![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I read the trump administration's statement, and it does not appear to use the English word "genocide", but its adjective "genocidal". One can of course feel "suicidal" without committing "suicide". The "free" western media then printed "genocide" in the news and sowing frenzy in their readers. Of course trump's out of office and cannot now be held to account, but if ever the now defunct administration were asked to explain, all they have to say is "go and read our statement carefully. At no time did we say the Chinese carried out genocide, we simply stated that we feel their policy was genocidal." 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Please protect this page against vandals. They are everywere. My name has eaten ( talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The page is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. I don’t think it’s typical to raise the protection level of a page beyond that until we see autoconfirmed editors engaging in edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing. If you believe that this is occurring, you could take it to WP:RPP, though I personally don’t see evidence of an ongoing edit war or disruptive editing series that would justify a higher level of protection at this time. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As of now, we don't know if there is really is a mass murder. That's why the title should be renamed. Cultural genocide refers to the destruction of an ethnicity, which is what is happening there. Tarekelijas ( talk) 09:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Oranjelo's point about fertility has been covered by the Associated Press in detail [3] and falls under genocide. According to the article experts are using the term "demographic genocide". [4] Gators bayou ( talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
genocidethey are formally bound to start a war against China. Of course, it will be vetoed in the UN Security Council, but it still remains a very difficult political matter. It's like
Let's declare war to China and hope that it gets canceled in the last moment before its start.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
So far, the biggest and most cited expert seems to be Adrian zenz and his report is questionable https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/
Claiming genocide without actual hard full evidence is akin to propaganda like on Libya war https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181025-how-the-world-was-misled-into-the-libyan-war/amp/. I recall BBC promoting targeted viagra rape by Libyan soldiers based on just a single verbal account at face value. That was later debunked as false propaganda after the war was finished. It was presented as real despite it was just an allegation promoted as facts. Nowadays we also have targeted rape accounts in China based also on verbal accounts.
That's not proven to be facts but just allegations. Since when does wikipedia claim something as facts when it is still allegations based on insufficient evidence and even the US department lawyers had acknowledged lack of evidence? 49.180.226.13 ( talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree 'cultural genocide' is a better term to use here. If it is just called 'Uighur genocide' it tends to lead people to equate it with the mass murder of Jewish people in World War II or the 1994 Rwanda genocide, but the Chinese gov't isn't being accused of trying to exterminate by mass murder, rather it is being accused of using intense persecution in order to stop the Uighurs from following their culture any longer and making them assimilate into becoming like Han Chinese, which isn't really the same thing as a systematic campaign of mass murder. Yes, it may meet the UN definition of 'genocide', but we also need to consider what the popular understanding and connotations that people carry with the word 'genocide' as well. Reesorville ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The article uses Radio Free Asia as a source which seems quite problematic to me given that it is a primarily US government funded org that was set up by the CIA. We certainly would not use RT or Global Times or any other government propaganda agency so why are we using what is essentially the Western version of Russia Today? PailSimon ( talk) 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
“ | Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, 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. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, entry on Radio Free Asia (RFA) |
Radio Free Asia, a United States government-funded, nonprofit international broadcasting corporation, reported that in 2018, a plaque containing Quranic scriptures, that had long hung outside the front entrance of the mosque, had been removed by the authorities to "eliminate Uyghur faith, literary works, and language". Following this, we should be attributing content solely sourced to RFA as "Radio Free Asia reported" or something along the lines of "a report from Radio Free Asia said". This is in line with how the deprecated(!) Global Times is used (such as in Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, where it is introduced as CCP-affiliated media and attributed thereafter). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Reported is fine", and RFN is reliable, unlike CCP's media. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Amigao removed the following sentence from the lead: "The United States is the only country to have declared the human rights abuses a genocide, a decision made January 19, 2021, by then President Donald Trump despite reservations by the U.S. State Department." Their explanation was "positions of particular countries are already listed below and do not belong in the 3rd paragraph." [7] However they did not move the information elsewhere.
It is relevant to the paragraph it was in, which begins, "International reactions have been mixed, with 54 United Nations (UN) member states supporting China's policies in Xinjiang." The fact that one nation (and only one) classifies it as genocide summarizes international reactions.
TFD ( talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsper MOS:LEAD. I don't think that the internal deliberative processes in the United States regarding its decision to classify meet that threshold. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The statement is an over-simplification given recent events (see: 1). Also, there is a more nuanced treatment of the United States' position in the subsequent section listing out various countries' positions so there is no reason to state only a single country's views in the lead. That would make the lead a bit too US-centric. - Amigao ( talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Should there be some mention of US hybrid warfare efforts? Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson highlights the geopolitical strategy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBthA9OHpFo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 ( talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the fact that calls for a UN Human Rights investigation are discussed in the lede, I believe it is notable that China has invited the UN to visit and worth mentioning in the lede. I appreciate other opinions. Dhawk790 ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I have read the debate about whether to call this a genocide, and I don't intend to re-open that can of worms. Consensus at the moment stands that this is a genocide.
However, it is worth noting that for most people, genocide brings to mind images of mass killings, as in the Armenian, Rwandan, or anti-Jewish genocides of the past. The definition of genocide used here (prevention of births, sterilization, mass internment, cultural suppression) is much less familiar to the vast majority of readers.
The current lead skirts around this, but importantly, does not clarify two things: 1) According to reliable sources, *this* genocide does not include mass killings 2) Nevertheless, the actions of the Chinese government are considered genocide. It describes those actions, but does not make a link to a definition of genocide that helps explain to the reader why this is genocide even though there are no mass killings. We should add a sentence that makes this clear. Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that at that least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass killings, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
can only be plausibly explained by systematic falsification and manipulation of official organ transplant datasets in China. Some apparently nonvoluntary donors also appear to be misclassified as voluntary.The source also notes that
In late 2005, Chinese officials first publicly admitted to the use of organs from executed prisoners. Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source.In its conclusion, the source states that
rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivized by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors.The source also notes a mysterious jump of 25K organs in the system transplanted on a particular day. That is to say, the organ donation program isn't as voluntary as officials portray it as.
[China] has said for many years that it will end the controversial practice. It previously promised to do so by November last year. It's pretty clear that the announcement has been generally met with skepticism, and research has been done towards that end (including by Gutmann, but the doubt of China's ceasing of organ harvesting seems to be pretty common).— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The Xi administration’s (and by extension the Communist Party’s) agenda for Xinjiang seeks to accomplish the same basic goal of removing dissidents and potential dissidents belonging to an ethnic group without the international condemnation and internal strife involved in forced migration and genocide. ...In Xinjiang this effort has three key components. The first is a vast surveillance network which combines a large and extremely active police presence with cutting edge technology designed to monitor the populace at all times. The second is the da fa, meaning “strike hard,”campaign which arrests dissidents and anyone with even a remote connection to dissident activity. The third is the internment camps themselves which forcibly re-educate those arrested.). That article seems to work organ harvesting in at the very end by citing a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and framing it as
new, horrific allegations, though it makes its analysis with respect to genocide independent of the organ harvesting as a whole. Another source writes about organ harvesting of Uyghurs, saying that
Uighur prisoners serve a growing demand, as their organs are classified as halal, which points to a motive of harvesting organs for the sake of obtaining halal organs. In short, there's a lot of mention of the organ harvesting, and there is some mention of the harvesting in those articles that describe the situation as a genocide, but most of the sources that describe the situation as a genocide don't seem to rely on the organ harvesting in making that determination.
organ harvesting and human trafficking are other atrocities regularly committed against Uyghurs and other people designated enemies of the state.Fox News reports that
human rights activists and international leaders are collecting evidence that the beleaguered Uighur Muslim community in Xinjiang province, also known as East Turkistan, could be the latest in a long line of state-sanctioned "victims" being killed for their hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys and other vital body parts – sometimes extracted from their bodies while still alive.Public Radio International appears to put the organ harvesting on the same level as the forced sterilization, writing that
After more than 70 years of Chinese rule over the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, there’s mounting evidence that in recent years, their occupation has intensified into an environment of strict surveillance, with more than a million Uighurs held in internment camps. Reports show many are forced to pick cotton and work in factories that supply international brands and that some Uighurs are even subjected to forced sterilizations and organ harvesting.Nepali news site Khabarhub reported that
a recent report documented how the religious minority has been subject to massacres, mass internment camps, torture, organ harvesting, and disappearances in addition to forced birth control and sterilization. News.com.au has reported that
healthy prisoners are euthanised so their internal organs can be removed and sold on a lucrative multibillion-dollar black marketin a story that was republished by The Queensland times.
The piece states that Conspiracy theorists, not content with the possibility of an accidental leak of the virus, argue that Covid-19 was an experimental biological weapon
and that the veracity of such claims may be highly questionable.
