a wikivoice statement... End of story. Stop trying to make an end run around consensus, this is becoming disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 brings up a reasonable point though. There are others wordings that could improve the presentation and tone of the first sentence, e.g. something along the lines of (underlined differences with the current version):

The Uyghur genocide is the designation of an ongoing series of human rights abuses as a genocide perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.

Other alternatives could include who is using the designation (perhaps too wordy?), refer to the Genocide Convention, or use other terms. A discussion about how to refine the first sentence is at least worth having. — MarkH₂₁ 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: The lede should make it clear that "Uyghur genocide" is an allegation, and it should also specify exactly who is making that allegation. Using "Uyghur genocide" in a sentence is probably the easiest way to go about this: The United States Department of State has alleged that the People's Republic of China is committing a Uyghur genocide. Subsequent sentences can explain what the elements of that alleged genocide are. The first paragraph should also contain the Chinese government's response to these allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: We already have a sentence in the first paragraph that conveys the opinions that critics of the policies have, which reads, "Critics of the policy have described it as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang and have called it an ethnocide or cultural genocide, while some governments, activists, independent NGOs, human rights experts, academics, government officials, and the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile have called it a genocide.". Let's not be unnecessarily reductive here; reducing the designation to mere allegations put forward by the U.S. state department does not reflect how the situation is covered in reliable sources, especially given the wide breadth of the sorts of parties who have called it a genocide (especially with multiple generally reliable perennial sources plainly referring to the situation as a genocide). China's response thus far has been (initially) to publicly lie deny that the camps exist, then to acknowledge they exist but frame them alternatively as happy-dory boarding schools or vocational training camps inspired by counterterror efforts (and to deny that any human rights violations exist in the region). WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies here, and Chinese government denials should not be given undue weight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: This revision will not have pinged Thucydides411 since it was not on a new line with a new signature. See WP:PINGFIX. — MarkH₂₁ 21:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mandy Rice-Davies never applies to any article on Misplaced Pages. It's not Misplaced Pages policy. It's an essay, and a very poorly thought-out one at that, which asks us to violate two core policies: WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You can look at the talk page of the essay to read some of the objections.

This is an article about China, and relying heavily on US government allegations or "reports" by obscure DC think tanks, while ignoring the responses by the Chinese government, would be absurd. The lede currently makes almost no mention of the Chinese government's responses to the allegations, and it fails to even properly frame the allegations as allegations, instead putting the charge of "genocide" in Wikivoice. As MarkH21 shows below, reliable sources overwhelmingly do not treat the allegations of "genocide" as true in this case, but instead attribute those allegations to the parties making them. On Misplaced Pages, we can't for ourselves decide that the allegations are true, that the responses to the allegations are irrelevant, and then proceed to put the allegations into Wikivoice and omit the responses. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 and Thucydides411: Perhaps we should compile the usage in RSes (something that seems to have been dearly missing in many of the drawn-out discussions on this talk page. Many high-quality RSes (even very recent ones) use genocide when describing events in their own voice (with respect to Uyghurs/Xinjiang) only when it is accompanied by either in-text attribution to a specific entity, quotation marks, the word "allegations of", or something similar. None of the following use unqualified genocide as a description of ongoing events in their own voice, instead using:

I don't doubt the assertion that there are some RSes (e.g. a news.com.au video clip) that use genocide in their own voice to describe events, but it does not appear that it is close to being the dominant trend. It appears that the dominant trend in RSes is to describe the existence of accusations of genocide, with evidence and designations given by the corresponding governments, reports, scholars, and activists.By the way @Thucydides411: I don't think that your proposed first sentence really defines the topic, particularly since the US Dept of State is not the only entity that has accused China of genocide. Also MOS:BOLDLEAD on title placement is relevant here, if the article title is to be used in the first sentence. — MarkH₂₁ 21:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Thank you for taking the time to go through reliable sources. I think it's quite obvious from the above list that we have to represent "genocide" as an allegation, rather than as an established fact, and that we should clearly attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as much as possible.

For a comparison of how other disputed allegations of genocide are described on Misplaced Pages, we can look at the article Black genocide. The lede begins, In the United States, Black genocide is the characterization that the mistreatment of African Americans by both the United States government and White Americans, both in the past and the present, amounts to genocide. Based on that lede, we could write, "Uyghur genocide" is the characterization that human rights abuses committed against Uyghurs in China amount to genocide. The next sentence can specify the most prominent allegations (including that of the US State Department). The sentence after that can relate the response of the Chinese government to the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The Black genocide article is actually a great example, thanks for finding that. I think that your proposed first sentence is an improvement, and is both simple and precise. I would just add the mention of other ethnic and religious minorities and Xinjiang (currently present in the first sentence) to give more complete context for the nonspecialist reader. — MarkH₂₁ 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This would appear to be an end run around renaming the page... This is a page about a series of human rights abuses not about the specific allegation of genocide, “Uyghur genocide” just happens to be the common name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The page is about the human rights abuses. Just as Horse Eye's Back is noting above, we are referring to this by its common name. The article topic is the human rights abuses, and we have a large section on the page about classification. I do not believe that we should present the rights abuses as mere "allegations" in light of reliable sources, and I believe that the current lead (which was inserted with consensus) is a better lead than the one proposed in the restarted discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the article topic is limited to mere characterizations of the actions as genocide. Its topic is the well-documented abuses; the second paragraph of the Black genocide article notes that there are conspiracy theories that also take the name and has a whole section dedicated to conspiracy theories that take the name "Black Genocide". I think that supporting a change to the Uyghur genocide lead based upon a comparison to that in Black genocide is a whole lot like comparing apples and oranges. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining the term "Uyghur genocide" as the characterization of the human rights abuses as genocide has nothing to do with renaming the page nor changing the scope of this article (the wording does not mean that classification must be the sole thing covered within the article and thereby preclude describing the human rights abuses within the article). It's just about providing a more precise definition per MOS:FIRST.Sorry if it was unclear – I didn't mean my comment to Thucydides411 as to say that this situation is like Black genocide, just that its first sentence has well-formed wording that can be used here, even if it is a different context. I also mentioned this earlier a few times, but "Uyghur genocide" is a descriptive title here and not literally a common name since few RSes use the exact term. This isn't that relevant to how the first sentence should be worded though.If there's a clear divide here between which first sentence to use, perhaps we just need an RfC. I was hoping to get a more back-and-forth in improving the suggested first sentence before Deku link added it in. Currently, I think we have:

1. No bolded-title first sentence (the status quo pre-March 2021)
2. The current first sentence (stable since 1 March 2021):
   The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China
   • Note: there is a misspelling in the current version of the first sentence: Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region should not have an "h" even though the common spelling of the ethnic group has an "h".
3. My suggestion so far:
   Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China amount to genocide.
4. A more concise version of my suggestion to avoid first sentence clutter:
   Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide.

Between these, I would probably prefer 4 as the most concise and precise, even disregarding what I understand to be Thucydides411's main complaint regarding WP:WIKIVOICE. — MarkH₂₁ 22:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 4 is good. It defines the subject of the article, conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:V, and is concise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe Option 4 is the best for the article. Deku link (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Those options don’t make any sense to me and again this feels like an end run around the renaming consensus. This page isn’t about a characterization, its about a series of human rights abuses and that will remain true no matter what we change the name to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No, this is respecting the renaming consensus. An article titled "Uyghur genocide" should explain what "Uyghur genocide" means, preferably in the first sentence. If you would like the article to be about something other than "Uyghur genocide", then you're free to propose a new name. As it stands, this is the name the community has chosen. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this page is the exact same as it was when it had a different name... And the name before that... And the name before that... Renaming a page does not change the underlying topic. Again just because the renaming didn’t go the way you wanted that does not give you a license to turn around and disrupt the article instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining the title of the article in the lede is not disrupt the article. I opposed the name "Uyghur genocide", but if that's the name, the lede should define it. I'm trying to understand your position, but it just doesn't make any sense. You want the article to be called "Uyghur genocide", but you don't think the article is about "Uyghur genocide", and you don't want the lede to define what "Uyghur genocide" means. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, we define the subject not the name. Its also a lead not a lede, theres a big difference there. Tell me, do you consider Uyghur genocide to be a formal or widely accepted name for the subject? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the article should be named "Uyghur genocide", but then argue that the article is not about "Uyghur genocide" and that the lede should not define what "Uyghur genocide" means. Pick one position and stick with it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Pick one position and stick with it” Ahem... Talk:Id Kah Mosque#No working mosques in Kashgar? Talk:Id Kah Mosque#Xinhua is reliable for Chinese government view, with attribution. My position is consistent, whether its about the topic of this page or about what constitutes due weight. If you’re arguing that changing the name of a wikipedia page fundamentally changes the subject of a wikipedia page I don’t think I can agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also again we are talking about a lead not a lede... They are very different things, sometimes people mix them up accidentally or get autocorrected but you are consistently using lede which indicates a WP:CIR issue. @Mikehawk10: this goes for you too somewhat although I do see you using both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes lede inappropriate here? Feels very bad faith to call competence into question over a perfectly normal US English word for “leading paragraph.” Deku link (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section, its a common enough and significant enough misunderstanding that a whole section (MOS:NOTLEDE) exists about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That section only details that a wikipedia lead or lede should not be in the style of a NEWSPAPER lede. It has nothing to do with using the word lede in a talk page discussion. Throwing accusations of incompetence over this is bizarre. Deku link (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Read that lead again... There is no such thing as a wikipedia lede, we only have leads. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, and it says abundantly that they are not newspaper style ledes. A lede is also a generic term for the introduction to ANY article (it says so right here, "the first paragraph of a composition") and the article is blatantly stating that the lead or lede not be treated as a newspaper article's lede. It's NOT a policy about the spelling of the word in discussions on the talk page. This is an absolutely silly nitpick and, again, a ridiculous base to make claims of a lack of competence. Deku link (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is not the generic term for the introduction of a wikipedia article, hence why that page does not link to our usage but Lead (disambiguation) does. The MOS authorizes only one spelling and that is lead. I would note that instead of blustering you could just as easily have accepted that you were wrong about lead/lede and moved on, thats what I advise you to do now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that the title "Uyghur genocide" does not accurately reflect the subject of this article, then you should argue for a different title. But this is an article about "Uyghur genocide", and as MOS:NOTLEDE points out, in Misplaced Pages articles, the first sentence is usually a definition. By arguing that we should not define the term "Uyghur genocide" in the lede, you are effectively arguing that the title does not accurately reflect the subject of the article. Per WP:PRECISE, Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. This article is about "Uyghur genocide" - that precisely limits its scope. If you're unhappy with that, then you're free to argue for a different title. But I have the impression that you supported this title, so I don't know what you're complaining about. This is the title, and the lede should define it. As for the spelling of the word "lede", I'm really not interested in getting into a debate over jargon, British vs. American spelling, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

