The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
A fact from Yarkand Massacre appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I still do not see any independent secondary reliable sources calling the event the "Yarkand Massacre". The currently provided references are from the World Uyghur Congress (twice), Uyghur Human Rights Project, Turkistan Times, Tibet Press, and New Tang Dynasty Television, which are not really independent RSes for controversial events regarding the Chinese government.
There are also still significant unreferenced portions, like
It is said that this practice of massacring all men, women, children and the elderly was done so that no one would be left alive. Dilxat Raxit, the spokesman of the World Uyghur Congress, said in an interview that the Uyghur protests in Yarkant County were suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party's armed forces, who were the first to open fire, which further intensified the conflict, prompting more Uyghurs to attack all government departments and judicial and public security agencies.
Finally, the Apple Daily article does not call it a massacre in their own voice, but says that it was called a massacre by some people close to military intelligence. That mis-attribution needs to be fixed. — MarkH21 talk 04:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: thank you for rescuing this article which was censored by 50 Cent Army who manipulated wikipedia "policies"! it is indeed "an example of how drafts serve to stifle otherwise good content", as you said.-- RZuo ( talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Piotrus ( talk) and D7CY689 ( talk). Nominated by Piotrus ( talk) at 05:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC).
Regarding this, ping User:MarkH21. Can you tell us what makes those sources unreliable, and why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with {{ citation needed}}? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy( WP:REPUTABLE), and don't appear to be used by other established RSes ( WP:USEBYOTHERS). It would be the same if there was a small website called "China Press" that exclusively publishes pro-CCP reports on Tibet & Xinjiang, for which there is no evidence of clear independent editorial oversight and use by major newspapers. They are not, for instance, standard well-established news organizations which are usually considered RSes. A small article-publishing website is not considered reliable in the absence of evidence towards WP:REPUTABLE.
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective; it would only be an RS for WP:ABOUTSELF-type statement (which is indeed what the two remaining citations to this source are - I did not remove these).
why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with {{ citation needed}}?: The main reasons are that 1) the article was live, 2) I could not find RSes supporting those particular claims, and 3) this is a controversial topic (regardless of whether it's about the Chinese government or an archaeologist talking about race-based classification). Based on these, I removed those claims without RS support under WP:BURDEN. These factors are different from this earlier instance for example, when I tagged using {{ citation needed}} instead.
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
A fact from Yarkand Massacre appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I still do not see any independent secondary reliable sources calling the event the "Yarkand Massacre". The currently provided references are from the World Uyghur Congress (twice), Uyghur Human Rights Project, Turkistan Times, Tibet Press, and New Tang Dynasty Television, which are not really independent RSes for controversial events regarding the Chinese government.
There are also still significant unreferenced portions, like
It is said that this practice of massacring all men, women, children and the elderly was done so that no one would be left alive. Dilxat Raxit, the spokesman of the World Uyghur Congress, said in an interview that the Uyghur protests in Yarkant County were suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party's armed forces, who were the first to open fire, which further intensified the conflict, prompting more Uyghurs to attack all government departments and judicial and public security agencies.
Finally, the Apple Daily article does not call it a massacre in their own voice, but says that it was called a massacre by some people close to military intelligence. That mis-attribution needs to be fixed. — MarkH21 talk 04:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: thank you for rescuing this article which was censored by 50 Cent Army who manipulated wikipedia "policies"! it is indeed "an example of how drafts serve to stifle otherwise good content", as you said.-- RZuo ( talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Piotrus ( talk) and D7CY689 ( talk). Nominated by Piotrus ( talk) at 05:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC).
Regarding this, ping User:MarkH21. Can you tell us what makes those sources unreliable, and why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with {{ citation needed}}? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy( WP:REPUTABLE), and don't appear to be used by other established RSes ( WP:USEBYOTHERS). It would be the same if there was a small website called "China Press" that exclusively publishes pro-CCP reports on Tibet & Xinjiang, for which there is no evidence of clear independent editorial oversight and use by major newspapers. They are not, for instance, standard well-established news organizations which are usually considered RSes. A small article-publishing website is not considered reliable in the absence of evidence towards WP:REPUTABLE.
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective; it would only be an RS for WP:ABOUTSELF-type statement (which is indeed what the two remaining citations to this source are - I did not remove these).
why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with {{ citation needed}}?: The main reasons are that 1) the article was live, 2) I could not find RSes supporting those particular claims, and 3) this is a controversial topic (regardless of whether it's about the Chinese government or an archaeologist talking about race-based classification). Based on these, I removed those claims without RS support under WP:BURDEN. These factors are different from this earlier instance for example, when I tagged using {{ citation needed}} instead.