I don't think that's favorable coverage of the people who think it's an engineered bioweapon (though you are certainly justified in worrying that it strongly entertains a lab leak theory, which
per a recent RfC got a no consensus on if it is a
WP:FRINGE theory/conspiracy theory). It's certainly not a
WP:MEDRS, and I would not use it to make medical claims, but I don't think it's completely out-of-line on the claim regarding Halal organs. Other sources, such as
Taiwan News,
Radio Free Asia, and the
Sydney Morning Herald have reported on allegations of the sort before. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
07:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@mike. Can't you supply a better source? How can you spin 25000 transplants into the killing of 25000 uyghurs by the Chinese government? I hope you realise when you die, say in the UK, and they take your body for organ donation, they can without your consent take all your organs, eg heart, 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, liver, 2 corneas, maybe even your face, 4 limbs, etc for transplant. Therefore 1 dead body can give multiple organ transplants. 25000 transplants come from far fewer than 25000 dead people. You also spin the rumours into 25000 people must be 25000 people from Xinjiang, and because it is Xinjiang, then they must all be uyghurs, and these uyghurs must be uyghur prisoners, and all uyghur prisoners must be political prisoners. Do you think there are no Han Chinese prisoners in Xinjiang, and that uyghurs do not do crimes? None of the sources you quote claim that all the organs for the transplantation came from the one province in China called Xinjiang, let alone that they came from uyghurs. Tell me when you take organs for transplantation, can you just transplant them into anyone? Of course not, the recipients have to be compatible with the donors. I would say the chance of a match between a uyghur Chinese and a Han Chinese is a lot lower than a match between their respective peoples. Most of the organ from uyghurs would probably be transplanted into other uyghurs, and if they go to foreigners, as some of your sources claim, the most likely recipients are turkish people. You also spin the story into something like a horror movie, that uyghurs are killed to order for their organs, which is total nonsense. In China, there is the death sentence, but it is only carried out for very severe crimes. Even so, the Chinese system is however still a lot fairer than the system in america, as you can see people such as George Floyd was killed by government agents without the chance of a trial or prison. There is not just the one George Floyd, think of all the other Black people who are killed that way, no trial and no chance of prison. Those in China who are executed probably deserve to be executed in the eyes of their local people. In america Black people are lynched for committing no crimes at all. If you are really concerned about organ harvesting, then you should be more concerned about not letting things as in the following reference happen to people in your country
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9419141/Teenager-18-declared-brain-dead-hit-van-wakes-up.html , where in the UK they can declare you dead when you are not, so that they can harvest your organs.
81.141.207.254 (
talk)
15:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutmann's estimates should definitely stay, and there are other sources who state that killings are happening like the Newline report. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjelo100 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
After thinking about this a bit more and reading through sources in responses to questions from Jr8825, I'm actually not sure that we should report that there are in fact no mass killings of Uyghurs; I don't think that is what reliable sources are stating in their more recent coverage. Enough reliable sources are reporting on the organ harvesting stuff (see my comments above) that us trying to write the article in a way that mass killings do not in fact happen actually seem to not be supported by RS. If forcible organ harvesting—the killing of live Uyghurs for their organs—is going on in Xinjiang as these RS report, then we should report the organ harvesting on the page with details from sources. I'm also not able to find reliable sources that deny the organ harvesting outright, though if they exist then I would ask an editor to provide them since it would help provide balance in the article. Additionally, I'd like to raise the point that there have also been widely reported allegations of infanticide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The specific allegations are that Chinese doctors have been ordered by officials to kill Uyghur infants, which would reasonably constitute mass killing of infants if true (though obviously the comments should be attributed to the alleging party when we write in wikivoice, owing to the way that the allegations are being covered in the sources). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Adrian Zenz is not a credible source, and everything about this ultimately leads back to him. He is a religious right extremist, an anti-Semite, a women's rights opponent, and based all of his claims on a single report by Istiqlal TV. "Even more deranged, Zenz’s big genocide study claimed that women in Xinjiang receive 800 to 1600 IUD insertions per capita. That means every Uighur woman is surgically implanted with 4 to 8 IUDs every single day of the year." https://www.mintpressnews.com/china-uighur-genocide-behind-us-government-propaganda/276085/?fbclid=IwAR0bVpitL9_rklQJxqBCw8iKkCoPQ7dwjQGDQ2gt44cdXCcCMFYqtMXUg94 -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 04:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Mintpress is a conspiracy theories promoting site. This isn't a reliable source. His religious believes are irrevelant to Uyghur genocide. Data is available showing massive drops in birth rates. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 09:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You need to provide reliable sources for those claims, without that it's wp:synth and wp:or. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This is off-topic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also WP:FORUM. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 06:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
When the VCMF was brought up at the RSN, the reception was overwhelmingly negative, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation. I agree that claims by Zenz should be attributed, but he's such a consistent presence in mainstream coverage of Uyghur issues that we can't avoid discussing his claims. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
an independent reseracher and expert on human rights abuses in China. The fact that he works for VCMF (and the nature of VCMF) is not described, though they are clearly relevant, given the claims he's making. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
To further this vision, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's mission is to educate future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism and to advocate for the freedom of those still held captive by communist regimes. Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.
@
Hemiauchenia: The
discussion regarding the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is based upon the question, "Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?
". This is not the question that we are attempting to answer here, which is about the credibility of Adrian Zenz, but instead is about the general reliability of the group as it is. Instead, to determine the credibility of Zenz more generally, let's examine what
reliable sources say about Zenz's work.
Perennial reliable sources, such as the
Wall Street Journal, have referred to Zenz's work as "groundbreaking, empirical work" in their
news reporting (their editorial board also
notes elsewhere that, Reuters "has independently
corroborated the Zenz documents and evidence"). His work in the Journal of Political Risk has been cited to back up facts in a paper published in
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, editorials from
The Washington Post (
1
2
3
4), as well as other reports from reliable news organizations (including
The Independent and
the BBC). His other work has been explicitly cited or positively described countless times by a plethora of reliable news organizations, including The Washington Post (
1
2
3
4
5
6), The New York Times (
1
2
3), The Wall Street Journal (
1
2), Reuters (
1
2
3
4
5
6),
ABC News , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (
1
2
3
4
5
6
7), the Associated Press (
1
2
3
4
5 ), the
CBC,
Axios, Fox News (
1
2
3),
NBC News, NPR (
1
2), and many others. If widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that Zenz is not a credible source. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
[b]eing called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting" in this particular case. It's an argument (albeit not phrased super clearly; my bad) that he's considered to be an expert investigative researcher by people who also work in the field of investigative reporting and might be qualified to give a professional judgement on this count, since the two oftentimes perform similar sorts of work in bringing malfeasance to light.
Not much to add here. Zenz is reliable according to multiple rses. Also here, Adrian Zenz is called a leading China scholar. [16] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.). We really have to attribute his claims. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
no identifiable expertise on Chinadoes not appear to be true, and the information I've included her about books and journal articles of his can also be found on his wikipedia page. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
much of Zenz’s research has been corroborated by other scholars and independent media outlets, and this work involves heavy analysis of primary government document sources, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to conclude anything other than that he is literate in Chinese. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Has Zenz found those WMDs in Iraq yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E5:5F01:6800:C67:3CA5:9B59:8A4 ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is. Consensus for one-year moratorium unless substantial new information arises in reliable sources also exists, and a note will be added to FAQ atop the talk page.
After a full week of discussion on this (and noting, but not really weighing in assessing consensus here, that there have been several discussions before), there is certainly no consensus to move to “Uyghur cultural genocide.” A preponderance of the arguments offering putative support to move from the current name question the veracity of genocide claims, but largely do not proffer evidence that a cultural genocide is, instead, what is happening. Some gesture towards the possibility of adding a word like “alleged” to the title, but that is generally opposed here largely per
WP:WEASEL.
As for assessment of what reliable sources say on the matter, the conversation is somewhat bifurcated between consideration of
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:CRITERIA. While much discussion exists over the extent to which reliable sources call this the “Uyghur genocide” as compared to saying that government officials call it the “Uyghur genocide,” there is certainly not evidence provided here that such sources instead use “Uyghur cultural genocide” as the common name. Taking that fact alongside arguments about the naming criteria in general, each of the five criteria—recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency—do seem to gesture towards the current name being acceptable, as several editors point out. As such, I find that there is an affirmative consensus against moving this page to “Uyghur cultural genocide” and an affirmative consensus, albeit a weaker one, that “Uyghur genocide” is the appropriate name.
Finally, with respect to the proposed moratorium, there is clearly fatigue with the iterative nature of these requested moves. However, that is part of how a collaborative encyclopedia like this works; to a large degree, such content disputes are a proof of concept that this sort of thing works. That said, I do find a consensus exists that, barring substantial new information, editors should avoid requesting another move until March 2022. As a practical matter, two things are true:
That said, this should be interpreted mostly as a gentle nudge against starting a new requested move and to let this article sit for a while unless there is overwhelming evidence against that presumption. I will defer to other editors active on this page as to how best, in light of this close, to phrase a note in the FAQ (if for no other reason than I don’t know that I know how to edit a page FAQ), but I would encourage a short summary of this close statement with an eye towards discouraging move requests in the absence of clear new information.