At least you’re finally willing to admit that this is about the title and not actually about the lead. There is no debate here, the thing in a wikipedia article is a lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort. The lede should define the subject of the article. You've insisted that the article should be titled "Uyghur genocide", but now you're bizarrely arguing that the article is not about "Uyghur genocide", and that the lede therefore shouldn't define the term. Nevertheless, you do think the lede should begin, "The Uyghur genocide is ...", which you insist is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a Uyghur genocide, despite the obvious fact that it is a Wikivoice statement, and will be interpreted as such by any English speaker. Nothing about your position makes any sense or has any internal consistency. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Remarks like this don't move discussion a long and just frustrate everyone involved. We absolutely are talking about the lede currently and the ways in which bold text reference to the title are included in the lede is variable and absolutely can affect wikivoice. Deku link (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If we have to pick an option among these, I think that the current lead is best and that option 2 is thus most preferable, though I don't see a need for a spelling change. There are plenty of RS that refer to the region with the spelling of "Uyghur" (and even the Global Times and Xinhua seem to do this at times, though not always). I think it's reasonable to view the coverage in RS as reflecting that there is a valid choice of how to spell the term that refers to the people aside from "Uygur"; since the region is obviously not originally named in a Latin script it leaves a lot of sources to define the spelling of the name for the region themselves. I'd prefer for us to use a consistent spelling of "Uyghur" throughout the article for clarity sake. Given the widespread spelling used by RS, I think using "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" is perfectly fine. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The current lede (Option 2) makes an unallowable WP:WIKIVOICE statement that there is a genocide. Uyghur genocide is the characterization of various human rights abuses as genocide. That characterization is heavily disputed, including by the US State Department's own legal advisors, who recommended against designating China's actions as "genocide", but were overruled by the political appointees. Misplaced Pages can't put that characterization into its own authoritative voice. It's difficult to imagine a more serious breach of WP:NPOV than making unsubstantiated accusations of genocide in Wikivoice, so Option 2 is simply unacceptable and we shouldn't waste any more time considering it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Regarding the XUAR, there are RSes that use the spelling "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" with the "h", yes. But it is neither the common name & article title ("Xinjiang") nor the official English name ("Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region"). It's unusual to use an alternative name that is neither the common name, article title, nor official name, even if for spelling consistency of just one part of that name. — MarkH₂₁ 23:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's actual genocide not just designation. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If I may suggest an idea: the lead doesn't need to have the bolded title Uyghur genocide in it. It can start with something like "Since 2014, an ongoing series of human rights abuses have been..." See WP:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS. — Goszei (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

To add on: formulations like "The Uyghur genocide is the characterization of" run afoul of the principle behind WP:REFERSTO, i.e. the use–mention distinction. The article isn't about a designation, it's about these abuses. — Goszei (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see now that my suggestion was the status quo pre-March 2021. I support a return to that status quo, as the exact formulation of "Uyghur genocide" is not used in very many sources. Therefore, we are operating in a "descriptive title" paradigm rather than a "proper name" paradigm, and so AVOIDBOLD and BOLDITIS apply. — Goszei (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Usage in the lede and title was in part supported by some editors claims that it was the common name in certain sources, but many of those sources are simply attributing claims to governmental organizations rather than themselves using the term to categorize the abuses (although other sources now do). Either way, I think this is a good possible alternative to the lede, but we'll need more discussion on this or the options posted by Mike for a new lede. Deku link (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One cannot put "genocide" in the title of an article and then not explain what the word "genocide" refers to. "Uyghur genocide" is a characterization/allegation made by certain parties, most notably the US government. The lede has to somehow explain that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10, Horse Eye's Back, Thucydides411, Deku link, and Goszei: The discussion here has led to a few options and died down a bit, but has not come to a resolution with some differing stances. Since the formatting of the first sentence could benefit from broader input anyways, so I started a simple RfC in a new section on this talk page. — MarkH₂₁ 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree with those objecting to the title. I would like to elaborate on that in the light of the separate discussion in this section. The article is about much more than (allegations of) genocide against the Uighurs. It is about crimes against humanity and general repression against the Uighurs. An article which was just about "Uighur genocide" and what is meant thereby would focus on the arguments in favor of defining what is happening in the XUAR as genocide, together with the counter arguments. This article doesn't do that. Instead, it discusses the various human rights abuses in Xinjiang, in impressive detail. A more appropriate title for the article would be "Repression of the Uighurs" "Xinjiang repression" or some such as this title is general enough to be accepted by most. Insisting that it be called "Uighur genocide" is more of a campaigner's approach - nothing wrong with campaigning, but it shouldn't be done here.

--Bacon Man (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the first sentence of the lead

Between the following no-bolded-title and bolded-title first sentences, which should be used at the beginning of the lead? 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No bolded-title first sentence (the status quo pre-March 2021):

1. Starting with the current second sentence: Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the administration of CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive internment camps without any legal process in what has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust.

Bolded-title first sentence without characterization amount to genocide:

The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.

The Uyghur genocide is the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.

Bolded-title first sentence with characterization amount to genocide:

The Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China amount to genocide.

Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide.

23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (first sentence RfC)

Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.

• Option 1 or Option 5: In the preceding discussion, Goszei made the salient points that the bolded-title first sentence is a bit awkward and unnecessary per MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS, particularly since Uyghur genocide is a descriptive title rather than the WP:COMMONNAME (very few reliable sources use the exact phrase Uyghur genocide, instead preferring more descriptive or attributed mentions). This also aligns with MOS:FIRST, which says that if the article title is merely descriptive the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.Regarding options 2-3: in the previous discussion, Thucydides411 expressed WP:NPOV concerns about directly stating that the Uyghur genocide is the human rights abuses as a WP:WIKIVOICE statement about genocide when most reliable sources do not directly give such a description in their own voices. There is some validity to these concerns, particularly since most RSes attribute or qualify (using quotation marks, allegations of, etc.) the term "genocide" for this topic:

There are some RSes (e.g. a news.com.au video clip) that use genocide in their own voice to describe events, but it does not appear that it is close to being the dominant trend. One can also compare it to using the converse "the ongoing series of human rights abuses in Xinjiang is the Uyghur genocide" given the usage of the definite article "the" in options 2-5; such a description may not be justified as a wikivoice statement.In my judgment, I still find option 5 to be preferable among options 2-5 independent of the NPOV concerns about options 2-3. If a bolded-title first sentence is to be used to define the topic, the use of characterization amount to genocide more precisely defines Uyghur genocide. It is more clumsy to just say that "the ___ genocide is the series of human rights abuses", because the genocide aspect of the name is a crucial aspect. This is the case, even when disregarding from the aforementioned NPOV discussion. Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back also expressed concern in the preceding discussion that defining Uyghur genocide using the words characterization that the human rights abuses amount to genocide would change the scope of the article; this article would still describe both the human rights abuses and its partial classification as genocide with a first sentence that defines the genocide aspect of Uyghur genocide. An article scope including the classification of human rights abuses does not need to exclude the human rights abuses (and this isn't a WP:SPLIT proposal).Also following MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should be concise (i.e. options 3 & 5 over options 2 & 4). The full name of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (notwithstanding the fact that its official English name is actually Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region) isn't necessary over the shorter common name of just Xinjiang, the mention of People's Republic of China is redundant with the earlier mention of the government of China, and there's no need for in and around since the article and its references focus on Xinjiang. — MarkH₂₁ 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. I find 4 and 5 unacceptable because this article is about the abuses themselves, not their characterization (basically an argument from WP:REFERSTO/the use-mention distinction); we should not make it out to be that way in the lead. Regarding 2 and 3: we should respect naming consensus. HOWEVER, respecting that consensus is complicated here because (as explained by the closer of the most recent RM) there is a bifurcation of rationales that arrive at the current title: one based on this title being the WP:COMMONNAME, and one based on this not being the COMMONNAME, yet still the name that best matches the WP:CRITERIA. I subscribe to the latter view – a COMMONNAME would fit better into the lead, but a descriptive title like this should be expressed pursuant to MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDITIS. — Goszei (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the comment made below by Aquillion. — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 5, although I would like to question what exactly the Holocaust claim in sentence 2 adds to the lede in the first place, as I do not know how well sourced it is (it is to my understanding that the exact numbers of internment are still uncertain. Either way, I don't think many of the sentences in this article put into wikivoice deserve to be so given what is actually reported in RS's. Deku link (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: The subject of this article is not a characterization of anything, it is a series of human rights abuses. We should not be afraid to call it a series of human rights abuses, or to mention the title of the article in bold in the first sentence as is the case for almost every other Misplaced Pages article. Loki (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, preferably, or 2. The "characterization" options aren't great, because the article is about the actions, not their characterization, as Goszei said. Describing them as human rights abuses in Misplaced Pages's voice feels a bit weird—human rights are a nebulous, political concept, so stating that something is a human rights abuse should always be an attributed claim, not a fact, IMO. (For the record, this absolutely is a human rights abuse.) If we do go with one of 2 or 3, 2 reads a little more cleanly to me. (Brought here by the FRS bot.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  On further thought, I'd support 4 or 5 over 2 or 3—the NPOV issue outweighs my quibble with the wording. My order of preference is now 1 > 5 > 4 > 2 > 3; 1 is still the best option by far. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, since the name isn't "formal or widely accepted"—if it was, we wouldn't have any issue calling it a genocide in Wikivoice—we only need to bold the title if it can be accommodated naturally, so that's not a major concern for me. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: The article is fundamentally focused on the abuses detailed therein, whose common name is the "Uyghur genocide". Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, when a common name exists for an article's topic, we should display it as early as possible in the first sentence. It is not the case that most unique WP:RS only attribute or qualify the term "genocide."

Option 1 would be preferred if the community believes this article to have a WP:CRITERIA-named title for the purposes of this discussion, rather than a WP:COMMONNAME title. Option 4 and 5 are unacceptable, owing to their apparent shifting of the article's scope and the use-mention distinction mentioned above by Goszei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To add on to my comment, WP:SOURCETYPES states that When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. I've provided a great number of them in my list above that state "genocide" in their own voice. If we're considering how to weight sources for the purposes of this discussion, we should rely upon an analysis of the best and most authoritative sources possible, which generally are the academic sources. I haven't really seen all that much discussion around this point, which is a bit disappointing, but I'll put it down here for posterity sake. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 5: "Uyghur genocide" is an extremely controversial characterization of what's going on in Xinjiang - one which is primarily advanced by the United States State Department, and which is disputed by other parties, including the US State Department's own legal advisors and more than 60 UN member states. Options 2 and 3 make a direct WP:WIKIVOICE claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. I can't think of a more egregious violation of WP:NPOV than to put an unsubstantiated accusation of genocide into Wikivoice. Misplaced Pages is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and we're not in the business of pushing extreme - and extremely controversial - accusations in Misplaced Pages's authoritative voice.

Above, some are arguing that "Uyghur genocide" is simply the common name for human rights issues in Xinjiang, and that "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses ..." is not a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide. This is simply an absurd argument, on many levels. Firstly, "Uyghur genocide" is a very specific allegation - it is not the common way of referring to any human rights issues in Xinjiang. It is the accusation that those abuses amount to a genocide, a term that has a very specific legal definition and which has a clear meaning in the English language - one that carries extremely strong connotations. Secondly, regardless of what one thinks about the WP:COMMONNAME argument, a statement such as "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses ..." will be viewed by virtually every single reader who comes to this article as a declaration, in Misplaced Pages's authoritative voice, that there is a genocide. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not "Uyghur genocide" is a common name, but at the end of the day, we all know that readers will overwhelmingly interpret this as a definitive statement in Misplaced Pages's voice that there is a genocide.

Anyone arguing for Option 2 or 3 therefore has to show that a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide is acceptable. Unless they can successfully do so, Options 2 and 3 are simply unallowable.

Option 1 does not even define the subject of the article. One cannot name an article using an extremely controversial term, and then completely avoid defining that term in the lede. Options 4 and 5 are the only options that actually explain what "Uyghur genocide" means, and which conform to WP:NPOV. Of these two, Option 5 is more concise, and therefore preferable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have quibbles with all of these options, but broadly speaking Option 1 is the way the opening sentence should be structured: go straight into the facts. Options 2 and 3 are unacceptable because they violate WP:NPOV: they state in Misplaced Pages's voice that a genocide is happening, a controversial and disputed claim which is not the consensus of reliable sources. Option 4 and option 5 are acceptable, but not ideal, because this article is really about the human rights abuses, not the genocide characterization itself. Between options 4 and 5, I think option 5 is better, because option 4 is overly wordy (there's no need to write out "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" instead of just "Xinjiang", for instance). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don’t love any of these... Like Mx. Granger I too have quibbles. Of the above I would go with 1. Rather than an either or I think a compromise of having the current second sentence first and then combining 2 and 4 to create a new second sentence along the lines of “The ongoing series of human rights abuses against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) has been characterized as a genocide.” would allay all of the concerns that have been raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Something along the lines of this suggestion seems reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, with adjustments – I think my view is best expressed by Mx. Granger: I'm concerned about applying in wikivoice the contested label of "genocide", something also touched upon in Gaelan's comment, when there isn't unanimity among sources. It's no coincidence that we have an article/list on precisely this issue – most obviously, there's a discrepancy between the dictionary definition of genocide and the 1948 UN (CPPCG) definition. I also agree with comments that the precise subject of the article is the human rights abuses (not their characterisation), and I think option 1 conveys this most clearly. The second and fourth paras. of the current lead provide a suitable introduction to the use of the term genocide in this context, so I think there's no need to open with the term "Uyghur genocide" bolded and in wikivoice. I'm not wholly content with option 1 as it stands as I think it's overly narrow in scope (with its focus on detention as opposed to other human rights violations), but I think it's a better framework to build on than the other presented alternatives. Jr8825 • Talk 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To expand/clarify my comments above, I oppose 4 and 5 because of the phrasing "the characterisation that...", which I think is unclear because 1) it suggests that the article is about nomenclature/characterisation, 2) it unintentionally conveys a judgement about the accuracy of the term "genocide" by describing it as a "characterisation", and 3) I think it's unwieldy and fails to covey what the human rights abuses are. I oppose 2 and 3 because they state that the events are "genocide" in unattributed wikivoice. This leaves only option 1, which I'm not particularly happy with either, because 1) it focuses solely on internment at the expense of other elements of repression and 2) I think the immediate comparison with the Holocaust is inappropriate editorialisation, given that it's the first sentence. So my !vote is specifically for opening without a bolded repetition of "Uyghur genocide" (per Misplaced Pages:BOLDITIS) and for the first half of option 1, ideally with slight adjustments to emphasise that this is only one aspect of repression (albeit the most notable/visible aspect). I'll offer some suggestions for the wording in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mix Options 1 and 4/5, i.e. start with the no-bolded sentence, and then — maybe in the second sentence — follow with a (semi-Wiki voice) assertion, in the vain of "these human rights abuses have been characterized as a genocide". TucanHolmes (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 - Per WP:NPOV. STSC (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - I would avoid 4 and 5 as the characterisation formulation is weaselly. 3 reads awkwardly. Re Thucydides411 :Anyone arguing for Option 2 or 3 therefore has to show that a Wikivoice statement that there is an ongoing genocide is acceptable. Unless they can successfully do so, Options 2 and 3 are simply unallowable., I believe that Mikehawk10 has shown that pretty compellingly above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Mikehawk10 has shown that pretty compellingly above: I responded to Mikehawk10 source-by-source, showing that most of the sources treat "genocide" as an allegation. Moreover, MarkH21 showed above that the news media overwhelmingly describes "genocide" as an allegation, rather than an established fact. Putting such as extreme - and heavily contested - accusation into Wikivoice would be an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5, maybe 4 - I think I most prefer 5, but you should probably insert "ongoing series", i.e. Uyghur genocide is the characterization that the ongoing series of human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang amount to genocide." like in 4, but without it being as overly wordy as 4. There isn't an adequate level of sourcing that would allow us to describe an accusation of genocide as a fact in wikivoice per WP:NPOV, it needs to be described as a characterization; for that reason I strongly oppose 2 and 3. Regarding 1, that doesn't mesh with the current title – wouldn't make sense for someone to have to scroll multiple lines down to see what the actual title of the article is referring to. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 5 with preference for 5 - As others have stated, it doesn't seem to be WP:NPOV at all in its current state and it seems even the sources and citations characterize it as an allegation not a statement of fact. There isn't a consensus in the sources and option 5 is the briefest and clearest summary of of what appears to be happening. Convocke (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — Convocke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Option 1 or 5, prefer 5 2 and 3 absolutely go against WP:NPOV, while 4 is too wordy for a first sentence. Edit: That Holocaust comparison should really go from the lead, it is extremely inflammatory. Inclusion in the body may be warranted. BSMRD (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose options 4 and 5, leaning toward option 1: This article is about the human rights abuses themselves so options 4 and 5 make no sense given the article's scope. Regarding the other 3, the current article title already states "genocide", so if said title sticks then options 2 and 3 would be fine given the current title of the article. I am neutral on which would be better. If it is decided that the word "genocide" is not NPOV (The content of the article seems to treat it this way), then the page should probably be moved (I am not sure exactly what would be a good title) and option 1 be implemented. Username6892 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC), amended 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC) to make clarifications and add support to an option. New additions in italics.

  I fail to see how they make no sense given the article's scope? There is no difference content-wise between all those options, only in formulation. I also do not understand how you can view options two and three as fine when they clearly violate neutral point of view, as stated many times in edits before your own. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 but amended as per Volteer1's suggestion. As for the remaining options, the second and third option, as stated many times before in this RfC, are violations of WP:NPOV and the first one reads like a piece from sensationalist article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 - I don't find any of these options ideal, but a systematic evaluation of sources provided by many editors above shows that most reliable sources attribute the allegation of genocide, which is contested by a variety of governments, organizations and experts. Furthermore, Option 5 is technically accurate, since it notes that this term describes the characterization of a host of various alleged rights abuses as amounting to a genocide overall. Lastly, this option isn't overly long, while option 4 is too wordy. -Darouet (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Goszei. 4 and 5 are unacceptable. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 - From different sources, it seems like option 5 fits to define the various rights abuses alleged to be happening. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4/5. "Genocide" is the common name of what is occurring, though it is a POV characterization, per the explanation in User:Thucydides411's comment. I am open to a revised form of Option 1, descibing the actions themselves and clarifying later that "These actions have been characterized as Uyghur genocide, though I agree with other commenters that option 1 as it currently stands is unusual in construction and focus and insufficient to be the lead sentence without revision. - - mathmitch7 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 5 if we absolutely must include "characterisation". Option 1 as is is too wordy for my taste, and its contents can be mentioned not in the defining sentence but somewhat later. The definition must be both informative and at the same time succinct. Which is why I also reject options 2 or 4.

What is most important in this context is scholarly consensus, and, from what I can see, scholars (controversial figures like Zenz and not-so-controversial ones alike) are in at least a rough consensus (from what can be seen from discussions) that we can call it a genocide and not merely crimes against humanity (which is admittedly already a very strong accusation), and personally I find it not unanimous but strong enough to avoid the word "characterisation". As for why the media use wording such as "alleged to be" or "considered" is more to do with potential lawsuits for defamation (from China) and avoiding accusations of Sinophobia or other anti-China bias, which take a toll on the outlet's reputation, rather then their uncertainty as to whether this can be directly attributed to genocide. Which is, in my belief, extensively used by merchants of doubt (Chinese or not) to tone down coverage on China as being unduly harsh when actually this toning down is not warranted by the facts on the ground. Let's call a spade a spade. Any objections and doubts can be mentioned in the body of the article under the appropriate header (e.g. Criticism), and I believe this to be an adequate way to fulfil NPOV and provide balance to reporting.

As an aside, I see too many similarities here with the coverage of Holodomor in the 1930s. Looking at the arguments used, it seems that if Misplaced Pages had existed in 1933 (and the word "genocide" too), the discussion would end up concluding that we couldn't say it was genocide because Walter Duranty and some Communist sympathisers would rather us believe (and propagate) the official narrative of USSR of the time and not listen to some Ukrainians whom an average American has never heard of (Ukrainians? Is this another Asian tribe?), and not because there is a major scholarly disagreement on the question, where historians are divided 50/50 (as is the case with Holodomor). The latter case can be seen as justification not to call it genocide outright in the first sentence; but I really don't see it here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, 2 or 3 We can call it genocide in Wikivoice. It isn't the controversial or disputed claim that some editors here claim it be. The forced sterilizations of Uyghur women are now resulting in real birth rate decline . This is genocide. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Even the US State Department's own experts advised against labeling what's happening in Xinjiang a "genocide". The Economist has flatly rejected the "genocide" label, said that the label is being used simply for rhetorical escalation and to stoke useful outrage, and has accused the US government of diminishing the unique stigma of the term. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe "genocide" as an allegation or accusation in this case, rather than putting the claim in their own authoritative voice, as MarkH21 has shown above. In other words, your claim that the "genocide" label isn't controversial or disputed simply does not align with reality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The US State Department did not go with those experts in the end , so they aren’t relevant here. I read that Economist article and I also the letter from legal experts countering it , so that is hardly relevant here either. I saw the above list from MarkH21 but I think the above list from Mikehawk10 is more aligned with reality. What you will need to persuade me to change my vote is a report from a reliable source falsifying the many reports of the PRC’s genocidal activities published in numerous reliable sources over the past few years. CutePeach (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The US State Department did not go with those experts in the end: That's the whole point. The political appointees in the US State Department ignored their own experts. You're saying that we should go with what the US State Department's political appointees say, rather than what the US State Department's legal experts say. What you will need to persuade me to change my vote is a report from a reliable source falsifying the many reports of the PRC’s genocidal activities: It doesn't matter how you "vote". What matters is the policy-based argument you make. You've made it clear that your "vote" is based on your own personal assessment, which means that your "vote" should be ignored by the closer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The political appointees in the US State Department ignored their own experts. No they didn't. They went with a different set of experts. Not all experts agree on everything and a diplomatic corps like the State Department wouldn’t have caved into the political demands of a madman in the last few days of his administration. The closer of this RFC will understand that. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up that claim? It has been reported that the US State Department's legal advisor's found that the evidence did not justify the claim of genocide. I haven't seen any source stating that there was some different group of experts that advised the US State Department, and you haven't provided a source that says so. Even assuming there were such a group, the fact that the first group of experts advised against using the "genocide" label means this is a contested label, and we cannot put it in Wikivoice. Re: the State Department wouldn’t have caved into the political demands of a madman in the last few days of his administration: The US State Department was headed by Mike Pompeo, who is an extremely outspoken China hawk. Pompeo is the one who made the determination, as it even says in the State Department announcement. What the announcement did not mention was that in doing so, Pompeo was overruling his own department's legal advisors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 per reasons given by Mikehawk10, Loki and BobFromBrockley. Oppose 4/5 per reasons given by Jr8825. Sources clearly show that a genocide is running in the Xinjiang.Francesco espo (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per Goszei. That being said, it needs adjustment, since it's very, very long and clunky. ¡Ayvind! (talk)