Thanks to all participants for constructive engagement on such a fraught and important topic and for spirited advocacy of positions. It is thanks to this kind of work that the encyclopedia goes ‘round. I am happy to discuss my assessment of consensus here on my talk page or in the appropriate review channels as warranted. Respectfully,
Go
Phightins
!
12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Uyghur genocide →
Uyghur cultural genocide – The title should reflect the common viewpoint -- the full genocide declaration is controversial as it is unclear whether mass killings/mass sterilizations have occurred on a systemic scale.
Dazaif (
talk)
06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The UN definition of genocide specifically refers to "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". We now know that China is forcing many Uyghur women to get IUDs (with no string for self-removal) after they have 1 child, whereas Han women are entitled to 2 children, sometimes more. It's also clear that China's birth restriction policies are being intentionally far more vigorously enforced in Uyghur areas than anywhere else, with sterilization as a primary tactic. Additionally, there are credible reports of systemic coerced marriages of Uyghur women to Han men. This stuff constitutes clear "intent to destroy" "in part" the Uyghurs by "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", so this is a genocide per the UN definition. With the intent to destroy established, the clause "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" is also apparently engaged.The writer cited statements from an expert source contained in coverage from an article which was written by a wire service and republished in the Japan Times. (From the best I can tell, the wire story was an AP story, but I am unsure given that the link was not archived before the newspaper's permissions to republish the wire story had expired.)
many sources calling it genocide, for instance [17] [18] [19] [20] German sources: [21] [22].
genocide is not limited to the cultural realm", citing an article in the National Review.
consensus in reliable sources" changed quickly and there existed "
sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide".
when journalists like myself started reporting that China was putting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in internment camps, experts said we shouldn’t call it genocide — yet. ... That's changed." The article proceeds to describe the various human rights abuses that have been taken against the Uyghurs, as well as confirming that RS have shifted from hesitating on describing this as a genocide. The article also affirmatively states that there is evidence that China is in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide and that such evidence "
has come in recent months from Uyghur testimonies as well as the Chinese government’s own statistics about Xinjiang, the northwestern region where Uyghurs are concentrated." The piece goes on to say that "
China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials" of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
China's campaign of cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang" and has also simply referred to the abuses as the "Uyghur genocide" in its straight news reporting. As I've noted in above discussions on this page, the editorial board of The Washington Post has repeatedly referred to the ongoing situation as a "genocide." I could continue to go on and on with sources, though it should be clear by now that reporting in RS indicates that "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the article's topic. And, in light of reporting from the RS I have listed and other reliable sources, I think that we very well might actually have a consensus among RS that actions taken by the government of China against the Uyghur people are in violation of at least one portion of the UN genocide convention. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Dazaif: It's a genocide period. [1]
literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim"... the source is an editorial/blog, or that the source is
highly dubious. This is plainly false. I have explicitly enumerated many news pieces in my !vote above that plainly state what is going on in their own voice and are reputable. Axios uses the term "Uyghur genocide" as a matter-of-fact statement describing the ongoing situation. The Globe and Mail reported that that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." The Vox piece reports, without any sort of hedging, that "China transfers many of the detainees to factories across the country to perform forced labor. There’s evidence that this forced labor has leached into the global supply chain for products we all use, from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon." The same Vox piece reported that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials. They show that as the network of camps grew, women were threatened with internment if they violated the birth control policies for rural Uyghurs (maximum three kids per family)" and that the ongoing situation "looms as one of the most horrifying humanitarian crises in the world today." Vox and Axios are WP:GREL, The Globe and Mail is a highly reputable WP:NEWSORG that is Canada's most widely read newspaper on every day but Sunday, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reputable news organization that is editorially independent and is so reliable that Reuters considers has them as a news partner. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The State Department declared on Tuesday that the Chinese government is committing genocide... The Chinese government has rejected any accusations of genocide.
The U.S. secretary of state’s accusation of genocide against China touches on a hot-button human rights issue between China and the West... China strongly defends its human rights record and policies in Xinjiang, saying its constitution and laws treat all citizens equally.
The Trump administration has characterised the repression of Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province ... Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said: "Pompeo‘s comment on Xinjiang is just another one of his ridiculous lies..."
According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these actions constitute genocide... Uighur activist groups have also formally alleged that genocide is taking place... China has long denied accusations of human rights abuses against Uighurs.
The last official act of out-going US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was to accuse China of perpetrating "genocide" against its Uyghur population.
A US congressional commission said that China may have committed genocide in its Xinjiang region.
The Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghur has violated “each and every act” prohibited by the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, a report by dozens of international experts alleged Tuesday. The report from Washington-based think tank Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy offers an independent analysis of what legal responsibility Beijing could bear over its actions in the northwestern Xinjiang region.
Blinken said in January that he agreed with a determination by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, that China was committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, which China denies.
The United States government already has characterized China’s conduct in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
Human rights organizations, UN officials, and many foreign governments are urging China to stop the abuses, which the United States has described as genocide. But Chinese officials maintain that what they call vocational training centers do not infringe on Uyghurs’ human rights... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that China is committing crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs.
use of forced abortions, IUDs and sterilisation has seen birth rates in Uyghur-dominated areas drop rapidlyand that the Chinese government
regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on hundreds of thousands. The piece also contains a quote by Joanne Smith Finley, who the ABC describes as an expert on Xinjiang from Newcastle University in the UK. In the piece, she says
"It's genocide, full stop. It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot-type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide.".
draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children. The report noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide" to refer to what is going on.
data show authorities have regularly forced pregnancy tests, birth control, sterilization and abortion on hundreds of thousands of Uighur women to suppress the population, among other repressions.The piece also noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide".
some Uyghur women were forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang.There are also a few sources I have found ( 1 2) that have republished a wire story from CNN that states that
China is often accused of a lack of transparency, as well as grave human rights abuses like the Uyghur genocide happening currently.
the birth rate in Xinjiang has plummeted in the past few years, according to independent research - an effect analysts have described as "demographic genocide".
China regularly conducts pregnancy checks, forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on some of the Xinjiang region's minority women.The source notes that
the draconian effort, which has been carried out in the western region of Xinjiang over the past four years, has been described by some experts as "demographic genocide." It coincides with years of restrictions and human rights abuses against Uighurs and other majority-Muslim ethnic groups in China under the authoritarian leadership of Xi Jinping.The source also, citing their own reporter, states that
China's policies in Xinjiang have been considered cultural genocide; a policy of forced sterilization and abortion imposed on minority populations would bring their policies closer to the textbook definition of actual genocide.Later reporting from Axios described a
cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiangin July, August, and September 2020. Even later, in February 2021, Axios began using the term "Uyghur genocide" without any sort of qualifier.
media reports and independent research shows that in the internment camps, Uyghurs are indoctrinated on the “backwardness” of their identity and subjected to a wide range of mental, physical and sexual abuses. They are forced to recite Chinese Communist Party propaganda and renounce Muslim religious practicesand that
[a]ccording to media reports and independent researchers, Chinese officials have engaged in a forced sterilization effort targeting Uyghur women living in certain regions.
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.The many reliable sources ( ABC, The Times of London, Fox News, The Guardian, Reuters, China Digital Times, Catholic News Agency, Council on Foreign Relations, USA Today) have generally republished the information without comment, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS is evidence of the source's reliability. There are also reports of mass rape aside from the BBC's investigation that have gotten a large amount of coverage from reliable sources as well ( New Zealand Herald, The Independent).— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.? The BBC is pretty clear that there is systematic rape, sexual abuse, and torture. Are you saying that the BBC, whose reporting on this specific issue has been widely cited by reliable sources, is not reliable here for statements of fact? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The BBC specifically says that it cannot verify the claims:
It is impossible to verify Ziawudun's account completely: [50]. Reuters explicitly describes these claims as allegations, and says that it cannot verify them either: [51]. We can't jump from news accounts that report about allegations to claiming, in Wikivoice, that those allegations are true. This is an extremely basic question of how to read and use sources. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. "Criterion (d)", as you're calling it, is only "genocide" if it is part of a deliberate policy to wipe out the entire group. Based on your interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the One Child Policy, which dramatically reduced the birth rate among majority ethnic group in China, the Han, would have been a "genocide" against the Han people. Yet everyone recognizes that that wasn't a "genocide". But most importantly, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when they believe a genocide is occurring - reliable sources do not call this a genocide, so Wikipedia cannot either. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say: You haven't shown any reliable sources that state that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. In order to put such an extreme claim in Wikivoice, you'd expect editors to show a strong consensus of reliable sources. But you haven't provided even a single one that does so, much less any sort of consensus. To the contrary, it's been abundantly demonstrated above that reliable sources scrupulously attribute such claims, which means that we also have to attribute them, and cannot put them in Wikivoice. You're simply asserting that your preferred (and likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention is correct, that it applies to Xinjiang, and that we should therefore do something that the reliable sources do not do - label the situation in Xinjiang a "genocide". - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide". It noted an increasing trend towards being
unqualified by the modifier "cultural"(also mentioned in the Quartz article paraphrasing Finley), but did not state that it was more prevalent yet. — MarkH21 talk 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).