• Option 3 or 2. This page is already named "Uyghur genocide" per WP:COMMON NAME. Now we need to say what it means. Option 1 simply does not say "Uyghur genocide is ...". But it say: "he largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust.". Well, that probably should not be in the lead in WP voice as an opinion by Zenz. Options 4 and 5 tells that "Uyghur genocide is a characterization ... that amounts to genocide". This is awkward to say the least. Which leaves only other options. Also, last consensus was option 2, not option 1. This is because there was a consensus on this page to change version 1 to version 2 (or something close) - based on the actual editing of the page (see editing history) and discussion on this page above . My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: COMMONNAME only covers article naming, it doesn't cover article content itself and shouldn't be a rationale for stating controversial things in wikivoice. Calling the repression of Uyghurs "genocide" remains controversial/contested, even among experts (as Aquillion's evidence below clearly shows). My view is that stating "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses..." is a NPOV violation and should not stand until the weight of sources is clearly in favour of labelling it as such. I think we can trust the intelligence of our readers in beginning the lead by describing what the repression constitutes, and then ending the lead by summarising the arguments for calling it a genocide, even if the article title itself is "Uyghur genocide". I think readers will still be able to understand what the article is about, and I think it's a good thing to begin by directing readers' attention to the oppression itself rather than the argument over what to label it as. There's no need to follow a formulaic pattern of opening the first sentence with a definition of the title in bold when it presents problems like this, in fact MOS:BOLDTITLE is specifically against this: "if an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold (my emphasis, "genocide", while being the most recognisable name (per COMMONNAME), is not currently the "formal" or "widely accepted" name). That's why I continue to think that something along the lines of option 1, with the comparison with the holocaust removed, is the solution that's best supported by policy. Jr8825 • Talk 17:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my argument. Sure, the term genocide is controversial. But consider specifically version 2: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people...". So we are saying this is the ongoing series of human rights abuses, just as all other versions ("human rights abuses " is not controversial or disputed). This is just a better wording. My point is simply that an article XYZ should start from "XYZ is ...". My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 2 - as title is based on common name we should use it in the first sentence. Also article isn't about some "characterization" but about real repressions happening in Xinjiang.--Staberinde (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per BoBFromBrockley. Volunteer Marek 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, 5, or 4 in that order as the most neutral wordings. Yes, it is true that sources exist that use the term genocide in the article voice; but given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of calling something a genocide in the article voice, it requires not just some sources using the term, but either near-unanimity, a demonstration that the sources using the term are higher-quality, or at least that the term be uncontroversial among high-quality sources; in this case it plainly is not. See eg. the BBC, accused of genocide, Washington Post, careful use of quotes and even "scare-quotes" to avoid putting it in the article voice, AP news, attributed as "what some experts are calling...", etc. This is not the sort of treatment among WP:RSes that justifies using a term in the article voice. Even some of the academic sources cited above, when read carefully, do not actually support using the term "genocide" in the article voice, since they present it as an ongoing debate within academia in which the authors are making an argument; eg. Finley says One year ago, not all scholars in Xinjiang studies agreed that the situation could or should be called a genocide, asking e.g. whether high levels of unjust incarceration of African American males (and the impact this has on birth rate) was also a “genocide.” Others worried that using this historically loaded term would put China on the defensive and do nothing to persuade China to desist from the abuses. In recent months, however, more have shifted closer to this position, and others beyond our discipline have joined them. Keep in mind that this is from a scholar arguing for using the term genocide; even for him, the strongest statement he feels he can make is that the ongoing debate is shifting in his direction. And, as Finley implicitly acknowleges, there are still plenty of recent academic sources remain more cautious; here, while it certainly treats it as serious and compares the situation to genocide on several points, cautiously writes around the legal definition of genocide and avoids using the term directly in order to establish an argument that does not rely on it. This paper takes a similar tack, saying that Whether China’s actions against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang deserves the label genocide or not has garnered significant debate in recent years. ... More urgent than the question of whether it is a genocide or not, however, is the question of how can the critical mass that has emerged in support of the Uyghurs be used to stop China’s action?. See also for more papers that plainly use similarly cautious wording. --Aquillion (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 with some pruning (eg the holocaust comparison seems poorly sourced and difficult to justify since there has been so little investigation at present) per Aquillion's excellent summary. I am very much in sympathy with Thucydides411's argument that it is inherently NPOV and WP:OR to name an article "ZXY genocide" when there is neither near-universal agreement YET that what is happening actually IS genocide and when the WP:COMMONNAME has not YET been established as "ZXY genocide". I sympathise wholly with that argument, but that is a reason for finding a better article name IMO, not for "characterising" the opening with clunky phrasing. In so far as it is relevant, the main thing we DON"T know at present appears to be the scale and extent of abuses. But we do readers a disservice by pretending we DO know - even when - as in this case suspicions appear to be extremely well grounded. When the likes of Amnesty are cautious in their pronouncements, we should doubly be so (and Amnesty are explicitly campaigners - which we explicitly are NOT). Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• If the name of article is problematic, then it should be renamed. But it seem to be the most commonly used name per Google seraches including Scholar. A common name is NOT a statement fact, but just that: a common name. None of the versions above suggests to say: "Uyghur genocide is a genocide..." (that would be statement of fact). Instead they say: "this is a series of human rights abuses". My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses... is a Wikivoice claim that there is a genocide. The idea that it's only a Wikivoice claim if we write the word "genocide" twice is simply ridiculous. As for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, I'll point out that:

1. "Uyghur genocide" is not the common name. The exact phrase "Uyghur genocide" is not used by most articles that discuss Uyghur human rights issues, and the accusation of "genocide" is almost always attributed or heavily hedged in news articles about Xinjiang.
2. Even if we were to grant the erroneous claim that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for this subject, the average reader will not care. They will interpret the opening sentence as a definitive declaration by Misplaced Pages that there is a genocide. We can't simply pretend to be oblivious as to how readers will actually interpret what we write.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. By simply looking at the title of this page (no matter what version of the lead), an average person will conclude there is a genocide. And she/he will come to the same conclusion by reading publications about it . My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A COMMONNAME, is not simply a name often used, nor even the name most often used - if many different terms and descriptions are being used - as is frequently the case with an unfolding situation, and is the case here IMO. A COMMONNAME is THE NAME which is used, or at least recognisable to sufficient numbers of readers to justify any simplification, confusion or inaccuracy which may be inherent in the name itself. 9/11 imparts no information, but is sufficiently established for us to use it, this duck is fish, not fowl, but they are both COMMONNAMEs. I think that most people reading the sources on this page will come to the conclusion (and will often find it explicitly stated) that very serious human rights violations are almost certainly occurring in China and these might very well be genocidal - but that no-one knows with certainty, for the simple reason that access is very difficult/impossible. Most readers reading our title would come to the conclusion that 'genocide' - which they would understand to mean mass ethnic murder - is an established and verifiable fact. I think it's a bit disingenuous for anyone to pretend that the clear inference of the title is mass ethnic murder, not simply cultural 'wipeout' or other grave human rights violations is verifiably occurring. Even Amnesty is explicitly saying that it CANNOT say how serious the violations are. What do we know that they don't? Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• But genocides are not necessarily a direct mass murder. According to UN definition, they are acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. According to Webster dictionary , this is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. That is what COMMON NAME suppose to reflect. And the mass incarceration and indoctrination of a specific ethnic and/or religius group (this is something we know as a fact) obviously fall under the definiton. Sure, this is a policy to intentionaly destroy the targeted ethnic group. Same would be with Stalin's deportations of ethnic groups, etc. I am not an expert and think just as an average Joe. So I do not see any problem with using such name for this page (or with calling it genocide in the lead) at all. And in any event, if this is not a common name or a good descriptive name, then what is? My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove intent to destroy? You mentioned Soviet deportations (you can click through all the individual articles yourself, theres like 20 and I'm not going to link them all), but the strongest term we use in anything approaching wikivoice is "crimes against humanity" and even that is qualified with a "Contemporary historians classify" These are the most "genocidal" and only the Crimean one uses "Cultural Genocide" in wikivoice(notably the reason these two get the closest to a genocide designation is due to their high mortality rate, something lacking in Xinjiang). If these events fall under the same definition then either all are genocide or none are. Genocide is a very strong accusation, and we must be careful making it. If we won't make it for events a century ago we shouldn't here for an ongoing event. The same logic used by WP:SILENCE applies here as well, if Amnesty felt comfortable calling it a genocide, they would havbe done so, but they clearly don't. As for a better title I would use "Sinicization of Xinjiang" as it includes the whole region and all it's ethnic groups (which the article does despite being named "Uyghur Genocide") and matches Sinicization of Tibet. BSMRD (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick check shows that Sinicization of Xinjiang frequently refer in books to an older history, i.e. "the Sinicization of Xinjiang in the 1880s was a critical step leading to its full integration with China after the fall of the Qing.". This is probably an overlapped but a different subject. Besides, such policies usually refer "just" to the enforced cultural assimilation, mass incarcerations goes far beyond that. For the same reason, something like Russification of Crimea would be very different from Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: "Mass incarceration and indoctrination of a specific ethnic and/or religious group ... obviously fall under the definition " – I disagree, I don’t think mass incarceration/indoctrination "obviously" or unambiguously fall under the definition of genocide – that's why I think it's inappropriate to call it genocide in wikivoice. You pointed out definitions that describe genocide as "destroying" a group, I could equally point to the Oxford Reference definition, which says it’s "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation". I know I made this point in a comment a bit further up this discussion, but there's disagreement over what genocide actually means, and consequently there's a clear disagreement among experts over whether it's the correct term and a corresponding unwillingness by RS news to call it a genocide in their own voice. There are also influential RS such as The Economist explicitly arguing against the term in this context. For what it's worth, my personal view is that the repression of Uyghurs constitutes cultural genocide, and therefore I personally agree with calling it a genocide per the UN's definition (under international law). However, I'm not an expert – that’s my personal opinion. In terms of following policy, I think we need to avoid saying "the Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses", because, without contextualisation or attribution, it's effectively the same as saying "the ongoing series of human rights abuses is a genocide" in wikivoice. It’s not about verifiability – calling it a genocide is no longer an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim as there's been a significant shift in its usage over the last year or so (hence it being the COMMONNAME, according to the previous consensus). It’s about NPOV, ("if there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution"), opening with a neutral, encyclopedic tone that makes no judgements itself, other than echoing what the authoritative sources say. I think jumping to use the term when there isn't scholarly consensus for it cheapens the authority of the article, we can still outline fully the arguments put forward for it being a genocide in the rest of the lead and body. Jr8825 • Talk 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not really object to anything you said above. But the differences between options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as posted in the RfC are very minor. All say essentially the same. Furthermore, option 1 (not the one I prefer) makes a comparison with the Holocaust. I will leave this discussion to others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I am fully aware of Lemkin's and UNGC's and legislative definitions of genocide - all of which are somewhat broader than the commonly used "ethnic mass murder". But, AFAIK there is not a single instance in all of history in which "XYZ genocide" has become the established name, either among the public, nor among scholars, which has NOT involved mass killing of a specified, social, and usually ethnic, group. IMO it's disingenuous to pretend that the primary understanding and use of the word among both readers and scholars is other than targetted mass killing. In some theoretical world in which we all go back to primary sources to understand terms, genocides are not necessarily a direct mass murder is true - in real world use of the term, especially for naming events, it is patently untrue. One should not have to have read Lemkin to understand or justify an article title. I think we have both made our positions clear - I won't clutter the space by responding further here. Pincrete (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 5 Although the phrasing is inelegant, it is tendentious to refer to something as a genocide when it has not and may not ever be proven. Contrary to what some editors may argue, saying "The Uyghur genocide is" without qualification implies that it is a genocide. TFD (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Are you implying that the editors who disagree with you here are engaged in tenditious editing? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that wording of the article that is "partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole" is tendentious. You should read explanatory supplements before you link to them. Unless you read them, you won't know what they say. TFD (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• A comment only (no vote at all!). I find it odd, that a current event (somewhat of a Wikinews candidate) is being classified here in so certain terms already. For example, Holodomor, that many historians rightly consider as a "terror-famine" (a term often used in Ukraine), is not really classified as genocide in the relevant pages on English language Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is being very cautious there. Why such a hurry here? One aspect is the purely human compassion which editors feel, this is fine, but we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. I think more caution would be warranted. Is there really a consensus for such a title? Western governments' declarations alone aren't indicative of that. Potugin (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is simply because the common name is "Holodomor" rather than "Ukrainian genocide". Indeed, if you check Holodomor in modern politics, it was actually recognized as a genocide in many countries, but the "Uyghur genocide" was not. Nevertheless, we have an already rather common naming "Uyghur genocide", even in Google book searches. I am not sure why, but this is the case. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (first sentence RfC)

• Posting comment: This RfC is based on a preceding discussion of the first sentence at Talk:Uyghur genocide#Restarted discussion. — MarkH₂₁ 23:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• The options are insufficient: This RfC actually concerns two underlying issues: (1) the stylistic issue of whether to bold the article's subject in the lead and (2) the editorial/POV issue of whether China's human rights abuses should be referred to as a genocide in Wikivoice. The current gamut of choices is insufficient because it is missing an option that refers to it as a genocide in Wikivoice but doesn't use bolding.--DaysonZhang (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• A possible option that both avoids bolding and uses Wikivoice would be Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the administration of CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued a policy of genocide leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive internment camps without any legal process in what has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust. --DaysonZhang (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn’t option 5 need something in front of Uyghur genocide? I don’t think its a proper sentence as currently constructed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's preferable to leave "The" out, as its omission specifically highlights the phrase, which is then described in the remainder of the sentence. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It corrupts the sentence format, “Uyghur genocide” the phrase isn't the characterization, thats just genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really sure why the "The" was taken out, especially given it's the same sentence structure as in option 4 which does have the determiner. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, Darouet, and Volteer1: The formulation of option 5 without the definite article "The" was based on the first sentence of Black genocide. I don't really have a preference with or without the definite article. Option 3 should probably include ongoing series of like in Option 2 (otherwise it's a singular-plural mismatch), and Option 5 can include that too. — MarkH₂₁ 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Omitting the definite article effectively recognizes that this is a term that needs attribution. If you add the definite article, it lends credence to the idea that Misplaced Pages is not just reporting allegations of genocide, but endorsing them as certainly true. The same phrasing that omits "the" is used not only at Black genocide but also Maafa. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense actually. Yeah, omitting the definite article is probably a good thing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question: How do editors who indicated support for Options 4/5 feel about what TucanHolmes suggested above?

Mix Options 1 and 4/5, i.e. start with the no-bolded sentence, and then — maybe in the second sentence — follow with a (semi-Wiki voice) assertion, in the vain of "these human rights abuses have been characterized as a genocide".

As an editor who supports number 1, I would support a variation on this as well, and I think there's room for a compromise here so we don't head towards a no consensus split. Many editors voiced support for Options 1 AND Options 4/5, so I am wondering if this is what they are looking for. — Goszei (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: Yeah I think the HEB/TucanHolmes suggestion is also acceptable. It's basically what's currently the very brief second paragraph, so some more reorganization of the first two paragraphs may be needed to avoid redundancy. — MarkH₂₁ 18:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone actually write out the proposed text in a talk quote box? -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Depends on what the "mix" actually means. I personally do not think that sensationalist additions like secretive internment camps without any legal process in what has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust. are fitting for a Misplaced Pages article, especially its lead sentence. Furthermore, the sources for the secretive internment camps without any legal process part are not the greatest either, the Washington Post article doesn't mention anything about the "lack of legal processing". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the source itself also says It appears to be the largest imprisonment of people on the basis of religion since the Holocaust. (emphasis my own). The source itself is using hedging language but the article states it definitively. The source is also a slideshow. Convocke (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC) — Convocke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In light of these two points, I think the entire phrase "secretive internment camps ... since the Holocaust" should be removed from the article lead quickly. Both claims are sensationalist and mis-representations of sources. - - mathmitch7 12:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This option addresses the concern I have for options 4 and 5, though the part about it being characterized as genocide is already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Will the content be duplicated or moved assuming this option is chosen? Username6892 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The content would be moved. The desired outcome would be for readers to first get an impression of the facts of the situation (mass-internment and documented human rights abuses), at which point they would presumably ask "Why genocide?", which would then be immediately addressed by the second sentence (characterized as genocide, though contentious). This way, we avoid a full Wiki-voice assertion about the genocidal character of these human rights abuses. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the point TucanHolmes makes about starting with the facts. I disagree with starting with a discussion of whether or not the human rights abuses are genocide. Please see my comments above for a fuller explanation of why I think this. I understand Goszei's suggestion of merging options 1 and 4/5, but I think this is unnecessary because the second and fourth paragraphs of the lead discuss genocide more fully. In my view, discussing genocide in the first paragraph would be overly repetitious and come at the expense of brevity/clarity about the article's subject. As I mention above, I'm not happy with any of the RfC's options. Here's a tentative proposal for an adjusted version of option 1: "Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the administration of general secretary Xi Jinping, has carried out a series of human rights abuses in the region of Xinjiang, leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive internment camps without any legal process." I think the comparison with the Holocaust is inappropriate for the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST it should be a simple, clear statement of the facts. I think the comparison belongs in the second paragraph of the lead, as it's relevant to labelling the human rights abuses as genocide. Jr8825 • Talk 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What about phrasing it something like this: "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses....Although allegations of genocide remain unproven, it has been described as a genocide by the U.S. government and other sources." TFD (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. We are rather deep into this RfC now, but perhaps the Holocaust clause should be stricken from Option 1 to show that it isn't a package deal with the option. Comments above have shown that this clause is contentious, and it is extraneous to the RfC question (i.e. an entirely different discussion about specific wording and claims, separate from this RfC's question of basic lead format/structure). — Goszei (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would probably invalidate the entire RfC (and it already looks as "no consensus"). I too can see an issue here though. If you follow a link to "consensus version" by the initiator of the RfC, it tells "WWII", not Holocaust, and I do not think it was the previous consensus version. Sure, "WWII" in such context clearly implies the Holocaust, and the filer was free to suggest any versions. But again, modifying the text after people already voted is "no go" for RfCs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

New page on Uyghur genocide denial.

Legitimacy of the genocide claims?

I know that many people think it is real, and there are many sources to back it up, but why are their no sources other than liberal American newspapaers? I have here several sources that deny it. Here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb-MNi8E-TA https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202105/14/WS609dcceea31024ad0babdcda.html https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang Most of these sources are very pro-China and have been in the past, but the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic, so please consider again. Could we have two different sections for the different perspectives? At this point there is no way to confirm if either perspective is correct, aside from actually travelling to China, which is on lockdown for covid 19 right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipgirl your waifu (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

They are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. However, there are no reliable sources that support the claim of genocide, so the article title is misleading. TFD (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So why do we have definitive articles on controversial topics like this? Could we atleast put a sign warning that the article may contain bias?Shipgirl your waifu (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All articles may contain bias. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that "the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic”? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Note that yet another editor is asking why the article makes a definitive statement that a genocide is being carried out. You argued that the title and lede do not constitute a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, but that's clearly not how readers are interpreting them. Given that you argued that the title and lead were acceptable as-is because they do not constitute a Wikivoice statement, will you now support changes to make it clear that we are not making a Wikivoice statement? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This user also seems to think that there are "no sources other than liberal American newspapaers” which is ummm... Questionable. Idiots are going to be idiots, there isn’t much we can do about that. I would also like this to be the last time you ping me about this issue outside of the discussion about it, I don’t find it productive and its starting to border on harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. I don't appreciate seeing editors refer to other editors as Idiots. Convocke (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My description of the user in question here was entirely within NPA. An invective against a broad class of editors cant be a personal attack, at worst its not entirely civil but as an inclusive place we most certainly do have idiots (a great number of them even) who are allowed to edit wikipedia articles. You may choose a more polite word or a less polite word but do you disagree with me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of substantive issues I find with the top-level comment here. Two of them are as follows:

• The user asks the question why are their no sources other than liberal American newspapaers? Well, there are a number of sources other than liberal American newspapers. Aside from the Newlines Institute/Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights report, there has been significant work by academics on the subject. These include multiple peer-reviewed journal articles and law review articles, some of which are included in the collapsed list below, alongside non-US/non-liberal news sources:

• The comment argues that the sources cited in the article are also known to be sinophobic. This is quite the claim! If there is evidence presented in reliable sources that the sources are sinophobic, then let them be presented. Otherwise, I really don't see much here except a false equivalence being drawn between Chinese state-affiliated media entities (China Daily is published by the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party and has issues with reliability in this context; CGTN of which is deprecated outright), and The New Yorker (which has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). The Qiao collective doesn't appear to be much better, as it falsely claims that Xinjiang has in fact never been closed or restricted to outside visitors until the outbreak of COVID-19 in January 2020, while there is public reporting indicating that there indeed have been restrictions applied to and controls put on foreign journalists in the region prior to that time. Qiao's Xinjiang "resources" page contains 13 separate references to the Global Times for facts and massively cites CGTN in a similar matter; based upon this, it would not appear that the collective places a premium on fact-checking or accuracy. Taken together with the fact that Qiao's self-described goal is to be a bridge between the U.S. left and China’s rich Marxist, anti-imperialist political work and that Politico (reliable source) describes them as a group that represents the views of... ultra-leftists infatuated with authoritarian regimes, it does not really appear to be a source that attempts to report objectively, either. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So who made the rule that Chinese agencies are not a reliable source of info? Given the current news of the BBC's Martin Bashir interview with Princess Diana, it would appear that stories and methodologies used by the BBC is very, very unreliable and unethical, and it took 25 years to expose this cover up. The BBC is considered to be one of the more reliable sources of news in the western media, even though we do now know it is not. Therefore the other western media are hardly any more credible than the BBC. Therefore it is more likely than not, that in 25 years' time, the story of the uyghur genocide will be exposed as a western lie. It cost the west nothing to tell lies. 86.176.255.101 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to see the logic behind the reliability of various common Chinese sources(and some western ones) you can find most here BSMRD (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

State run news agencies in authoritarian countries are universally notorious for flagrant lies and propaganda. 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:680:6D80:4C95:CB6D:EFCC:AA5A (talk)

The first source presented by Mikehawk10 is prefaced with the qualification, "By reviewing these available reports in light of the applicable international legal standards, this paper argues that...." All I am saying is that Misplaced Pages articles should not claim greater certainty than the sources it relies on. TFD (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not quite WP:SYNTH but this article seems to have collected the most severe claims it can and is presenting them all in the strongest terms it can get away with. I can't find anything that directly goes against policy but there is a very clear POV. The only non-western sources here are a few Indian ones which when it comes to China aren't effectively different in view. A great example of WP:SYSTEMIC IMO. BSMRD (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Media bias is shown by preferring some opinions over others, rather than stating opinions as facts. U.S. media for example never said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda but provided greater weight to that theory than any opposing views. Policy (rs and weight) require us to use these sources for facts and to present opinions according to the weight they show. Unfortunately, not content that the media has made a strong enough case, we are willing to misrepresent what they say in order that readers are persuaded as what we see as the truth. Not only does that violate policy, but it makes readers question the reliability of the information in the article. Whenever I come across an article that is biased in tone and falsifies facts, I dismiss it as propaganda. But if it presents the facts and explains the weight of opinion, then it is more persuasive. Obvious propaganda such as one would find on highly partisan websites only comforts the true believers and wins no converts. If I were the Chinese government, I would prefer the style of this article as opposed to one that was objective. It's like in horror movies where a crazy person warns people, but no one believes him or her because they're obviously mad. TFD (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. At a bare minimum I also see sources from China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Qatar, and Israel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

All of which are (excluding China who gets I counted 3 sources out of near 500?) allies of the US, not helping the point. BSMRD (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You said western, not somewhat allied with the United States. That is exactly the point. If you think that there is coverage which has not been included you are more than welcome to add it. Also I see at least eight citation to Chinese sources not three. Is any of the stuff you say true? You claimed that not a single source from a non-Western country was used besides some from India yet I gave you a whole list above to which could be added the UAE, Turkey, the Philippines, and Russia if one was feeling pedantic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

This edit request to Uyghur genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: " in order to show that the women where of bad character which in the Authority's view would invalidate their testimonies." to " in order to show that the women were of bad character which in the Authority's view would invalidate their testimonies." Lagbhag (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. BSMRD (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Motive