Chinese government gave explicit orders to "eradicate tumours", "wipe them out completely", "destroy them root and branch", “round up everyone", and "show absolutely no mercy", in regards to Uyghurs. [2] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
A US think-tank has accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. Al Jazeera only says that the think tank claims the Chinese government used the phrases you're quoting, and the article does not say what those quotes refer to. The key point here is that Al Jazeera, like other reliable sources, does not treat these allegations as facts, but rather attributes them. Wikipedia cannot state, as a matter of fact, that there is a genocide in Xinjiang, when reliable sources treat this as a contested claim. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Camp guards reportedly follow orders to uphold the system in place until ‘Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and other Muslim nationalities, would disappear...until all Muslim nationalities would be extinct’.” [3] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It includes five possible methods by which perpetrators may try to achieve that goal, but without "intent to destroy" the group, there is no genocide. In the case we're talking about, there is no evidence of mass killing, and in fact, the Uyghur population continues to grow. You are arguing that China's birth control policy (limiting urban families to two children, and rural families to three children) constitutes "genocide", an argument that would also mean that China has been perpetrating "genocide" against the majority Han population since 1979. Your argument is original research, and does not reflect any sort of consensus view of the international community. In fact, 64 UN member states have disputed allegations of genocide made by the US ( Reuters). Even the US State Department's accusations go against the findings of its own Office of the Legal Advisor ( Foreign Policy).
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. You're arguing that there's intent, and then arguing that birth control policies amount to genocide. You can argue that (and there are others who will argue that you're completely wrong), but it's your argument, not something that we can put in Wikivoice. Regardless of how you, I or even the US government may view this issue, we have to acknowledge that the allegations of "genocide" are just that - allegations. They have been rejected by 64 countries, and even by the US Department of State's own Office of the Legal Advisor. We can present those allegations, but presenting them in Wikivoice is a massive breach of WP:NPOV. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say.So the claims of the obscure "Newlines Institute" (which is apparently an appendage of the equally obscure "Fairfax University", a "university" with a few dozen students that nearly had its accreditation stripped two years ago - according to the Washington Post,
Another council-accredited school, Fairfax University of America, formerly known as Virginia International University, was nearly forced to close in 2019 after a state audit blasted the quality and rigor of its online education program.Even the board that accredited Fairfax University is extremely controversial, as described by the Washington Post.) should be treated as fact, but a declaration by 64 UN member states doesn't matter? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed.—no, it doesn't; it simply shows how much support China can drum up on this issue internationally, and nothing more. I would agree with you if this list would include countries not so heavily associated with China, countries more directly involved (e.g. China's Central Asian neighbours), or countries with a better human rights record. That would indicate an actual dispute, but this simply doesn't. Remember, whole countries can happily deny all accusations of genocide, no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. TucanHolmes ( talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The only weight is that China has strong economic influence over many countries. [4] [5] [6] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
China's treatment of its Uighur population violates every provision of the United Nations' genocide convention, according to a damning new report published Tuesday by dozens of experts on international law, genocide and Chinese ethnic policies.(emphasis added)
sweeping reportand that
independent researchers say China is now engaged in "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and other minorities, including Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks.The paper has separately called the document an
extensive reportthat was
based on interviews with former detainees and other evidence.
Chinese authorities’ treatment of Uygurs in China’s northwest meets every criteria of genocide under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, said a group of experts in international law, war crimes and the Xinjiang region in a new analysis.(emphasis added)
documents about mass deaths, selective death sentence, and prolonged imprisonment of elders, in addition to other series of abuses that authorities commit against the Uyghur people(original source in spanish). And, the same source says that
more than 50 global experts on human rights, war crimes, and international law. The same source says that the group of experts
examined a series of free and verifiable evidence, including state communications and testimonies of witnesses.(translations my own)
widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. We're seeing just that with the Newlines Report. It ain't original research to cite reliable sources. WP:USEBYOTHERS also states that
widespread doubts about reliability weigh againstuse of a source. Since you would seem to believe that the particular report is unreliable, in light of the widespread citation without comment for facts, I would kindly ask that you provide sources to back up your doubts on the reliability on the specific report.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgengave: Killing tens of thousands a year for organs is mass killings so it's not only mass rapes and sterilizations and there are other sources mentioning killings and mass deaths in camps. Not to mention camp guards received instuctions to make Muslim ethnic groups extinct. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
mposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupas a genocide, which China is definitely doing to the Uyghurs according to reliable sources. Loki ( talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But it really doesn't matter how any editor here interprets the Genocide Convention. What matters is whether reliable sources treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang. As has been shown above, they attribute such claims, and also note opposing views (such as those of the US State Department's legal advisors, and those of 64 member states of the UN). We simply cannot state in Wikivoice, based on Wikipedia editors' own personal (and very likely incorrect) interpretations of UN conventions, that there is a genocide. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
In 1944, as Lemkin, a Jew, witnessed the horrors of Nazism, it occurred to him that the vocabulary of modern law was missing a word, so he coined one: "genocide." Over the years, the term has taken on a specific legal definition, but Lemkin had a broad understanding of it. "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings," he noted. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups." Such a plan is unfolding now in Xinjiang. As in the cases that inspired Lemkin, it is happening under a shield of state sovereignty.The New Yorker is also listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, with editors noting its robust fact-checking process. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
When Anar Sabit was in her twenties and living in Vancouver, she liked to tell her friends that people could control their own destinies.The essay continues in a similar vein. The New Yorker is a magazine, and does not only publish straight news articles - it also publishes content that mixes personal narration, opinion and fact. That's fine, but it should not be confused with objective news reporting. As has been shown over and over again above, reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide, rather than putting them in their own authoritative voice. To put something that reliable sources consistently treat as an allegation in Wikivoice because of a single narrative essay would be absurd. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
it is almost universally described as genocide. This is simply untrue, and has been shown above by Darouet (and others), reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide in Xinjiang to those parties making the claims. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Also this report: [56] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Misleading and undefined, so-called “cultural genocide” does NOT exist as a crime punishable under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
“Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” [ [57]] -- Ooligan ( talk) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
References:
To provide a bit of context: the previous move discussion, which was closed in August of 2020, resulted in the page being moved from Uyghur cultural genocide to Uyghur genocide. At the time, a rough consensus had been established for the move. The closer, OhKayeSierra, noted that over the time period during which the close occurred, many editors moved from supporting the page title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" to Uyghur genocide. In particular, the closer noted that editors who initially supported the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" had changed their !vote on the issue based upon the coverage of the topic provided by reliable sources that were published during the time of the move discussion. I've provided a more detailed summary of the arguments in favor of the move at that time in my !vote in the survey section above. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Also these sources. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Study released by the Essex Court Chambers concluded that there is "a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uighur people in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and describes how the minority group has been subject to "enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilisation and persecution." Oranjelo100 ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing that a 1 year move moratorium be enacted on the page, regardless of the outcome of this RM. I see no indication that consensus has changed since the initial RM. If anything, per Mikehawk10's rationale, it seems that the majority of reliable sources have been increasingly referring to it as a genocide. I don't think there's much to be gained from multiple RM's being churned out for the same topic in less than a year's time, especially for one as controversial as this. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion.That's simply not true. Moratoriums are used to limit disruption (both unintentional and otherwise) that stem from multiple consecutive RM's. Kyiv and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are two of the most recent examples that come to mind, though I'm sure there are many other articles that have required RM moratoriums and benefitted from it. For example, I remember closing the second most recent RM with Kiev as not moved with a strong consensus against moving to Kyiv with the moratorium taking effect shortly thereafter. After the moratorium lapsed, there were enough reliable sources to justify moving it from Kiev to Kyiv, so consensus naturally swayed towards moving it. So my suggestion that this could benefit from a moratorium is hardly unprecedented, and the article would actually benefit from having it in place. Additionally, when you say
There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars., you haven't shown that in your RM request at all. As the requester, the onus would be on you to prove that moving it is necessary. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 23:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title.That's simply not true, and my rationale for why I think this is beneficial for the article has been detailed multiple times above. My reply to Dazaif may be of interest to you. WP:AGF, please. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Repetitive move discussions in the absence of substantial new information take up time that could be better spent elsewhere and it seems WP:CCC would indicate that it would be a good practice to avoid repeating move proposals in the absence of substantial new information that would be likely to change consensus. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I read the trump administration's statement, and it does not appear to use the English word "genocide", but its adjective "genocidal". One can of course feel "suicidal" without committing "suicide". The "free" western media then printed "genocide" in the news and sowing frenzy in their readers. Of course trump's out of office and cannot now be held to account, but if ever the now defunct administration were asked to explain, all they have to say is "go and read our statement carefully. At no time did we say the Chinese carried out genocide, we simply stated that we feel their policy was genocidal." 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:158A:6346:3A72:62C8 ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Please protect this page against vandals. They are everywere. My name has eaten ( talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The page is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. I don’t think it’s typical to raise the protection level of a page beyond that until we see autoconfirmed editors engaging in edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing. If you believe that this is occurring, you could take it to WP:RPP, though I personally don’t see evidence of an ongoing edit war or disruptive editing series that would justify a higher level of protection at this time. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As of now, we don't know if there is really is a mass murder. That's why the title should be renamed. Cultural genocide refers to the destruction of an ethnicity, which is what is happening there. Tarekelijas ( talk) 09:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Oranjelo's point about fertility has been covered by the Associated Press in detail [3] and falls under genocide. According to the article experts are using the term "demographic genocide". [4] Gators bayou ( talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
genocidethey are formally bound to start a war against China. Of course, it will be vetoed in the UN Security Council, but it still remains a very difficult political matter. It's like
Let's declare war to China and hope that it gets canceled in the last moment before its start.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
So far, the biggest and most cited expert seems to be Adrian zenz and his report is questionable https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/
Claiming genocide without actual hard full evidence is akin to propaganda like on Libya war https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181025-how-the-world-was-misled-into-the-libyan-war/amp/. I recall BBC promoting targeted viagra rape by Libyan soldiers based on just a single verbal account at face value. That was later debunked as false propaganda after the war was finished. It was presented as real despite it was just an allegation promoted as facts. Nowadays we also have targeted rape accounts in China based also on verbal accounts.
That's not proven to be facts but just allegations. Since when does wikipedia claim something as facts when it is still allegations based on insufficient evidence and even the US department lawyers had acknowledged lack of evidence? 49.180.226.13 ( talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree 'cultural genocide' is a better term to use here. If it is just called 'Uighur genocide' it tends to lead people to equate it with the mass murder of Jewish people in World War II or the 1994 Rwanda genocide, but the Chinese gov't isn't being accused of trying to exterminate by mass murder, rather it is being accused of using intense persecution in order to stop the Uighurs from following their culture any longer and making them assimilate into becoming like Han Chinese, which isn't really the same thing as a systematic campaign of mass murder. Yes, it may meet the UN definition of 'genocide', but we also need to consider what the popular understanding and connotations that people carry with the word 'genocide' as well. Reesorville ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The article uses Radio Free Asia as a source which seems quite problematic to me given that it is a primarily US government funded org that was set up by the CIA. We certainly would not use RT or Global Times or any other government propaganda agency so why are we using what is essentially the Western version of Russia Today? PailSimon ( talk) 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
“ | Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, 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. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, entry on Radio Free Asia (RFA) |
Radio Free Asia, a United States government-funded, nonprofit international broadcasting corporation, reported that in 2018, a plaque containing Quranic scriptures, that had long hung outside the front entrance of the mosque, had been removed by the authorities to "eliminate Uyghur faith, literary works, and language". Following this, we should be attributing content solely sourced to RFA as "Radio Free Asia reported" or something along the lines of "a report from Radio Free Asia said". This is in line with how the deprecated(!) Global Times is used (such as in Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, where it is introduced as CCP-affiliated media and attributed thereafter). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Reported is fine", and RFN is reliable, unlike CCP's media. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Amigao removed the following sentence from the lead: "The United States is the only country to have declared the human rights abuses a genocide, a decision made January 19, 2021, by then President Donald Trump despite reservations by the U.S. State Department." Their explanation was "positions of particular countries are already listed below and do not belong in the 3rd paragraph." [7] However they did not move the information elsewhere.
It is relevant to the paragraph it was in, which begins, "International reactions have been mixed, with 54 United Nations (UN) member states supporting China's policies in Xinjiang." The fact that one nation (and only one) classifies it as genocide summarizes international reactions.
TFD ( talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsper MOS:LEAD. I don't think that the internal deliberative processes in the United States regarding its decision to classify meet that threshold. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The statement is an over-simplification given recent events (see: 1). Also, there is a more nuanced treatment of the United States' position in the subsequent section listing out various countries' positions so there is no reason to state only a single country's views in the lead. That would make the lead a bit too US-centric. - Amigao ( talk) 01:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Should there be some mention of US hybrid warfare efforts? Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson highlights the geopolitical strategy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBthA9OHpFo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.103.221 ( talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the fact that calls for a UN Human Rights investigation are discussed in the lede, I believe it is notable that China has invited the UN to visit and worth mentioning in the lede. I appreciate other opinions. Dhawk790 ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I have read the debate about whether to call this a genocide, and I don't intend to re-open that can of worms. Consensus at the moment stands that this is a genocide.
However, it is worth noting that for most people, genocide brings to mind images of mass killings, as in the Armenian, Rwandan, or anti-Jewish genocides of the past. The definition of genocide used here (prevention of births, sterilization, mass internment, cultural suppression) is much less familiar to the vast majority of readers.
The current lead skirts around this, but importantly, does not clarify two things: 1) According to reliable sources, *this* genocide does not include mass killings 2) Nevertheless, the actions of the Chinese government are considered genocide. It describes those actions, but does not make a link to a definition of genocide that helps explain to the reader why this is genocide even though there are no mass killings. We should add a sentence that makes this clear. Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that at that least 25,000 Uyghurs being killed by government for organs every year counts as mass killings, and there are reports of other killings unrelated to organs, with crematoria built to dispose victims. Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy report says that CCP breached all articles in genocide convention, including killing members of the group. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Another source supporting mass murder organ harvesting. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
can only be plausibly explained by systematic falsification and manipulation of official organ transplant datasets in China. Some apparently nonvoluntary donors also appear to be misclassified as voluntary.The source also notes that
In late 2005, Chinese officials first publicly admitted to the use of organs from executed prisoners. Human rights organizations, independent researchers, and legislative bodies have subsequently presented evidence alleging that detained practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and other prisoners of conscience have been used on a wide scale as an organ source.In its conclusion, the source states that
rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivized by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors.The source also notes a mysterious jump of 25K organs in the system transplanted on a particular day. That is to say, the organ donation program isn't as voluntary as officials portray it as.
[China] has said for many years that it will end the controversial practice. It previously promised to do so by November last year. It's pretty clear that the announcement has been generally met with skepticism, and research has been done towards that end (including by Gutmann, but the doubt of China's ceasing of organ harvesting seems to be pretty common).— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The Xi administration’s (and by extension the Communist Party’s) agenda for Xinjiang seeks to accomplish the same basic goal of removing dissidents and potential dissidents belonging to an ethnic group without the international condemnation and internal strife involved in forced migration and genocide. ...In Xinjiang this effort has three key components. The first is a vast surveillance network which combines a large and extremely active police presence with cutting edge technology designed to monitor the populace at all times. The second is the da fa, meaning “strike hard,”campaign which arrests dissidents and anyone with even a remote connection to dissident activity. The third is the internment camps themselves which forcibly re-educate those arrested.). That article seems to work organ harvesting in at the very end by citing a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and framing it as
new, horrific allegations, though it makes its analysis with respect to genocide independent of the organ harvesting as a whole. Another source writes about organ harvesting of Uyghurs, saying that
Uighur prisoners serve a growing demand, as their organs are classified as halal, which points to a motive of harvesting organs for the sake of obtaining halal organs. In short, there's a lot of mention of the organ harvesting, and there is some mention of the harvesting in those articles that describe the situation as a genocide, but most of the sources that describe the situation as a genocide don't seem to rely on the organ harvesting in making that determination.
organ harvesting and human trafficking are other atrocities regularly committed against Uyghurs and other people designated enemies of the state.Fox News reports that
human rights activists and international leaders are collecting evidence that the beleaguered Uighur Muslim community in Xinjiang province, also known as East Turkistan, could be the latest in a long line of state-sanctioned "victims" being killed for their hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys and other vital body parts – sometimes extracted from their bodies while still alive.Public Radio International appears to put the organ harvesting on the same level as the forced sterilization, writing that
After more than 70 years of Chinese rule over the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, there’s mounting evidence that in recent years, their occupation has intensified into an environment of strict surveillance, with more than a million Uighurs held in internment camps. Reports show many are forced to pick cotton and work in factories that supply international brands and that some Uighurs are even subjected to forced sterilizations and organ harvesting.Nepali news site Khabarhub reported that
a recent report documented how the religious minority has been subject to massacres, mass internment camps, torture, organ harvesting, and disappearances in addition to forced birth control and sterilization. News.com.au has reported that
healthy prisoners are euthanised so their internal organs can be removed and sold on a lucrative multibillion-dollar black marketin a story that was republished by The Queensland times.
The piece states that Conspiracy theorists, not content with the possibility of an accidental leak of the virus, argue that Covid-19 was an experimental biological weapon
and that the veracity of such claims may be highly questionable.
I don't think that's favorable coverage of the people who think it's an engineered bioweapon (though you are certainly justified in worrying that it strongly entertains a lab leak theory, which
per a recent RfC got a no consensus on if it is a
WP:FRINGE theory/conspiracy theory). It's certainly not a
WP:MEDRS, and I would not use it to make medical claims, but I don't think it's completely out-of-line on the claim regarding Halal organs. Other sources, such as
Taiwan News,
Radio Free Asia, and the
Sydney Morning Herald have reported on allegations of the sort before. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
07:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@mike. Can't you supply a better source? How can you spin 25000 transplants into the killing of 25000 uyghurs by the Chinese government? I hope you realise when you die, say in the UK, and they take your body for organ donation, they can without your consent take all your organs, eg heart, 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, liver, 2 corneas, maybe even your face, 4 limbs, etc for transplant. Therefore 1 dead body can give multiple organ transplants. 25000 transplants come from far fewer than 25000 dead people. You also spin the rumours into 25000 people must be 25000 people from Xinjiang, and because it is Xinjiang, then they must all be uyghurs, and these uyghurs must be uyghur prisoners, and all uyghur prisoners must be political prisoners. Do you think there are no Han Chinese prisoners in Xinjiang, and that uyghurs do not do crimes? None of the sources you quote claim that all the organs for the transplantation came from the one province in China called Xinjiang, let alone that they came from uyghurs. Tell me when you take organs for transplantation, can you just transplant them into anyone? Of course not, the recipients have to be compatible with the donors. I would say the chance of a match between a uyghur Chinese and a Han Chinese is a lot lower than a match between their respective peoples. Most of the organ from uyghurs would probably be transplanted into other uyghurs, and if they go to foreigners, as some of your sources claim, the most likely recipients are turkish people. You also spin the story into something like a horror movie, that uyghurs are killed to order for their organs, which is total nonsense. In China, there is the death sentence, but it is only carried out for very severe crimes. Even so, the Chinese system is however still a lot fairer than the system in america, as you can see people such as George Floyd was killed by government agents without the chance of a trial or prison. There is not just the one George Floyd, think of all the other Black people who are killed that way, no trial and no chance of prison. Those in China who are executed probably deserve to be executed in the eyes of their local people. In america Black people are lynched for committing no crimes at all. If you are really concerned about organ harvesting, then you should be more concerned about not letting things as in the following reference happen to people in your country
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9419141/Teenager-18-declared-brain-dead-hit-van-wakes-up.html , where in the UK they can declare you dead when you are not, so that they can harvest your organs.
81.141.207.254 (
talk)
15:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutmann's estimates should definitely stay, and there are other sources who state that killings are happening like the Newline report. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjelo100 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
After thinking about this a bit more and reading through sources in responses to questions from Jr8825, I'm actually not sure that we should report that there are in fact no mass killings of Uyghurs; I don't think that is what reliable sources are stating in their more recent coverage. Enough reliable sources are reporting on the organ harvesting stuff (see my comments above) that us trying to write the article in a way that mass killings do not in fact happen actually seem to not be supported by RS. If forcible organ harvesting—the killing of live Uyghurs for their organs—is going on in Xinjiang as these RS report, then we should report the organ harvesting on the page with details from sources. I'm also not able to find reliable sources that deny the organ harvesting outright, though if they exist then I would ask an editor to provide them since it would help provide balance in the article. Additionally, I'd like to raise the point that there have also been widely reported allegations of infanticide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The specific allegations are that Chinese doctors have been ordered by officials to kill Uyghur infants, which would reasonably constitute mass killing of infants if true (though obviously the comments should be attributed to the alleging party when we write in wikivoice, owing to the way that the allegations are being covered in the sources). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Adrian Zenz is not a credible source, and everything about this ultimately leads back to him. He is a religious right extremist, an anti-Semite, a women's rights opponent, and based all of his claims on a single report by Istiqlal TV. "Even more deranged, Zenz’s big genocide study claimed that women in Xinjiang receive 800 to 1600 IUD insertions per capita. That means every Uighur woman is surgically implanted with 4 to 8 IUDs every single day of the year." https://www.mintpressnews.com/china-uighur-genocide-behind-us-government-propaganda/276085/?fbclid=IwAR0bVpitL9_rklQJxqBCw8iKkCoPQ7dwjQGDQ2gt44cdXCcCMFYqtMXUg94 -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 04:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Mintpress is a conspiracy theories promoting site. This isn't a reliable source. His religious believes are irrevelant to Uyghur genocide. Data is available showing massive drops in birth rates. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 09:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You need to provide reliable sources for those claims, without that it's wp:synth and wp:or. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This is off-topic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also WP:FORUM. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 06:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
When the VCMF was brought up at the RSN, the reception was overwhelmingly negative, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation. I agree that claims by Zenz should be attributed, but he's such a consistent presence in mainstream coverage of Uyghur issues that we can't avoid discussing his claims. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
an independent reseracher and expert on human rights abuses in China. The fact that he works for VCMF (and the nature of VCMF) is not described, though they are clearly relevant, given the claims he's making. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
To further this vision, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation's mission is to educate future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism and to advocate for the freedom of those still held captive by communist regimes. Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.
@
Hemiauchenia: The
discussion regarding the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is based upon the question, "Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?
". This is not the question that we are attempting to answer here, which is about the credibility of Adrian Zenz, but instead is about the general reliability of the group as it is. Instead, to determine the credibility of Zenz more generally, let's examine what
reliable sources say about Zenz's work.
Perennial reliable sources, such as the
Wall Street Journal, have referred to Zenz's work as "groundbreaking, empirical work" in their
news reporting (their editorial board also
notes elsewhere that, Reuters "has independently
corroborated the Zenz documents and evidence"). His work in the Journal of Political Risk has been cited to back up facts in a paper published in
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, editorials from
The Washington Post (
1
2
3
4), as well as other reports from reliable news organizations (including
The Independent and
the BBC). His other work has been explicitly cited or positively described countless times by a plethora of reliable news organizations, including The Washington Post (
1
2
3
4
5
6), The New York Times (
1
2
3), The Wall Street Journal (
1
2), Reuters (
1
2
3
4
5
6),
ABC News , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (
1
2
3
4
5
6
7), the Associated Press (
1
2
3
4
5 ), the
CBC,
Axios, Fox News (
1
2
3),
NBC News, NPR (
1
2), and many others. If widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that Zenz is not a credible source. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
[b]eing called an expert by a reporter does not make someone an expert because that goes beyond the competence of news reporting" in this particular case. It's an argument (albeit not phrased super clearly; my bad) that he's considered to be an expert investigative researcher by people who also work in the field of investigative reporting and might be qualified to give a professional judgement on this count, since the two oftentimes perform similar sorts of work in bringing malfeasance to light.
Not much to add here. Zenz is reliable according to multiple rses. Also here, Adrian Zenz is called a leading China scholar. [16] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance.). We really have to attribute his claims. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
no identifiable expertise on Chinadoes not appear to be true, and the information I've included her about books and journal articles of his can also be found on his wikipedia page. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
much of Zenz’s research has been corroborated by other scholars and independent media outlets, and this work involves heavy analysis of primary government document sources, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to conclude anything other than that he is literate in Chinese. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Has Zenz found those WMDs in Iraq yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E5:5F01:6800:C67:3CA5:9B59:8A4 ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is. Consensus for one-year moratorium unless substantial new information arises in reliable sources also exists, and a note will be added to FAQ atop the talk page.
After a full week of discussion on this (and noting, but not really weighing in assessing consensus here, that there have been several discussions before), there is certainly no consensus to move to “Uyghur cultural genocide.” A preponderance of the arguments offering putative support to move from the current name question the veracity of genocide claims, but largely do not proffer evidence that a cultural genocide is, instead, what is happening. Some gesture towards the possibility of adding a word like “alleged” to the title, but that is generally opposed here largely per
WP:WEASEL.
As for assessment of what reliable sources say on the matter, the conversation is somewhat bifurcated between consideration of
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:CRITERIA. While much discussion exists over the extent to which reliable sources call this the “Uyghur genocide” as compared to saying that government officials call it the “Uyghur genocide,” there is certainly not evidence provided here that such sources instead use “Uyghur cultural genocide” as the common name. Taking that fact alongside arguments about the naming criteria in general, each of the five criteria—recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency—do seem to gesture towards the current name being acceptable, as several editors point out. As such, I find that there is an affirmative consensus against moving this page to “Uyghur cultural genocide” and an affirmative consensus, albeit a weaker one, that “Uyghur genocide” is the appropriate name.
Finally, with respect to the proposed moratorium, there is clearly fatigue with the iterative nature of these requested moves. However, that is part of how a collaborative encyclopedia like this works; to a large degree, such content disputes are a proof of concept that this sort of thing works. That said, I do find a consensus exists that, barring substantial new information, editors should avoid requesting another move until March 2022. As a practical matter, two things are true:
That said, this should be interpreted mostly as a gentle nudge against starting a new requested move and to let this article sit for a while unless there is overwhelming evidence against that presumption. I will defer to other editors active on this page as to how best, in light of this close, to phrase a note in the FAQ (if for no other reason than I don’t know that I know how to edit a page FAQ), but I would encourage a short summary of this close statement with an eye towards discouraging move requests in the absence of clear new information.
Thanks to all participants for constructive engagement on such a fraught and important topic and for spirited advocacy of positions. It is thanks to this kind of work that the encyclopedia goes ‘round. I am happy to discuss my assessment of consensus here on my talk page or in the appropriate review channels as warranted. Respectfully,
Go
Phightins
!
12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Uyghur genocide →
Uyghur cultural genocide – The title should reflect the common viewpoint -- the full genocide declaration is controversial as it is unclear whether mass killings/mass sterilizations have occurred on a systemic scale.
Dazaif (
talk)
06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The UN definition of genocide specifically refers to "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". We now know that China is forcing many Uyghur women to get IUDs (with no string for self-removal) after they have 1 child, whereas Han women are entitled to 2 children, sometimes more. It's also clear that China's birth restriction policies are being intentionally far more vigorously enforced in Uyghur areas than anywhere else, with sterilization as a primary tactic. Additionally, there are credible reports of systemic coerced marriages of Uyghur women to Han men. This stuff constitutes clear "intent to destroy" "in part" the Uyghurs by "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", so this is a genocide per the UN definition. With the intent to destroy established, the clause "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" is also apparently engaged.The writer cited statements from an expert source contained in coverage from an article which was written by a wire service and republished in the Japan Times. (From the best I can tell, the wire story was an AP story, but I am unsure given that the link was not archived before the newspaper's permissions to republish the wire story had expired.)
many sources calling it genocide, for instance [17] [18] [19] [20] German sources: [21] [22].
genocide is not limited to the cultural realm", citing an article in the National Review.
consensus in reliable sources" changed quickly and there existed "
sufficient support in the sources, including from prominent international human rights law experts, to support calling this a genocide".
when journalists like myself started reporting that China was putting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in internment camps, experts said we shouldn’t call it genocide — yet. ... That's changed." The article proceeds to describe the various human rights abuses that have been taken against the Uyghurs, as well as confirming that RS have shifted from hesitating on describing this as a genocide. The article also affirmatively states that there is evidence that China is in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide and that such evidence "
has come in recent months from Uyghur testimonies as well as the Chinese government’s own statistics about Xinjiang, the northwestern region where Uyghurs are concentrated." The piece goes on to say that "
China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials" of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
China's campaign of cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang" and has also simply referred to the abuses as the "Uyghur genocide" in its straight news reporting. As I've noted in above discussions on this page, the editorial board of The Washington Post has repeatedly referred to the ongoing situation as a "genocide." I could continue to go on and on with sources, though it should be clear by now that reporting in RS indicates that "Uyghur cultural genocide" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the article's topic. And, in light of reporting from the RS I have listed and other reliable sources, I think that we very well might actually have a consensus among RS that actions taken by the government of China against the Uyghur people are in violation of at least one portion of the UN genocide convention. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Dazaif: It's a genocide period. [1]
literally every English-language source cited here either presents genocide as a "claim"... the source is an editorial/blog, or that the source is
highly dubious. This is plainly false. I have explicitly enumerated many news pieces in my !vote above that plainly state what is going on in their own voice and are reputable. Axios uses the term "Uyghur genocide" as a matter-of-fact statement describing the ongoing situation. The Globe and Mail reported that that there is "extensive documentation of [China's] efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people." The Vox piece reports, without any sort of hedging, that "China transfers many of the detainees to factories across the country to perform forced labor. There’s evidence that this forced labor has leached into the global supply chain for products we all use, from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon." The same Vox piece reported that "China’s own documents seem to rebut its official denials. They show that as the network of camps grew, women were threatened with internment if they violated the birth control policies for rural Uyghurs (maximum three kids per family)" and that the ongoing situation "looms as one of the most horrifying humanitarian crises in the world today." Vox and Axios are WP:GREL, The Globe and Mail is a highly reputable WP:NEWSORG that is Canada's most widely read newspaper on every day but Sunday, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reputable news organization that is editorially independent and is so reliable that Reuters considers has them as a news partner. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The State Department declared on Tuesday that the Chinese government is committing genocide... The Chinese government has rejected any accusations of genocide.
The U.S. secretary of state’s accusation of genocide against China touches on a hot-button human rights issue between China and the West... China strongly defends its human rights record and policies in Xinjiang, saying its constitution and laws treat all citizens equally.
The Trump administration has characterised the repression of Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province ... Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said: "Pompeo‘s comment on Xinjiang is just another one of his ridiculous lies..."
According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these actions constitute genocide... Uighur activist groups have also formally alleged that genocide is taking place... China has long denied accusations of human rights abuses against Uighurs.
The last official act of out-going US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was to accuse China of perpetrating "genocide" against its Uyghur population.
A US congressional commission said that China may have committed genocide in its Xinjiang region.
The Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghur has violated “each and every act” prohibited by the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, a report by dozens of international experts alleged Tuesday. The report from Washington-based think tank Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy offers an independent analysis of what legal responsibility Beijing could bear over its actions in the northwestern Xinjiang region.
Blinken said in January that he agreed with a determination by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, that China was committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, which China denies.
The United States government already has characterized China’s conduct in Xinjiang as an act of genocide.
Human rights organizations, UN officials, and many foreign governments are urging China to stop the abuses, which the United States has described as genocide. But Chinese officials maintain that what they call vocational training centers do not infringe on Uyghurs’ human rights... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that China is committing crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs.
use of forced abortions, IUDs and sterilisation has seen birth rates in Uyghur-dominated areas drop rapidlyand that the Chinese government
regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on hundreds of thousands. The piece also contains a quote by Joanne Smith Finley, who the ABC describes as an expert on Xinjiang from Newcastle University in the UK. In the piece, she says
"It's genocide, full stop. It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot-type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide.".
draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children. The report noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide" to refer to what is going on.
data show authorities have regularly forced pregnancy tests, birth control, sterilization and abortion on hundreds of thousands of Uighur women to suppress the population, among other repressions.The piece also noted that experts had begun to use the term "demographic genocide".
some Uyghur women were forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang.There are also a few sources I have found ( 1 2) that have republished a wire story from CNN that states that
China is often accused of a lack of transparency, as well as grave human rights abuses like the Uyghur genocide happening currently.
the birth rate in Xinjiang has plummeted in the past few years, according to independent research - an effect analysts have described as "demographic genocide".
China regularly conducts pregnancy checks, forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on some of the Xinjiang region's minority women.The source notes that
the draconian effort, which has been carried out in the western region of Xinjiang over the past four years, has been described by some experts as "demographic genocide." It coincides with years of restrictions and human rights abuses against Uighurs and other majority-Muslim ethnic groups in China under the authoritarian leadership of Xi Jinping.The source also, citing their own reporter, states that
China's policies in Xinjiang have been considered cultural genocide; a policy of forced sterilization and abortion imposed on minority populations would bring their policies closer to the textbook definition of actual genocide.Later reporting from Axios described a
cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiangin July, August, and September 2020. Even later, in February 2021, Axios began using the term "Uyghur genocide" without any sort of qualifier.
media reports and independent research shows that in the internment camps, Uyghurs are indoctrinated on the “backwardness” of their identity and subjected to a wide range of mental, physical and sexual abuses. They are forced to recite Chinese Communist Party propaganda and renounce Muslim religious practicesand that
[a]ccording to media reports and independent researchers, Chinese officials have engaged in a forced sterilization effort targeting Uyghur women living in certain regions.
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.The many reliable sources ( ABC, The Times of London, Fox News, The Guardian, Reuters, China Digital Times, Catholic News Agency, Council on Foreign Relations, USA Today) have generally republished the information without comment, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS is evidence of the source's reliability. There are also reports of mass rape aside from the BBC's investigation that have gotten a large amount of coverage from reliable sources as well ( New Zealand Herald, The Independent).— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Women in China's "re-education" camps for Uighurs have been systematically raped, sexually abused, and tortured, according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC.? The BBC is pretty clear that there is systematic rape, sexual abuse, and torture. Are you saying that the BBC, whose reporting on this specific issue has been widely cited by reliable sources, is not reliable here for statements of fact? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
according to detailed new accounts obtained by the BBC. The BBC specifically says that it cannot verify the claims:
It is impossible to verify Ziawudun's account completely: [50]. Reuters explicitly describes these claims as allegations, and says that it cannot verify them either: [51]. We can't jump from news accounts that report about allegations to claiming, in Wikivoice, that those allegations are true. This is an extremely basic question of how to read and use sources. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. "Criterion (d)", as you're calling it, is only "genocide" if it is part of a deliberate policy to wipe out the entire group. Based on your interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the One Child Policy, which dramatically reduced the birth rate among majority ethnic group in China, the Han, would have been a "genocide" against the Han people. Yet everyone recognizes that that wasn't a "genocide". But most importantly, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when they believe a genocide is occurring - reliable sources do not call this a genocide, so Wikipedia cannot either. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
dispute what the media sources and investigative reports say: You haven't shown any reliable sources that state that there's a genocide going on in Xinjiang. In order to put such an extreme claim in Wikivoice, you'd expect editors to show a strong consensus of reliable sources. But you haven't provided even a single one that does so, much less any sort of consensus. To the contrary, it's been abundantly demonstrated above that reliable sources scrupulously attribute such claims, which means that we also have to attribute them, and cannot put them in Wikivoice. You're simply asserting that your preferred (and likely incorrect) interpretation of the Genocide Convention is correct, that it applies to Xinjiang, and that we should therefore do something that the reliable sources do not do - label the situation in Xinjiang a "genocide". - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide". It noted an increasing trend towards being
unqualified by the modifier "cultural"(also mentioned in the Quartz article paraphrasing Finley), but did not state that it was more prevalent yet. — MarkH21 talk 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).
Chinese government gave explicit orders to "eradicate tumours", "wipe them out completely", "destroy them root and branch", “round up everyone", and "show absolutely no mercy", in regards to Uyghurs. [2] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
A US think-tank has accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. Al Jazeera only says that the think tank claims the Chinese government used the phrases you're quoting, and the article does not say what those quotes refer to. The key point here is that Al Jazeera, like other reliable sources, does not treat these allegations as facts, but rather attributes them. Wikipedia cannot state, as a matter of fact, that there is a genocide in Xinjiang, when reliable sources treat this as a contested claim. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Camp guards reportedly follow orders to uphold the system in place until ‘Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and other Muslim nationalities, would disappear...until all Muslim nationalities would be extinct’.” [3] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It includes five possible methods by which perpetrators may try to achieve that goal, but without "intent to destroy" the group, there is no genocide. In the case we're talking about, there is no evidence of mass killing, and in fact, the Uyghur population continues to grow. You are arguing that China's birth control policy (limiting urban families to two children, and rural families to three children) constitutes "genocide", an argument that would also mean that China has been perpetrating "genocide" against the majority Han population since 1979. Your argument is original research, and does not reflect any sort of consensus view of the international community. In fact, 64 UN member states have disputed allegations of genocide made by the US ( Reuters). Even the US State Department's accusations go against the findings of its own Office of the Legal Advisor ( Foreign Policy).
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. You're arguing that there's intent, and then arguing that birth control policies amount to genocide. You can argue that (and there are others who will argue that you're completely wrong), but it's your argument, not something that we can put in Wikivoice. Regardless of how you, I or even the US government may view this issue, we have to acknowledge that the allegations of "genocide" are just that - allegations. They have been rejected by 64 countries, and even by the US Department of State's own Office of the Legal Advisor. We can present those allegations, but presenting them in Wikivoice is a massive breach of WP:NPOV. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
We should also not rely on what certain UN countries say.So the claims of the obscure "Newlines Institute" (which is apparently an appendage of the equally obscure "Fairfax University", a "university" with a few dozen students that nearly had its accreditation stripped two years ago - according to the Washington Post,
Another council-accredited school, Fairfax University of America, formerly known as Virginia International University, was nearly forced to close in 2019 after a state audit blasted the quality and rigor of its online education program.Even the board that accredited Fairfax University is extremely controversial, as described by the Washington Post.) should be treated as fact, but a declaration by 64 UN member states doesn't matter? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The fact that 64 UN member states have publicly rejected the US' allegations shows that those allegations are heavily disputed.—no, it doesn't; it simply shows how much support China can drum up on this issue internationally, and nothing more. I would agree with you if this list would include countries not so heavily associated with China, countries more directly involved (e.g. China's Central Asian neighbours), or countries with a better human rights record. That would indicate an actual dispute, but this simply doesn't. Remember, whole countries can happily deny all accusations of genocide, no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. TucanHolmes ( talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The only weight is that China has strong economic influence over many countries. [4] [5] [6] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
China's treatment of its Uighur population violates every provision of the United Nations' genocide convention, according to a damning new report published Tuesday by dozens of experts on international law, genocide and Chinese ethnic policies.(emphasis added)
sweeping reportand that
independent researchers say China is now engaged in "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and other minorities, including Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks.The paper has separately called the document an
extensive reportthat was
based on interviews with former detainees and other evidence.
Chinese authorities’ treatment of Uygurs in China’s northwest meets every criteria of genocide under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, said a group of experts in international law, war crimes and the Xinjiang region in a new analysis.(emphasis added)
documents about mass deaths, selective death sentence, and prolonged imprisonment of elders, in addition to other series of abuses that authorities commit against the Uyghur people(original source in spanish). And, the same source says that
more than 50 global experts on human rights, war crimes, and international law. The same source says that the group of experts
examined a series of free and verifiable evidence, including state communications and testimonies of witnesses.(translations my own)
widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. We're seeing just that with the Newlines Report. It ain't original research to cite reliable sources. WP:USEBYOTHERS also states that
widespread doubts about reliability weigh againstuse of a source. Since you would seem to believe that the particular report is unreliable, in light of the widespread citation without comment for facts, I would kindly ask that you provide sources to back up your doubts on the reliability on the specific report.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgengave: Killing tens of thousands a year for organs is mass killings so it's not only mass rapes and sterilizations and there are other sources mentioning killings and mass deaths in camps. Not to mention camp guards received instuctions to make Muslim ethnic groups extinct. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
mposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupas a genocide, which China is definitely doing to the Uyghurs according to reliable sources. Loki ( talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But it really doesn't matter how any editor here interprets the Genocide Convention. What matters is whether reliable sources treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang. As has been shown above, they attribute such claims, and also note opposing views (such as those of the US State Department's legal advisors, and those of 64 member states of the UN). We simply cannot state in Wikivoice, based on Wikipedia editors' own personal (and very likely incorrect) interpretations of UN conventions, that there is a genocide. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
In 1944, as Lemkin, a Jew, witnessed the horrors of Nazism, it occurred to him that the vocabulary of modern law was missing a word, so he coined one: "genocide." Over the years, the term has taken on a specific legal definition, but Lemkin had a broad understanding of it. "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings," he noted. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups." Such a plan is unfolding now in Xinjiang. As in the cases that inspired Lemkin, it is happening under a shield of state sovereignty.The New Yorker is also listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP, with editors noting its robust fact-checking process. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
When Anar Sabit was in her twenties and living in Vancouver, she liked to tell her friends that people could control their own destinies.The essay continues in a similar vein. The New Yorker is a magazine, and does not only publish straight news articles - it also publishes content that mixes personal narration, opinion and fact. That's fine, but it should not be confused with objective news reporting. As has been shown over and over again above, reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide, rather than putting them in their own authoritative voice. To put something that reliable sources consistently treat as an allegation in Wikivoice because of a single narrative essay would be absurd. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
it is almost universally described as genocide. This is simply untrue, and has been shown above by Darouet (and others), reliable sources consistently attribute claims of genocide in Xinjiang to those parties making the claims. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Also this report: [56] Oranjelo100 ( talk) 18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Misleading and undefined, so-called “cultural genocide” does NOT exist as a crime punishable under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
“Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” [ [57]] -- Ooligan ( talk) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
References:
To provide a bit of context: the previous move discussion, which was closed in August of 2020, resulted in the page being moved from Uyghur cultural genocide to Uyghur genocide. At the time, a rough consensus had been established for the move. The closer, OhKayeSierra, noted that over the time period during which the close occurred, many editors moved from supporting the page title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" to Uyghur genocide. In particular, the closer noted that editors who initially supported the title of "Uyghur cultural genocide" had changed their !vote on the issue based upon the coverage of the topic provided by reliable sources that were published during the time of the move discussion. I've provided a more detailed summary of the arguments in favor of the move at that time in my !vote in the survey section above. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 08:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Also these sources. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Study released by the Essex Court Chambers concluded that there is "a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uighur people in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and describes how the minority group has been subject to "enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilisation and persecution." Oranjelo100 ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing that a 1 year move moratorium be enacted on the page, regardless of the outcome of this RM. I see no indication that consensus has changed since the initial RM. If anything, per Mikehawk10's rationale, it seems that the majority of reliable sources have been increasingly referring to it as a genocide. I don't think there's much to be gained from multiple RM's being churned out for the same topic in less than a year's time, especially for one as controversial as this. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This only seems like an effort to stifle discussion.That's simply not true. Moratoriums are used to limit disruption (both unintentional and otherwise) that stem from multiple consecutive RM's. Kyiv and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are two of the most recent examples that come to mind, though I'm sure there are many other articles that have required RM moratoriums and benefitted from it. For example, I remember closing the second most recent RM with Kiev as not moved with a strong consensus against moving to Kyiv with the moratorium taking effect shortly thereafter. After the moratorium lapsed, there were enough reliable sources to justify moving it from Kiev to Kyiv, so consensus naturally swayed towards moving it. So my suggestion that this could benefit from a moratorium is hardly unprecedented, and the article would actually benefit from having it in place. Additionally, when you say
There is clearly yet to be a consensus on this topic amongst editors or scholars., you haven't shown that in your RM request at all. As the requester, the onus would be on you to prove that moving it is necessary. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 23:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This feels like an attempt to stifle discussion in the wake of a contentious title.That's simply not true, and my rationale for why I think this is beneficial for the article has been detailed multiple times above. My reply to Dazaif may be of interest to you. WP:AGF, please. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Repetitive move discussions in the absence of substantial new information take up time that could be better spent elsewhere and it seems WP:CCC would indicate that it would be a good practice to avoid repeating move proposals in the absence of substantial new information that would be likely to change consensus. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)