Regarding this edit, motive is a reason for doing something, not the consequence of it. Please understand that. It has been reverted by @Buidhe once and I believe their reasoning is sound. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If we have motive in infobox of Holocaust, why can't we have it here? Of course these events are very different, but there is no questions that the motive was Sinicization based on content of the page and as summarized in the lead (here is an example of scholarly source that say it directly, here is another, one can easily find a lot more). here is a review article. Also note that the motive was in the box for quite some time, and one needs consensus to remove. If you think that sources say it was another motive, then what it was, exactly? And if the sources do not provide other motives, then it means there no any actual debate what the motive was, but a consensus of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have already explained, in the Holocaust motive, the answer is clear and is actually a motive. A reason for doing something. Sinicization is a consequence of this "genocide", not the motive. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Desire for a particular result can be a motive. When sinicization is listed as a motive, the plain meaning is that the actors are motivated by a desire for sinicization. Is that desire not clear from the sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. Same with other countries, e.g. Russification. That was the purpose, and it was achieved. Now, this additional scholarly source tells explicitly that the motive was Islamophobia. Yes, that can be included as an additional motive with ref. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need this in the info-box. I couldn't find anything about motive in the article and without sources we can't put anything in the info-box. TFD (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, actually, many sources say it:

1. According to last RS (just above, Abstract), "The total internment which is currently being carried out has two main motives: Islamophobia and the crucial geo-strategical position of the Uyghur homeland."
2. According to this, "The Chinese policy, which we call Sinicization (or more appropriately Hanification) has led to serious persecution, repression, discrimination and loss of the cultural heritage of the indigenous Muslims". They are taking about current policies by China in Xinjiang. So, Sinicization here is clearly the cause and intent.
3. This tells about "the ongoing effort of the Chinese state to ‘Sinicize’ – that is, instill with Chinese norms and practices – the Uyghur population in order to more easily control the region and exploit its resources". So, the goal/purpose is to "instill with Chinese norms and practices – the Uyghur population in order to more easily control the region and exploit its resources".
4. This tells China’s policies toward Uyghurs should also be put in the context of the CCP’s oft-repeated goal of achieving “national unification”—one of the three pillars of what Chinese President Xi Jinping calls the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” China analysts have typically understood “national unification” as referring to the territorial control of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and other disputed territories. So, according to the source, that's why A Chinese government document stated, “break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins.” “National unification” is just another word for sinicization.

Of course this can be worded differently, but in short this is sinicization, islamophobia, and a desire to establish a firm political control over the territory by the CCP by means of political repression and sinicization, according to these sources. So, the third motive for the campaign is supression of political dissent. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The question "why they are doing this?" is of course important and should be reflected much better on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International report

According to the BBC, the author of a new report from Amnesty International said their research "did not reveal that all the evidence of the crime of genocide had occurred." The article further says, "China has been accused by some Western nations and rights groups of pursuing a genocide against the Turkic ethnic groups in Xinjiang - though there is dispute over whether the state's actions constitute a genocide." Finally, it says that an independent series of hearings lead by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC will determine whether a genocide is occurring.

Since there is not yet any consensus, I think that we should rephrase the article to state that there is no consensus on whether it should be called a genocide. This is consistent with both rs and weight. Articles should not make claims that are not supported in reliable sources and should not misrepresent the weight of opinion in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We already do that, both in the lead and in a whole section dedicated to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead begins, "The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses...." That's similar to the article Armenian genocide: "The Armenian genocide...was the systematic mass murder...." We could rephrase it as "The Uyghur genocide is a term used by people who believe that the ongoing series of human rights abuses...constitutes a genocide." TFD (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is this page isn’t about the term its about the ongoing series of human rights abuses, we could break off a Uyghur genocide (term) page if thats the path you want to go down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that people would only use the term Uyghur genocide if they had concluded it was a genocide. It's not a common term like the Boston massacre, where someone would use the term even if they did not consider it to be a massacre. The wording however explicitly states that it was a genocide, which needs to be changed in order to conform with rs and weight policies. TFD (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it does appear to be a common term equivalent to Boston massacre, I don’t see anywhere that we explicitly state that this was a genocide. Can you point them out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We call it a genocide when we call the article "Uyghur Genocide" and open it with "Uyghur Genocide is...". How do you still not get that genocide isn't a common name we can just throw around and that using it to title an event is an implicit statement calling it a genocide. This is not the first time you have brought this view up on this talk page, and at this point it feels like willful ignorance. BSMRD (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"The Uyghur genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of China against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” is what we currently say. If we said "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide...” then you would have a point but we don’t say that, basic english comprehension is not willful ignorance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't say "The Uyghur Genocide is the genocide..." because that would be redundant and poor grammar. Calling a series of human rights abuses genocide (which we did when we said "The Uyghur Genocide is the ongoing series of human rights abuses...") is saying that those abuses constitute genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is neither redundant or poor grammar, again we would seem to have an english comprehension issue here on your part rather than a actual issue. That does not say that those abuses constitute genocide and the rest of the lead makes it even more clear thats not what we’re saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Poor grammar may not technically be correct but redundant definitely is. (I could link more but six seems enough)None of these articles say "the x Genocide is the genocide of..." because that is unnecessary. By titling human rights abuses a genocide you are saying those abuses constitute genocide. None of those articles need to say "the x Genocide was the genocide of" because it being a genocide is self evident from the title. Either the title is wrong or the lead sentence is, unfortunately I can change neither as the former is under moratorium and the later is under RfC. The rest of the lead makes it even worse, directly comparing events to the Holocaust. Later, we attribute the designation of genocide to "critics" as well as talking about countries legislatures recognizing events as a genocide. If their recognition/designation is noteworthy, then that means that the baseline is to not consider events a genocide, putting a large dent in the WP:COMMONNAME argument and besides, we should not be making broad statements that a genocide is happening based on the premise of WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue in addition that the title fails precision and consistency as it's not really accurate to whats happening in Xinjiang and every other X Genocide article includes some mention of mass killing or deportation in the lead sentence, which I challenge you to find RS for here. I am of the opinion that "Sinicization of Xinjiang" would be a much better title, to match Sinicization of Tibet. Just because news organizations have called it a genocide doesn't mean we should, not until academic/international consensus says otherwise. Genocide is not a term to be used that lightly. BSMRD (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to suggest that name once the page move protection expires, until then lets hold off on doing anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This article does NOT say "the x Genocide was the genocide of" . My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, I said it doesn't have to to make a wikivoice statement of genocide. BSMRD (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the claim that it's not a Wikivoice statement unless the word "genocide" is repeated twice in the same sentence just doesn't hold up. Repeating the same word twice in one sentence would be poor writing, and every reader understands that we're talking about genocide after the word is mentioned once. Compare to the opening of the article on the Armenian genocide: The Armenian genocide (also known by other names) was the systematic mass murder and ethnic cleansing of around one million ethnic Armenians from Anatolia and adjoining regions by the Ottoman Empire and its ruling party, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), during World War I. It doesn't say, "The Armenian genocide was the genocide ...", and it doesn't have to. It's still clearly a Wikivoice statement that there was an Armenian genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, BSMRD is obviously correct on the language question here. I'm having a hard time believing that you don't see how "The Uyghur genocide is ..." is a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide, and that every reasonable reader will interpret it that way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair there is no respectful way to call everyone who disagrees with you unreasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you're denying that a sentence that very clearly says there is a "Uyghur genocide" says that. This is a basic question of denying that a sentence says what it clearly says. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to even respond to your argument here, because you're flatly asserting that a sentence that obviously says X does not say X. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be going over the line ] wise, lets try not to make it personal. I don’t appear to be the only one asserting that. Are we all being unreasonable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone has made anything close to a personal attack on this talk page besides you, as you have a tendency to accuse people of not having “English comprehension” for disagreeing with you over certain specifics. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it personal (unlike your comment above, which accused BSMRD of having an "english comprehension issue"). I'm trying to point out, in the most polite way possible, that the opening line unambiguously claims that there is a Uyghur genocide, that virtually every reader will interpret it that way. The language of the opening sentence is so unambiguous that it's very difficult to imagine anyone not interpreting it as a Wikivoice statement. At the very least, you can see how virtually every reader will interpret it as a Wikivoice statement, even if you personally believe that it's possible to interpret it in some other way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure its "virtually every reader,” how do you come to that conclusion? Do you have a reliable source? As I and a number of others have pointed out to you that it unambiguously does not make the wikivoice statement you claim is made. As far as I can see we’re just beating a dead horse both about whether or not a wikivoice statement is made in the lead and the larger question (on hold for now) of what is the appropriate name for this page. We should probably stop and wait for the RfC to close and the move protection to expire before continuing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also if thats your concern you are more than welcome to try to get the name changed when that window re-opens. Until then we have a strong consensus that Uyghur genocide is the common name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no such strong consensus and as a user pointed out earlier with a VERY extensive analysis of page sources, such claims that it is the common name are not accurate. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If its not the common name and theres is no consensus how do you explain the page currently being named what it is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Common name is not a self fulfilling prophecy, unless you think citogenesis is a good thing. I would argue that if a variety of journalistic sources start putting the term into their own words months down the line it will be in part because of the insistence of certain editors to keep it as such on this page for no good reason. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That argument would appear to be poisoning the well. We have consensus for the current name, if you want to challenge either that consensus or the move block this is not the way to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not what poisoning the well is and insistence that it is the common name despite cited sources not supporting this conclusion is absolutely a possible source of citogenesis. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The common name is not defined by AI. If not "Uyghur genocide", then what is common name here you think? My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the summary of AI report], and the actual report, it does tell about crimes against humanity. It does not say explicitly it was a genocide, but it does not dispute calling this a genocide either. Welcome to use this source on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• I did not introduce the source to use it but to show that the claim made in the first sentence has not been established. Note that the fact a claim cannot be proved is not a policy-based reason for inclusion. We cannot for example disprove that covid19 was created in a lab, but that does not mean articles should say it was created in a lab. TFD (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the claim (i.e. this "is the ongoing series of human rights abuses") was well established. The problem (if any) is with the title of the page. But what other title of the page would you suggest and why? That must be something widely used by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think precisely this issue is currently being addressed on the RfC above on this page. So whatever consensus will be defined there. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged genocide", at least. That's quite obvious. Dornicke (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reportedly Torture?

Why is this page locked? Why does the Torture subsection in the Human rights abuses section say "reportedly" when the sources give the their own voice to the allegation. There are plenty more sources verifying this allegation. Please add https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/uyghur-xinjiang-tribunal-police-torture/ and https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1005263835/new-report-details-firsthand-accounts-of-torture-from-uyghur-muslims-in-china. Robotokat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not be a tool for US anti-Chinese/anticommunist agenda

Final paragraph of lead and International reactions

The final paragraph of the lead is overly bloated and biased. Currently the first sentence states that international reactions are divided, which is true, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to only list legislative condemnations of China's Xinjiang policies. It is also the longest paragraph in the lead by a decent margin, as it seems to list every legislative condemnation. This creates unnecessary bloat in the lead, creates bias towards these negative voices, and is not an accurate summary of the articles contents, with the "International Reactions" section (which this part of the lead should be summarizing) containing several countries that support China's policies. The paragraph should condense a summary of both positive and negative reactions rather than just listing every negative one.

Also, the international reactions section gives the Anglosphere perhaps too much detail compared to other countries, but I think that's an issue of WP:SYSTEMIC rather than any direct bias, simply due to what English sources cover. BSMRD (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You may right about sections of the lead being bloated, and I agree the list of government motions has grown in length to the extent that they should be summarised and moved to the relevant section, rather than listed. However, it's not biased to exclude announcements from governments supporting China from the lead. There's nothing notable about countries (particularly non-democratic ones) close to China issuing statements in support of it, particularly when experts have said that China is exerting diplomatic & economic pressure on them to do so. Aside from the notability aspect, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and the use of primary sources such as official government statements should be minimised, unless they're particularly notable in themselves (multiple democracies calling China's behaviour a genocide is particularly notable). There's also a WP:WEIGHT issue. It would be undue to mention a number of government statements echoing China's debunked denials in the lead when the experts and scholars are clear that rights abuses are going on. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think statements in support of China should get equal standing to statements against (I probably should have made that clearer). I mostly object to their complete absence besides half of the first sentence, when compared to the detail and weight given to statements against. BSMRD (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think theres a good point to make that the “pro-China” camp is actually multiple different camps, one which denies that the human rights abuses are happening at all and denies the existence of related policies, one which denies the abuses yet supports what the Chinese say are their policies in the region (this one is often couched in a different standard for what qualifies as abuse than that used by international NGOs), and another which does not deny anything and supports the policies that Amnesty etc say are occurring. The problem for us on wikipedia is that all three appear to be WP:FRINGE positions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If it were simply NGOs and individuals that were pro-China I would agree, but several countries have issued statements in support of China's policies which is covered adequately in the body but not the lead, which focuses unduly on the statements against. Clearly in the international community support for China is not a WP:FRINGE position just from reading this article, and the lead should reflect that. That's not a value judgement, but rather an accurate summary of the article's contents and available sources, which the lead is for. Even if you disagree with that, the final paragraph is still too bloated, it just lists various country that have designated policies as a genocide or even said that human rights abuses are occurring, and that list has gotten too long for the lead and needs to be summarized. BSMRD (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What countries are you thinking of? I think the only thing we have like that is an official Emirati endorsement of their anti-terror/anti-extremism policies, thats not direct support and its not support for the more controversial policy aspects of the situation. On the bloat I largely agree with you, I’m just not seeing the bias argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Grabbing the more relevant (and non-paywalled) sources from the international reactions sections as far as individual statements go it seems the Emirati's are the only ones who have issued a direct statement to parallel the ones that populate the lead, however more countries have issued joint statements in support of China than have against, and several have deported Uyghurs back to China, which is a clear declaration of support, even if there is not an "official" declaration. Again, not saying this should have equal weighting to statements calling it a genocide, just that it deserves a larger place in that section of the lead, which would be partially achieved by reducing the amount of focus given to anti-China statements. BSMRD (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In the publications (e.g. ) this is framed as a phenomenon of oppressive regimes supporting each other. So it can be framed like that somewhere in this body of the page, but this hardly belongs to the lead. As a side note, I feel that responses by individual countries should be summarized more briefly on the page unless they do something more serious like sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than watering down what we have I think it might be time for a standalone “Reactions to the Uyghur genocide” page. It does seem to be a bit cluttered as of now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Signing =/= issuing. Deporting Uyghurs back to China does not appear to be "a clear declaration of support” what reliable source are you basing that statement on? I’m confused by "not saying this should have equal weighting to statements calling it a genocide” because thats not what the UAE or joint statements are about, they don’t touch the genocide claim. The two groups of UN statements talk past each other... They aren’t diametrically opposed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it might be time for a standalone “Reactions to the Uyghur genocide” page. But we should keep a short summary of "reactions" and keep things that are not just reactions, such as protests and sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A plurality of countries have rejected the accusations of genocide in Xinjiang, and any discussion of reactions by different countries should reflect this. Specifically, 64 countries have issued a statement rejecting the US' allegations against China, while 39 countries have signed on to a statement criticizing China over human rights in Xinjiang. The idea that we should ignore 64 countries and write them off as lackeys of China - but report statements made primarily by US allies - just strikes me as contrary to Misplaced Pages's ethos as a global encyclopedia. It's significant that the majority of countries that have taken a position on this issue have rejected the accusations made the the US government, and the lede should reflect that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The coverage on the page should be defined (and it is currently defined) not by the number of countries, but by the coverage of reactions in sources. If RS give a lower weight to something, so should we. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV (especially WP:FALSEBALANCE), I don’t think you understand how we do things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

See Also section

Does anyone have any objection if I delete the Rohingya genocide link in the See Also and add a link to Xinjiang conflict instead? I don't think the former has much direct relevance to the article, but the latter has huge relevance. Reesorville (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Reesorville: Seems like a reasonable change. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The highlighted policies by the Government of China ??

The lead speaks of "The highlighted policies by the Government of China include the holding of Uyghurs in state-sponsored internment camps … " it continues with pretty much all the accusations made against the govt - (some of which appear to be fairly indisputably real, like internment through to a fairly poorly sourced accusation of infanticide) .

What are "highlighted policies" ? Does it mean WP asserts that these policies are actually being implemented (like camps) or what? The wording has a weaselly, "hedge our bets" feel to it. If "highlighted" is what is actually meant, who has highlighted these policies? If we mean a list of accusations, perhaps we should just say that. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That appears to have happened here. @My very best wishes: appears to have been trying to remove WP:SYNTH, though I agree with you that the sentence was better when "highlighted" was a verb rather than an adjective. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The text is now certainly less ambiguous, BUT, the problem now is that no distiction is made between very strongly sourced allegations and fairly poorly sourced ones. WPVOICE is now being used to say that the Chinese Govt is practicing infanticide (the ultimate source for this appears to be a single individual Uyghur medic now living in Turkey). Accusations of forced sterilization/abortion/contraception seem 'in-between-y', ie that very considerable pressure is applied to Uyghur women (such as the threat of fines or detention) to comply with 'child limits', seems almost indisputable - to an extent that no one in the West would accept - but it is hardly a secret that China has long pursued extensive pressure on its citizenry to limit family size. Is this 'forced sterilization'? The AP source used as the main source for this claim speaks of "the country’s efforts to … … sterilize, … … large numbers of Uyghur people". No mention there of forced sterilization, though elsewhere there are plenty of accusations of very considerable pressure being applied and some accusations of literal 'forcing'.

As a 'stop-gap' I intend to rephrase the later 'sins' of the govt as accusations, I think we need to be more sure of our ground before the more extreme claims in that list are in WPVOICE. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, Re this edit. Are you seriously saying that the claim of a single Uyghur-medic now living in Turkey (that is who all the sources used refer back to) is sufficient to put in WP:VOICE that the Chinese govt has a conscious policy of infanticide towards Uyghurs exceeding their 'baby-quota'?

The coerced/pressured/forced contraception and abortion I think is more problematic - that I concede indicates a high level of coercion being reported across multiple reliable sources, though many are predicated on the improbability of such birth-rate drops being voluntary, or tiny sample sizes (30 women in the case of the 'major' AP series of articles) rather than positive evidence and high levels of coercion are not quite 'forced' abortion/sterilization etc, particularly in a state where punishment of those exceeding 'baby-quotas' has long been the norm. The main source used makes no such claim, though it is clear about strenuous govt efforts to implement 'baby quota' policies. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes forced sterilization in China is commonplace and also happens outside of this specific context, what exactly are you getting at? High levels of coercion fits the definition of force in the state-citizen relationship, a coerced abortion/sterilization and a forced abortion/sterilization are literally the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you ask the question so bluntly. 1) Are you serious about using the claims of a single ex-pat medic to say in WP:VOICE that China has a conscious policy of infanticide? … because that is the text which you are defending. 2) I don't agree that laws with financial, or other penalties are inherently the same as being 'forced' ... but more important in WP terms, why does the primary source being used to support the claim of forced sterilization not mention forced sterilization anywhere at all? Nor any synonym, even on your terms, simply that the country "makes efforts to … sterilise". Ultimately are we going to 'beef up' already fairly wild claims or are we going to err on the side of caution? In so far as it is relevant, I think it probable that the 'forced' claims have a high degree of truth, I just happen to think that we should marginally understate, not blindly assume that every claim is proven. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I must have missed something, I wasn’t aware that we had an expat medic making claims of infanticide. Which sources cover this?

I also think you need to read the AP source again... They do explicitly talk about force being part of the equation beginning with "While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”” In all they seem to explicitly mention the forced nature a dozen times in the article... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the AP carefully - "according to an AP investigation … based on Govt statistics … interviews with 30 ex-detainees etc … is leading to what some experts are calling" You see the certainty of the claims, I see the qualified, and necessarily limited, nature (one investigation, 30 witnesses?) and this leads me to think we should be stating CLEARLY that these are well sourced accusations not established facts.

The infanticide claim is part of the same para "Chinese government policies have included the arbitrary detention of Uyghurs in state-sponsored internment camps, suppression of Uyghur religious practices, political indoctrination, severe ill-treatment, forced sterilization, forced contraception, forced abortion, and infanticide.. - ie Govt policies include infanticide.

Sources 46-50 all lead back to the claims of a single named Uyghur doctor/medic living in Turkey. Hasiyet Abdulla is variously referred to as a doctor/hospital worker/obstetrician who made these claims in a Radio Free Asia interview and, apart from a few passing inferences in other sources, I know of no other sources. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

30 witnesses is an absolute ton, I’m not sure whats leading you to characterize this as limited. The AP seems to be treating the existence of forced birth control as a fact not an accusation, they appear to have corroborated the allegations and arrived at a clear understanding of what is taking place. Its not our place to second guess the AP. If we’re talking about Abdulla then you mean exile or refugee not expat, nobody has called those groups expats for at least a hundred years although they did once. I do wish we had better sources for the claim of infanticide but the ones we have now are good enough and do say infanticide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

According to this source, "For babies who had been born at the hospital outside of family-planning limits, she said, “they would kill them and dispose of the body.”. Other sources (e.g. ) do consider the infanticide (rather than forced abortion) claim to be true, but I would check what the Amnesty report say about it. It says "only" about forced abortions and sterilizations. All other claims except the actual infanticide seem to be strongly supported as de facto government policies by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Horse Eye's Back, I've no idea what Ms Abdulla's migration status is, you appear to be certain that she is necessarily exiled or a refugee (she couldn't have chosen to work or study outside her native country for non-political reasons - too implausible to even consider?). Nor is her migration status relevant and I therefore used a perfectly standard, neutral UK term for someone living fairly permanently outside their native country. I am an ex-pat in Europe, my brother is an ex-pat in the US, and we happily refer to ourselves thus and neither of us is either an exile or a refugee. Ms Abdulla is much more likely to be a refugee or exile than I am of course, because of her origins, but I don't assume she must be.

There really is no point in arguing with someone who thinks a single interview with a single person from fairly prejudiced sources amounts to a verifiable fact of infanticide being official Chinese govt policy. I'm old enough to have encountered 100s of such emotive claims - some a good deal more reliably sourced than this one, some turned out to be partly true and some pure bullshit, a few even turned out to be understated, but we can only work with what is known at the time. I'm sure AP did their best to verify the claims they make - which is why their claims are worthy of inclusion AT ALL. I cannot agree that a statistical study based on the unlikelihood of changes being voluntary, coupled with 30 interviews and some leaked - possibly authentic - documents passes the WP:VOICE threshold - but then I'm prejudiced because I think even slightly overstated claims weaken, not strengthen the case being made.

My very best wishes, you may realise, but 'your' source is Ms Abdulla again. I agree that the claims other than infanticide are much stronger - I think they are necessarily still claims though. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, maybe these are not official policies, but state-endorsed practices. Does it really matter? Sure, the claims by witnesses can be a matter of concern. They need to be carefully recorded, cross-verified, compared with known facts and interpreted in context of well known policies by this state. That is exactly what the "Amnesty" does . When published by such reputable organization, these are not just mere allegations, but results of published research. Do you have doubts these claims are true? My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"There really is no point in arguing with someone who thinks a single interview with a single person from fairly prejudiced sources amounts to a verifiable fact of infanticide being official Chinese govt policy.” I’m not arguing anything close to that, what gave you that impression? I don’t know what "statistical study based on the unlikelihood of changes being voluntary” you’re referring to, can you link it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pincrete:Again, there are plenty of WP:RS that place these things in their own voice. The occurrence of forced sterilization, in particular, is widely accepted among reliable sources. A short list of such news reports is below, though I could expand upon it if you would like:

1. CNN reports: CNN's reporting found that some Uyghur women were being forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang.
2. The Associated Press, in its highly regarded investigative report, concludes that China regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show.
3. The Wall Street Journal writes that the campaign against the Uyghurs includes political indoctrination, mass internment and forced sterilizations.
4. The New York Times reports that While the authorities have said the birth control procedures are voluntary, interviews with more than a dozen Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Muslim women and men from Xinjiang, as well as a review of official statistics, government notices and reports in the state-run media, depict a coercive effort by the Chinese Communist Party to control the community’s reproductive rights. The authorities pressured women to use IUDs or get sterilized.
5. In the first piece of a Pulitzer-winning investigative series about the Xinjiang internment camps, BuzzFeed News wrote that the camps are part of the government’s unprecedented campaign of mass detention of more than a million people, which began in late 2016. That year Chen Quanguo, the region’s top official and Communist Party boss, whom the US recently sanctioned over human rights abuses, also put Muslim minorities — more than half the region’s population of about 25 million — under perpetual surveillance via facial recognition cameras, cellphone tracking, checkpoints, and heavy-handed human policing. They are also subject to many other abuses, ranging from sterilization to forced labor.
6. Coda Media (RSP Entry) notes that For Uyghurs in Xinjiang, mass imprisonment and surveillance, the separation of families and forced sterilization of women are all part of a grim reality.

Regarding individual instances of sterilization, Nikkei Asia, in 2019, reported on the case of one Uyghur woman, writing: Mehrigul said she felt "tired for about a week, lost my memories and felt depressed." Doctors in the U.S. later said that she had been sterilized. Scholars also widely accept that forced sterilization is occurring. Some scholarly articles of this sort include these three sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, I agree wholeheartedly that the forced removal and incarceration sources are as solid as a rock and the forced abortion/sterilization/contraception sources are much stronger than any infanticide claims - I still don't think that the second group justify WP:VOICE, but I would be content to defer on that. You don't even attempt to answer why one medic's interview on Radio Free Asia (is that a State Dept vehicle? It sounds it), echoed on Fox News and a Catholic News Agency plus one other outlet (all of which attribute the claim ) is adequate to justify WP saying that the Chinese govt has a policy of infanticide against Uighurs, which is the only possible reading of the present text and is a truly extraordinary claim.

My very best wishes, does it matter whether these are govt policies or not? Yes because we say they are. Do I doubt that these things are happening? No I don't particularly, but I care about WP's reputation for neutrallity and whether we are talking about an individual or a state, we have no business framing accusations as facts unless we are on 100% solid ground. The probability that something is occurring is an allegation not a fact. I don't say this because I care a fig about the Chinese govt, which I'm sure is big enough to look after itself - I say it because it discredits WP wholly to print as facts what - for very sound reasons, like difficulty of access - can only be verified as probabilities.

Horse Eye's back - there is no other possible reading of a sentence that begins "Chinese government policies have included … " and ends with "infanticide", (with a long list of 'sins' in between), other than that infanticide is Chinese govt policy. I regard a Radio Free Asia interview, echoed by Fox and a Catholic agency + one other (all of whom attribute anyway, ie accept no responsibility for the truth of the claims they are repeating) with a single individual medic as being about as lousy sourcing as it is possible to get. The reference to statistics was to the study by the man with a German name, which of course points very strongly to coercive methods being employed - but by definition, a statistician in one country cannot do better than point to the probability of something happening half-way across the globe. The study indicates much, it proves nothing IMO. I'm old enough to have read the statistics about Saddam's weapons of mass-destruction and 100s of similar piss-poor claims. Pincrete (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see that study linked as a source for this statement. What is the point of bringing it up? Note that I have not ever given an opinion on whether infanticide should be in the lead all I’ve said is that the sources seem adequate and do use the word, we can take it out of the lead but not the article body. If you’d asked rather than assumed I’d have told you I agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I started this section, which is about ALL the claims made about the Govt of China's policies, because the pre-existing text barely made sense - it was not comprehensible English, wtf are "highlighted policies" and who has highlighted them and are the claims about policies listed true or not? Now that list of Chinese govt policies is phrased as though all of those policies are equally verifiably true, which is now comprehensible, but hardly subtle or complete. I contend that some of those policies are nigh-on indisputable (detention camps and other targetted punitive measures). Some (IMO) should be framed as allegations, since the sourcing though serious is still inherently unverifiable (neither academics nor journalists nor agencies can get access and thus have done the best they can, which includes limited interviews and statistical analysis leading to conclusions about probabilities and likelihoods, but limited factual info). I contend that the sources are more equivocal than our text summarises, we are 'beefing up' IMO. Finally, one claim, the infanticide claim is so piss-poorly sourced that almost no reputable news outlet appears to have touched the story with a barge pole - but here it is on WP phrased as fact, and you have defended both the text and the sources.

I'm not sure what you are now agreeing with me about with regard to infanticide. You appear to agree with me that a single interview (on a state dept funded vehicle) repeated in attributed form on a small number of piss-poor partisan sources is about as dreadful as it is possible to get, yet also appear to be saying that the claim must remain and be phrased in WP:VOICE. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me at all. I don't believe the infanticide claim belongs in the article at all, it's SO WP:FRINGE and SO WP:EXTRAORDINARY but if it remains it should definitely NOT be in the lead, should NOT be in WP:VOICE and should be attributed to an individual medic and news outlet (Radio Free Asia) which originated the claim - in order to give some context. Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the claim of infanticide is fringe or extraordinary based our general knowledge of such policies in this country (and I think it is almost certainly true; we just do not have any actual data), but I would be inclined to remove this claim from the lead simply because it does not appear in the report by Amnesty (this is a kind of a bright line for me). My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that “infanticide” should be dropped from the sentence in the lead, however I think you’re jumping the shark by calling it fringe/extraordinary and saying it shouldn’t be in the article at all. Also just a slight correction... You keep calling RFA “state dept funded” when we all know that isn’t true, they’re funded by the U.S. Agency for Global Media. I know you keep referencing things from the past but lets not live in the past, the state department hasn’t funded RFA for two decades. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You realise that's not better right? Every problem introduced by State Department funding is still introduced by USAGM funding. Their CEO is appointed directly by the president and before that their board was composed of the Secretary of State and 8 others appointed by the President. BSMRD (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have questions about RFA’s reliability you can raise them at the relevant noticeboard. Until then we have a clear consensus that RFA is generally reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We had an RfC on the question of Radio Free Asia's reliability earlier this year, at WP:RSN, which resulted in a consensus that Radio Free Asia is a reliable source. And, noted on WP:RSP, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. and the source is generally reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think many editors would agree that the RFA RfC's consensus was woefully shortsighted. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And the consensus wisely disagrees with them. Despite having one of the most non-neutral leads I have seen in one of these sorts RfCs, the community wisely found a consensus by analyzing coverage of and use of RFA's journalism in reliable sources. The New York Times has even directly republished their reporting that described the 2008 execution of two Uyghurs who allegedly were a part of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. I don't see a need to re-litigate this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what benefit is granted by constantly pointing to the RfC when the source is analyzed on a case by case basis? Paragon Deku (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many benefits of WP:RSP. The most applicable benefit in this specific case is that there's a community consensus on the question of whether its funding model/structure amounts to government co-option—the consensus is that it does not. The existence of centralized consensus on this point ought to avoid (or at least should significantly reduce) scattered discussions related to that particular question, since consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I would argue that the RfC on RFA WAS an example of consensus among a limited group of editors at one place and time. Discussion involving several editors who did not take part in that discussion on this and related pages tells a different story. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that a request for comment that took place on the highly trafficked reliable sources noticeboard, which by the way involved over twenty different editors and was closed by an administrator, falls in the bucket of local consensus. The deprecation RfC for HispanTV, for example, had signifiacntly fewer editors participate, and the deprecation discussion for CGTN had slightly more. In any case, El_C's close of the HispanTV RfC is correctly viewed as a close on an RfC that determined community consensus regarding HispanTV, and Usedtobecool's close of the CGTN RfC is correctly viewed as a close on an RfC that determined community consensus on the reliability of CGTN. I don't see why we would view this differently; if it is the community that achieves a consensus on the unreliability a source on WP:RSN, then surely it's also the community that achieved consensus on the general reliability of Radio Free Asia on that same noticeboard. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed 'infanticide' from the lead as there seems to be consensus here that the infanticide claim is not supported as well as the other claims in that sentence. It's also not referenced anywhere else in the page as far as I can see; I'll add it later below unless someone beats me to it. Retswerb (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've no opinion whatsoever about the general reliability of RFA. Clearly, like BBC world service, it is not WHOLLY independent of the country that funds it, and whose values it exists to promote, but may ordinarily be accurate in what it does report - but reliability somewhat misses the point.

When any news source interviews a subject, the only thing that they NEED to verify is that the 'witness' has really made whatever claims they have made, and ideally that the 'witness' is who they say they are and is credible. RFA could not possibly verify, or even meaningfully attempt to verify, whether infanticide was being practised without wider access to hospitals/medical witnesses, which it appears not to have had. So RFA (and WP), are wholly reliant on the honesty of a single individual, about whom we know almost nothing apart from her name. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that verification by reliable sources can only be conducted in person on the ground? You keep saying that but I’m not so sure its true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't assume that verification has to necessarily be 'on the ground', though that is the simplest, most certain and most reliable verification. If RFA had verified in ANY WAY the claim made by the medic, it is reasonable to assume that RFA would have told us. They don't, so we can only assume that no validating evidence has been found by RFA - yet at least. Also, since at other times we rely heavily on women witnesses' testaments - if infanticide were occurring wouldn't some of these women have known about it, or at least known that they/their friends had given birth, but for some reason never seen the baby therafter? Maybe the medic is telling the truth, and in 9 months time we will all know, or maybe it's simply a sensationalist claim of the kind that often appears in such situations, with which RFA might be complicit, or simply being gullible. We can only work with what is known at the time, but my caution/scepticism is obviously echoed by the 99% of media outlets that have thus far NOT reported this 'scoop'. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust comparison in lede

"This has become the largest-scale and most systematic detention of ethnic and religious minorities since the Holocaust." is a grossly absolutist statement given what the sources actually say. Only two actually make a comparison directly to the Holocaust itself, one of which says it "appears" to be on the same scale and another that essentially says that if Zenz's calculations are correct, then it would be on the same scale. This is not concrete enough to put in wikivoice. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, frankly any sort of comparison to an established genocide should stay out of the lead. It's bound to be inflammatory and considering the disputed nature of what's happening in Xinjiang, any such comparison is going to be a problem. Well sourced discussion in the body could be warranted, but it's not lead material. BSMRD (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with conclusion of both editors above, if included it should not be in WP:VOICE, should be qualified as per the source and as it adds no real info, simply raises the emotional temperature, it doesn't belong in the lead, certainly not in such a prominent position. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly removed it. Irrespective of the ongoing RfC, throughout that discussion (and this one) I've seen a considerable number of editors criticising that comparison in the lead and calling for its removal. My view is that it's obviously problematic. If someone decides to revert me, I suggest they consider re-adding to a less prominent location within the lead and rewriting it as an attributed statement. Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The Council on Foreign Relations has a backgrounder article, "China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang", which manages to describe the situation without mentioning the Holocaust. TFD (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• C-Class Chinese politics articles
• High-importance Chinese politics articles
• WikiProject Chinese politics articles
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class Mass surveillance articles
• Mid-importance Mass surveillance articles
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• Mid-importance contemporary history articles
• Contemporary history task force articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Central Asia articles
• Low-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class ethics articles
• Low-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles