The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• “Boycott Xinjiang Genocide Products! Also don't attack our Chinese neighbors. Just say no to xenophobia and racism!” sticker on New York University campus in 2020 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RFC for possible consensus regarding the reliability of Coda Story. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to open up a discussion about adding a section on denial of the cultural genocide in Xinjiang. The main question here is one of notability, as I've only found a couple sources on the matter. One is an article by CJ Werleman of the Byline Times, which discusses genocide denialism among sections of the so-called "anti-imperial left". Another is an article by Mamtimin Ala of News Vibes of India, which looks at denialism by world leaders such as Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau. Does anyone know of any other sources that could contribute to a section on denialism, or if not, would it be best to leave it until more sources are available?--Grnrchst (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would probably wait a couple of years, actually. Since the 'genocide' label is still contentious (see the numerous discussions on this talk page) and people are cautious for diplomatic reasons, it's hard to frame denials it as 'genocide denial'. We can talk about denials of human rights abuses, since these are more clearly and unquestionably documented. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

These were along the lines of my thoughts yeah. Both of these sources are very recent, so such a section may need more time in order to develop notability and accuracy. Thanks for you thoughts.--Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

By "East Turkestan", do you mean "Xinjiang"? As far as I'm aware, "East Turkestan" is a politically loaded term used by separatists, whereas the common name of the region is "Xinjiang". But setting that aside, in order for there to be "X denialism", there has to be a strong consensus that X is true. Reliable sources do not treat claims of genocide in Xinjiang as fact, so a "denialism" section would simply push an unverified POV in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that it was I meant, apologies. I agree that a denialism section would add POV, which is why I wanted to bring it up here before going forward with anything.--Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a clumsy genocide denial campaign by China but this is a fullblown genocide not a cultural one. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

[1]

To echo the reasons given by TucanHolmes, I'm going to say that I think it's something that will need more time and references. The Byline source is definitely an opinion piece and is pretty much as problematic as grayzone is (in that it is mostly written like a blog), which although I do not think makes it inherently irrelevant does make it not the most reliable source (which you already seem to acknowledge so I'm most likely preaching to the choir on that one). Overall I think I've made it clear that I believe the actions in Xinjiang are absolutely being interpreted by governments and NGOs for political reasons (especially in the heat of the moment), and to actively discuss denial as a phenomenon without inserting POV we'd first need the foresight to acknowledge which claims and accusations are provably true (currently the reeducation camps and extrajudicial internment are acknowledged even by China and are no longer in doubt) and which ones might just be exaggerations (organ harvesting, genocidal IUD implementation rather than just even handed one child policy implementation, eradication of the uighur script, etc). The issue with making such a section now is that to avoid POV it would specifically have to cover denial of the existence of camps, which to my knowledge no one (not even China) engages in. Deku link (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

To comment separately from the above, there are definitely some RS that have referred to denial of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, writ large, as "Xinjiang denialism" by some variation of denialism/denialist (Axios, China Digital Times (1 2), Brookings, Coda Story (1 2), Foreign Policy, ASPI). In particular, a good bit of these sources single out The Grayzone for its denialism writ large. There isn't exactly an article for The Grayzone (it's a redirect to Max Blumenthal), so I'd be unsure where to include it, though it's probably worthy of inclusion somewhere based upon the coverage from multiple sources. Some of the articles (most notably the Foreign Policy, Brookings, and ASPI sources) are of broader scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ASPI should not be regarded as a neutral source here. It is funded by the Australian Department of Defence, the US government, the governments of a few US allies, and by US weapons manufacturers (including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman). As far as I know, the Brookings Institution is not heavily funded by weapons manufacturers, but it is very close to the US government, and writes quite explicitly from the perspective US policy makers. Just to illustrate this, all one has to do is list the titles of a couple of recent Brookings reports:

• "Getting the China Challenge Right"
• "Retooling America's alliances to manage the China challenge"

Brookings has an entire "China Strategy Initiative", with the goal of "countering and responding to [China's strategy] effectively". Basically, these sources can be used to give the US/Australian government/military establishment view on China, but they should not be viewed as neutral observers of China.

I've never heard of "Coda Story" before, so I have no idea how much weight to give their views. The Axios article you're citing doesn't actually point out anything that's incorrect in Max Blumenthal's criticism of Adrian Zenz. It just complains that Chinese media likes Blumenthal. I don't know how accurate Blumenthal's criticism of Zenz' writings is, but the Axios piece just tries to discredit Blumenthal based on who does and doesn't like his work. The Axios piece also attacks the WHO for an entirely factually correct statement that a WHO representative made (that the Taiwanese government's claim to have provided early warning to the WHO about the novel coronavirus in December 2019 was incorrect). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You can keep trying to discredit reliable sources all you want... But it really isn’t productive and this talk page is not the proper venue for it. We also don’t require sources to be “neutral," whatever gave you that idea? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The talk page is absolutely the place to discuss sourcing. We can use non-neutral sources, but we have to be careful about weight and attribution. We wouldn't want to make controversial claims about China in Wikivoice based on the claims of a think tank funded by the Australian military and American weapons manufacturers, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously no source on this earth is truly neutral, but if we're scraping the bottom of the barrel to blast this article full of think tank pieces from explicitly anti-Chinese sources, WP:NPOV starts to come into play. As has been brought up time and time again, many of the sources are not actively stating many of the claims made are true, they are just reporting on reports made by think tanks or related groups. Intentionally obfuscating that important detail when drawing information from the sources is the issue. Deku link (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It would depend on whether or not that think tank was reliable, wouldn't it? It would also as with all sources depend on who the authors were. I would also note that funding does not equal editorial control, if the Australian military or American weapons manufacturers exercised editorial control of what a source publishes that would be an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, if you think think tanks being pumped full of money by weapons manufacturers who would financially benefit from distracting from their own rampant use of prison labor^[1] aren't letting the manufacturers call the shots on most of the "research," I can't help but feel like you're being willfully ignorant Deku link (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Deku link: Do you have any reliable sources that suggest that the defense industry is, in fact, manipulating ASPI for its financial/PR benefit in this way? It seems like a bit of an extraordinary claim to make. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying that a think tank established by the Australian military, which is funded by the Australian military, the US State Department and US weapons manufacturers, and which is headed by a former high-ranking Australian national security official (Peter Jennings) might represent the views of the Australian/US military/foreign policy establishments does not seem extraordinary to me. It seems like the default assumption. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see anything in the linked source about distraction, think tank funding, calling the shots, my willful ignorance, etc. Do you have a source which supports those assertions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond briefly to your question regarding the source you have not heard of, Coda Story is a non-profit news outlet that has recently won the European Press Prize for Distinguished reporting for its coverage of a particular Xinjiang issue and Columbia University's Alfred I. Dupont Award for a radio documentary that it had produced in partnership with the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX. Its journalism has been republished in Rappler (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, etc.), as well as The Atlantic, and NBC News, each of which are listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP. From a WP:USEBYOTHERS perspective, Coda Story seems to be generally reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Coda Story" article that you linked to doesn't actually address any of the factual claims of the various people it criticizes. It criticizes them on the basis that Chinese and Russian media like some of the things they write. In return, the people that Coda Story is criticizing point out that Coda Story itself is funded by the US government's own foreign influence operation, the National Endowment for Democracy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To WP:RSN we go. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Both sources are columns by non-notable people in obscure publications. In order to have weight for inclusion, this viewpoint would need to receive wide attention. The authors are making a clear reference to Holocaust denial. But claims of Holocaust denial are well documented in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the criticism is that Code Story is inherently unreliable. The criticism is that what the Coda Story article is saying and what is proposed to be included in the article are at odds with each other. Furthermore, the article is already grossly inflated by sources that are directly funded by the US state department or weapons manufactuerers. At a certain point, we have to wonder how much weight we're giving to certain sources and how literally we interpret the information from them (there is a difference between an opinion piece saying "I think that the reports of this government are wrong because I do not trust them" and an article outright stating that the reports are incorrect). Deku link (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest creating a seperate page on Uyghur Genocide Denial?2620:1D5:EF:2:0:0:0:61 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lots of large assumptions made that deviate from sources, biased tone, and undue weight given to US sources or sources from the alleged supressed journalists themselves regarding the propaganda campaign around the subject. Deku link (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The section seems to be generally well-sourced, with the vast majority of the sources appearing to be newspapers of record, reliable public broadcasters, and/or sources listed at WP:RSP as WP:GREL. Is there specific content that you have an issue with the sourcing on? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

but how does Chinese propaganda have to do with genocide? for example, Nazi propaganda that portray Jews as evil does relate, because it justifies or promote the use of violence against any and all Jews with the intent to eliminate their existence. so how does the propaganda we speak of here has anything to do with the alleged crimes of mass murdering Uighurs? it can go into a section called government response. but it is not part of their policy of extermination. the main article is incredibly thin when it comes to speaking of the actual crime itself. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Not all Nazi propaganda about the Holocaust was propaganda that was attacking the Jews for some chocked-up reason or another. If you're familiar with the Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red Cross saga, as well as the related propaganda film, there was also Nazi Propaganda that was specifically designed to deny that the Nazi regime was committing human rights abuses ongoing against the Jews. The Holocaust is also an extremely large topic with lots of WP:CFORKed articles (including those describing the denial propaganda campaign itself). I agree that the ongoing and well-documented propaganda campaign might be better placed in its own section (it's not a government policy so much as an abject denial-focused PR campaign), so I'll move it to its own section promptly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

i am not sure what Nazis did to deny the holocaust, but i am confident the Nazis did a ton of propaganda to promote the extermination of Jews. "Early in his membership in the Nazi Party, Hitler presented the Jews as behind all of Germany's moral and economic problems, as featuring in both Bolshevism and international capitalism.[1] He blamed "money-grubbing Jews" for all of Weimar Germany's economic problems.[2] He also drew upon the antisemitic elements of the stab-in-the-back legend to explain the defeat in World War I and to justify their views as self-defense.[3] In one speech, when Hitler asked who was behind Germany's failed war efforts, the audience erupted with "The Jews". Its not clear to me how the Chinese propaganda cited in the article promotes extermination of Uighurs. The only thing that is clear from the article is that Chinese propaganda claimed that extremists are responsible for the acts of terrorism that took place in the past decade. and their actions are in response to those acts. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

So... you agree that part of the Nazi propaganda was to deny the Holocaust? I don't see why the publication of pro-denial propaganda is mutually exclusive with the publication of other sorts of propaganda. And, on another note, there's also a subsection currently devoted to the counterterrorism justification that China has tried to put forward; China has attempted to justify the actions they acknowledge by arguing it is used to combat what the government calls the "Three Evils of [religious] extremism, separatism and terrorism" by, as Al Jazeera puts, taking aim at the cultural and religious beliefs of the mostly Muslim ethnic minority, implementing widespread surveillance and – from about 2017 – opening a network of camps.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda covers a wide array of issues. But the key issue here is the propaganda that promotes violence and hate against Jews, not the denial. Simply put, how was Hitler able to get his men to kill the Jews? What did he say to them? The propaganda was alot more than "just do it". What exactly was the Chinese propaganda that said "this is why we need to kill Uighurs"? And who is calling this a propaganda? This is never truly explained in the (original) article. Did the PRC lied about terrorist attacks in Xinjiang? Is that a propaganda? Did they overstate the deaths? Did they lie about who the perpetrator is? What is exactly is the propaganda? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The main article makes a lot of mentioning around the genocide but not the actual genocide itself. For example, while it is true the US, Canada gov't etc are calling it a genocide, it doesn't actually explain what was the underlying action by the PRC that constitute the genocide itself.

TL;DR - the article does not actually state what is the genocide committed by PRC. It relies on imaginative inferences.

For example: 1. Mosques: No where is it explained that PRC ordered the destruction of mosques. And no where does it explain "significant cultural damage" is tied to PRC actions to eradicate the Uighur ppl. Therefore, this section does not relate to the genocide. Also, main article suggest Id Kah Mosque had been vandalized, but if you look in the wiki article of the mosque itself, it explains it was going thru renovation, and it is now restored. Its also not clear how mosques have to do with genocide. Article seem to infer PRC used violence in the process, but did not actually state that claim.

2. Education: it is not explained why this amounts to genocide. For example, in America, native Americans also get their primary education in English. Article seem to infer children are kept at internment camps, but did not actually claim that.

3. Detained academics and religious figures: It is not clear this is genocide. It would be political or religious persecution. The details very vague and relies a lot on imagination.

4. Detention camps: it is not explained why this is genocide. to be genocide, these ppl need to die, disfigured, sterile or "destroyed". detention by itself is not genocide. if these ppl go thru mandatory training camps and subsequently released without losing an army or leg, it would not be genocide. The comparison to Nazis is relying on inferences that Uighurs are being gassed in the millions. But article does not clearly accuse PRC of gassing Uighurs.

5. Torture: it is not explained why this is genocide. the article claims that 1 (or 2) woman was tortured. to be genocide, all (or significant part) of Uighur women need to be treated this way. the article itself does not actually accuse the PRC of having systematic torture camps that put thru millions of women into these torture programs - it relies on reader imagination to make that inference.

6. Labor and cotton: how is this a genocide again? Are the Uighurs permanently locked up in interment camps to do hard labour? The article does not actually make that claim - it relies on imagination to presume they are locked up for life.

7. Medical experiments: what exactly is the medical experiment that give rise to genocide? it relies on imagination that terrible things must have happened. It also relies on imagination that large number of Uighurs have been experimented upon.

8. Bio-metrics, DNA and GPS: How does bio-metrics and DNA sequencing relate to genocide? I am not too sure what kind of inferences are supposed to be drawn here. Privacy invasion? And what is the issue with GPS? Privacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the article to address your first point regarding the inconsistencies between this article and that of the Id Kah Mosque. Deku link (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, looks like there are no reliable western sources reporting on the imam of Id Kah Mosque, so I guess the article will have to go without the claim for now. Deku link (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Id Kah mosque article had some sourcing issues, which I have rectified by including independent reporting. Twitter was not reliable there, since a tweet is essentially an WP:SPS. Also, per WP:RSP, [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately, so use of Xinhua is ruled out. I think we can move some of the updated text over. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You can use in-line attribution for Xinhua in this case, if you'd like. It's a wire service, and is very often the most reliable source for information about events in China. This article already makes extensive use of Radio Free Asia, which is questionable when it comes to geopolitically-charged issues (for example, RFA has repeatedly pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting numbers orders of magnitude higher than scientific studies find). Use of Xinhua with in-line attribution is probably less problematic in this context. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you simply perform a google search for Id Kah mosque right now, you will find that it is a "must see tourist attraction". Isn't it kind of misleading to put this under "have been the target of systematic destruction." It does not appear that the sources that speak about Id Kah mosque has been the mosque itself to witness any destruction. Also, as a side note: UN definition clearly states that "Cultural destruction does not suffice" as genocide. And the article is not clear about what exactly is being destroyed.198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have independent, reliable sources that point in the opposite direction of those currently used as sources in the article with regards to the mosque, I would suggest that you put them here so that they could be added to the article and provide further context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The article as currently presented is confusing. It claims that mosques are being destroyed, but the example given (Id Kah) isn't actually destroyed. Either a) remove the Id Kah from the article or b) explain why is that mosque and example of genocide.198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading your block comment again now, and I'm wondering if you have specific issues with specific content that is currently in the article. Are there sources that you think are not reliable that are currently being used to back up the text of the article as-is? The comment is coming across as if we should take a WP:OR approach here. Also, where in the article are we specifically appealing to imagination rather than to sourced information? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

the issue I am raising is that the claims being presented here (assuming if true), does not help a reader understand why this is genocide. like the education example, its not clear why this is genocide. The United States provide education primarily in English but that is not normally considered genocide against Hispanics. Are children forbidden from speaking their own language or is it the use of Mandarin heavily promoted? FYI - majority of Han Chinese, including President Xi Jin Ping himself, does not speak Mandarin at home either, but when they go to school, they learn standard Mandarin. So its very hard to understand what exactly is the genocide here?198.48.246.37 (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article does a very bad job at explaining what the alleged genocide is. Part of the problem is that the article was written as a compilation of various alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and the "Uyghur genocide" label was slapped on later. The article should make it clear that "genocide" is an allegation made by the US government and a few other parties, and that it's highly contested. Material that's unrelated to the accusation of genocide should also be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have complained above that the article does not explain the genocide. Therefore I suggest we dedicate a section why proponents are calling this a genocide, based on the words of those proponents.

Currently, I am only aware of the US State Department and Dutch Parliament calling it a "genocide", as opposed to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide", AND gave their reasons for doing so. Both the US State Dep and Dutch Parliament's decisions are readily quote by MSM. The Canadian parliament also made a motion, but it is not well reported on what is the action(s) that gave rise to genocide.

US State Department

The following are asserted by the US State Department, Mike Pompeo, and is quoted by the media. https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-of-state-on-atrocities-in-xinjiang/index.html

1. Arbitrary detainment, 1M Uighurs

2. Forced sterilization, torture, forced labor, restriction on religion, expression and movement

3. PRC is committing the same crime as the Nazis.

4. "we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state" and "eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic and religious minority group"

The claims 1 and 2 are often cited by MSM. The claims 3 and 4 does not appear to be frequently reported, except in opinion pieces.

Dutch Parliament

They had determined that: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-china-uighurs-idUSKBN2AP2CI

1. “A genocide on the Uighur minority is occurring in China,” the Dutch motion said

2. “measures intended to prevent births”

3. “having punishment camps”

It is not reported whether the Dutch determine these actions are aimed at the elimination of Uighurs. It should be noted here that restrictions on religion, expression and movement is absent from the Dutch news article, as it is not related to the determination of genocide.

Therefore, I believe the article should use the above claims as basis. And evidence that supports the above claims can be categorized based on the above issues. This also means other issues are not relevant and should not be part of the article that explains what the alleged genocide actually is. This means - education is not related. Neither is cemetery, marriage, children names, clothing, outside China issues, surveillance, DNA, GPS. Also... oddly enough, despite these entities accusing genocide - they did not claim there are mass deaths, mass killing or infanticide. The article that did claims mass death (ie Radio Free Asia), did not claim the deaths are related to or give rise to genocide. The cause of death is not known. Given the very ppl who claimed genocide happened did not claim mass death or mass killing happened, it would not be appropriate to associate this article with mass death or mass killing. To make such association constitutes Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: There is already a section that describes the classification of the ongoing human rights abuses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The section provides detailed explanation on the classification of the atrocities that have been occurring from multiple sources and also describes some of the changes that have occurred over time regarding the classification. And, as has been said many times on this page, a genocide doesn't have to only include mass killings/mass deaths; as The New Yorker reports, "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."

I think that we should keep items in this article that are aimed at targeting those essential foundations of the life of national groups, then certainly the surveillance apparatus, destruction of Uyghur culture and language wholesale, the desecration of Uyghur graves, and China's international propaganda and monitoring of Uyghurs abroad seems relevant. Considering that many reliable sources (that are cited in the article as of now, mind you) are framing these all within the same set of actions by China tells you that connecting the two isn't WP:OR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

i think you missed my pt. per the current article, only US State Dept, Canada and Dutch Parliament is calling it genocide (as opposed to cultral or ethnocide). All of the other sources are calling it something else but did not actually call it genocide. So to include that information here is OR. Like the cemetery example, there is no RS that calls such action amount to genocide. such attribution is made only by some wikipedians.198.48.246.37 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI cultural genocide is a type of genocide. The guys saying cultural genocide are saying genocide but in a limited sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Raffi Khachadourian's opinion, expressed in his essay in the magazine section of The New Yorker, could possibly be given with attribution, but it is just an opinion. Genocide, as the UN defines it, requires a "mental element", an intent to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, in addition to a "physical element", one of a few specifically defined actions carried out in order to bring about the physical destruction of the group. Finally, genocide requires an organized plan on the part of the government, and it must target people specifically because of their membership in one of the designated groups. Under the legal definition, targeting of political groups is not genocide, and cultural destruction is not genocide. In his magazine essay, Khachadourian says that he's describing a "broad understanding" that goes beyond the legal definition of "genocide". Khachadourian is free to argue for that broader understanding, and to argue that it applies to Xinjiang, but we can't put those views in Wikivoice. It should be noted that the large majority of countries that have voiced any opinion on the "genocide" allegations against China have rejected them. The allegations that the US government is making are extremely controversial, and this article has to reflect that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Countries are not WP:RS... And we have never relied on them as you suggest. The US government had not even made those allegations when this page was renamed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also a lengthy feature piece in a WP:RS by one of the best investigative journalists around (Raffi Khatchadourian) can not be dismissed as an opinion piece or essay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously when experts qualified in the law argue over the definition of genocide and how it applies to the events in Xinjiang, we cannot resolve it by consulting a magazine article by an investigative journalist, no matter how qualified. Even if the opinion were provided by someone qualified, it would still be an opinion, unless and until there was consensus among experts. TFD (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we resolve this non-Wikipedia issue by consulting a magazine article by an investigative journalist, thats never been within our purview. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 said we could not use Khachadourian's determination of genocide as a fact but should treat it as an opinion. You countered that Khachadourian's article cannot be dismissed as opinion. So what exactly is your objection? Do you agree his determination of genocide should be treated as a fact or as an opinion? TFD (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 said we could not use Khachadourian as a source for the statement that "a genocide doesn't have to only include mass killings/mass deaths” which I think is off. Nobody is proposing that we use Khachadourian's determination of genocide as a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To clear up any confusion, I'm saying that we cannot treat Khachadourian's opinion on what is a genocide as fact, though his opinion could possibly be given with attribution (as I said in my earlier comment). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What are you saying about Khachadourian’s assertions about what a genocide is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

it doesnt matter what Khachadourian thinks. Shes not a subject expert and no major outlet quotes her work to give it weight. Her position is also not the position of majority views on the subject. We should avoid UNDUE.198.48.246.37 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Khatchadourian uses male pronouns. That feature piece was published in The New Yorker, which is a major outlet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does Khatchadourian's opinion even matter on this subject? Does the UN adopt his definition or designation of current event as genocide? Does US State Dept, Canada or Dutch Parliament relies on his essay or his definition when determining what is a genocide? Conversely, does the exclusion of Khatchadourian's work cause this wiki to omit a significant POV adopted by the majority or a significant minority? His work carries no weight. It does not belong here. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

A feature piece in The New Yorker carries an immense amount of weight. I get that you’re new here and don’t understand our policies but please review WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DUE WEIGHT: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. // Can you tell me who consider K's opinion as "commonly accepted reference", or please provide prominent adherents of K's views. If you can not provide these citations then it has no place in Wikipedia.198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Horse Eye's Back is justified here; it ain't just The New Yorker (RSP entry) saying this. In addition to the Newlines Report (which has been widely cited as independent research by reliable sources), there are a number of reliable news outlets who treat the human rights abuses similarly. Axios (RSP entry) has repeatedly referred to the abuses as a "cultural and demographic genocide" (1 2 3) or plainly as a genocide (1). The Toronto Sun has referred to the situation as consisting of credible claims of genocide in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Australia's ABC simply refers to the ongoing situation as the Uyghur genocide. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The claims made by the "Newlines Institute" have been reported as allegations - not as facts - by several news outlets. The vast majority of reliable sources similarly treat "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and that's how Wikipedia has to treat it. Scraping the internet and coming up with a small number of apparently unqualified references to "genocide" does not mean that we can put this claim in Wikivoice. It's an exercise in cherry-picking. Even some of the sources you've cherry-picked clearly treat "genocide" as an unproven allegation. Your Toronto Sun article refers to Uyghur genocide claims. Wikipedia can't put highly controversial allegations into Wikivoice, especially allegations as serious as "genocide". -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly do we put that allegation in wikivoice? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much the entirety of the article, including the title, being included as part of the series on Genocide, repeated lines in the vein of "China denies the genocide", etc. Deku link (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re going to need to be more specific, the line "China denies the genocide” does not appear anywhere and the title is just the WP:COMMONNAME its not a statement. The content of an article is agnostic to its specific title, what matters is the subject which in this case is “the ongoing series of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is not clear on the issue and should be clarified.

1. Forced birth control is not the same as forced sterilization. Forced birth control seem to have more details - usually done via IUD, as stated in the source. Not clear how forced sterilization is implemented. Please add details on how this is performed. Also, it is not clear whether the IUD cause sterilization or whether IUD is reversible form of birth control.

2. Prevent all birth or prevent excess birth? The source claims that "After Gulnar Omirzakh, a Chinese-born Kazakh, had her third child, the government ordered her to have an IUD implanted." and "They gave Omirzakh, the penniless wife of a detained vegetable trader, three days to pay a $2,685 fine for having more than two children." Currently, the article is misleading, as it suggests the birth rate must be rapidly approaching 0, since no Uighur woman is capable of giving birth. The word genocide implies that they must be targeted for extinction. But the article suggests that she is permitted to have 2 kids without penalties. Can anyone provide RS that shows Uighurs women are systematically sterilized BEFORE she has given birth to any children? if not, can we clarify in the article that IUD's or sterilizations only apply on the 3rd child, which is what the actual source is suggesting.

It should also be mentioned here that China currently has a Two-Child Policy. Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy#China_(mainland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to claim that China is carrying out a genocide. It is supposed to document the allegations made by the US government and various other parties of genocide. When you read the article, does it come across as saying that there is a "Uyghur genocide" going on? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

For context, we should also mention how China applies population control measures to the entire population. During the one-child policy, Uyghurs and some other minorities were allowed two children, three if they lived in the country, while ethnic Chinese families were allowed one one child. This is considered genocide because quotas for Uyghurs did not increase and are now the same as the rest of China. TFD (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the framing that reliable sources use in their reports. The Associated Press is pretty clear in their reporting on this, writing that The Chinese government is taking 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. ... while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law. CNN also frames this in the context of sterilizing minorities, reporting that CNN's reporting found that some Uyghur women were being forced to use birth control and undergo sterilization as part of a deliberate attempt to push down birth rates among minorities in Xinjiang. ABC News reports that camps are used as a form of threat and punishment, with officials detaining women and families who fail to comply with pregnancy checks or forced intrauterine contraceptive devices -- more commonly known as IUDs -- sterilizations, and even abortions. The result is a huge drop in birth rates among China's Muslim population, even as it moves Han Chinese, the country's main ethnic group, into the mineral-rich region. Radio Free Asia reports that The detention camps, forced sterilization of women and other policies have prompted the U.S. government and several Western parliaments to designate the abuses as part of a state-backed genocide. Catholic News Agency reports that At least 1 million Uyghurs are believed to be interned in concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang Province. Human rights groups and international watchdogs have documented a "slow genocide" against the Uyghurs, including forced sterilizations and abortions, as well as forced organ harvesting, political indoctrination, and torture. I could go on, though I generally think I've made the point about how this is generally being framed by reliable sources as being targeted specifically at Uyghurs/minorities. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

well i think this post from Mikehawk settles it. everyone here knows that China has Two Child policy. But MSM choose not to report it. so we will not. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The comment This is considered genocide because quotas for Uyghurs did not increase and are now the same as the rest of China doesn't follow from the reporting. The AP's reporting that "while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show" goes against the narrative that this is about Han Chinese people and Uyghurs being treated equally poorly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

But the argument for genocide is that Uyghurs are not allowed to have more children than ethnic Chinese. If you think that argument makes no sense, argue with the Sinophobes who are promoting the genocide designation. In fact their argument makes some sense, since restricting women to two children will result in population decline, since not all women will have two children and not all of their children will themselves have two children. TFD (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@TFD - i think the pt here is that if MSM (the West) choose to be sinophobes, then wikipedia is obligated to promote sinophobia, because that is the majority view. i've checked the sources as best i can, including Zenz, and could not confirm evidence of sterilization or IUD usage that amounts to "intent to destroy" as opposed to the regular two-child policy. and the only sources that fact checked Zenz is Greyzone and Xinhua, which are deprecated. and i don't see anyone acknowledging the issues that Greyzone raised about Zenz's work. i think Zenz's work is flawed, as those above explained, but this is not the view of MSM right now. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is not deprecated. It's a reliable source, though for issues where the Chinese government has a particularly strong interest, its reporting should be attributed in-line. Including Xinhua's response to Adrian Zenz' claims, with an explanation that Xinhua is a Chinese government news agency, would be entirely appropriate. There have been several criticisms of Zenz' claims about Xinjiang, and in particular, about his claims on birth control and family planning policy. This article currently covers allegations by the US government, DC think tanks and US government media (Radio Free Asia) in great detail, but includes very little of the reactions from the other side. It would be entirely appropriate and consistent with WP:NPOV to include Chinese responses to the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is not reliable for the purposes of covering this article's topic; the WP:RSP entry notes that [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and notes that some editors even favor outright deprecation due to its lack of editorial independence. The Chinese government clearly is a stakeholder in the Uyghur genocide and the research related to it, so the notion Xinhua is reliable would fly in the face of community consensus already established through an RfC. If you believe that the community consensus is incorrect, then I would suggest that you open an RfC to see if the community would change its consensus into one that would establish that Xinhua is reliable for its coverage on this topic. Unless that happens, Xinhua should not be used as a source of facts in this article owing to the consensus on its lack of reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The irony here is somehow RFA is not deprecated, given it is clearly a propaganda tool of the USA. and the US gov't is clearly a stakeholder here as well. Pompeo made no secret that hes not gonna wait for the facts. side note: both RFA and Xinhua have never failed a fact check according to mediabiasfactcheck.com ergo, blatant double standard by wikipedians on their respective RfC's. while Xinhua *may* broadcast propaganda their main source of funding is actually selling wire service, just like Reuters, whereas RFA's only reason for existence is propaganda to advance interest of USA. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If you look at WP:RSP, you might notice that Media Bias/Fact Check is not a reliable source. And there are reasons that Xinhua gets a bad rap aside from its coverage of politically sensitive issues; it ain't just its well-documented propaganda pushing that has provided editors with some caution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The community consensus is that Xinhua can be used with in-line attribution. It is a particularly valuable source for relating the Chinese government and media's views on issues in China. There are a number of policies that require us to relate views from China about the allegations, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. As long as we provide appropriate attribution, it is fine to use Xinhua. We already extensively cite RFA in this article, even though the community has decided that in-line attribution (noting its connection to the US government) is appropriate when using RFA for geopolitically charged topics. Use of Xinhua to give Chinese views on this topic (which is, after all, about China) is fully appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You appear to misremember the community consensus... Its "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many reliable sources in the article already clarify it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I am of the view that Wikivoice should not inject its own opinion of what Uyghur genocide is. But rather, attribute the definition to the people who actually calls this a genocide.

Current, US, Canada and Dutch calls it genocide and the MSM, when reporting on the subject of designation of as Uyghur genocide (ie when quoting the US/CA/Dutch) describes genocide charge as:

1. "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" Source: BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

2. "China's policies and practices targeting Uyghurs in the region must be viewed in their totality, which amounts to an intent to destroy the Uyghurs as a group, in whole or in part," Source: CNN https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/asia/china-uyghurs-xinjiang-genocide-report-intl-hnk/index.html

3. China bears responsibility "for an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs" and has breached key elements of the 1948 Genocide Convention with its "intent to destroy" an entire ethnic group. Source: USA Today

In my view, the words "intent to destroy" need to be clearly stated in the article lede. Because these are the words chosen by those who made such accusations. Wikipedia should not remove such crucial element in the lede charge. Therefore, I suggest the lede be revised as "Uyghur genocide is the accusation of ongoing policies and practices by the Chinese government intended to destroy the Uyghur people and other ethnic and religious minorities in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People's Republic of China. These practices include the detention over one million Uyghurs, sterilize or force IUD in 80% of women of childbearing age, causing mass deaths in detainment camps, mass rape, forced labor and torture."

I am not saying the above accusations are true, but I am saying China is formally being accused of these acts and that these accusations are reported by RS'es (the 3 articles above). All other allegations of abuse are made by other people who have not actually accused China of genocide and should not be part of this article. (of if they did, MSM did not report on it as genocide and therefore is FRINGE) An example is cemetery destruction does not give rise to genocide and has no place in this article.

The accusation of 1M detainees is from US State Dept. The accusation of 80% sterilization, mass deaths and mass rape, is by US think tank Newlines. The accusation of forced labor and torture is carried by CNN in their "genocide" coverage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.246.37 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that Canada and the Dutch don't call it genocide. Their parliaments approved non-binding resolutions. The Canadian government ministers abstained on the motion, while the Dutch government's ruling party voted against it. TFD (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources that call this a genocide, as has been discussed above on the page. And, within the past 24 hours, even more reliable sources have joined the list of those who refer to what's going on as a "genocide" or refer to the events simply as the "Uyghur genocide"; The Toronto Star has reported that there are credible claims of genocide in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, while ABC News simply refers to the ongoing issue as the issue of Uyghur genocide in China. Taking these in combination with the sources listed in the very long move discussion that took place not even two weeks ago and the many discussions that have happened since, I don't think that the proposed lead shift improves the article, especially in light of MOS:ACCUSED. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

where exactly are these RS that is calling it a genocide? they are merely attributing that someone else is calling it a genocide. also, China is only accused of genocide. There is no finding of fact. There is no consensus or even a clear majority that genocide has occurred. For example, BBC's report calls it "Who are the Uighurs and why is China being accused of genocide?". Clearly, in BBC's view, China is being accused of genocide rather than "why is China committing genocide". So the term "accused" properly describes what the MSM calls it right now. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying there are "credible claims" or quoting what someone says is not the same thing as stating something as a fact. There is a credible claim that the police officer accused of killing George Floyd committed murder, which is why he is on trial. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to make that call. While I have an opinion about what happened, I choose not to use my position as a Wikipedia editor to call him a murderer unless and until he is convicted. TFD (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's "determination." Predictably, he doesn't explain what he means by genocide, it's more of an argumentum ad hitlerum. TFD (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"EXCLUSIVE: State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China". This is a news report, not an opinion piece. And in the report, FP objectively calls it for what it is - insufficient evidence. They did not put these words in quotations, they calls it for what it is straight up. Therefore, the use of the term "accused" is consistent with MSM description when they are not using genocide in quotations. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Lede is accurate as it is. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think short pithy responses to detailed critiques of the status of the article are beneficial to anyone, and ultimately they don’t contribute much to the conversation. Deku link (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Short and pithy but true. Length is not an indication of an argument’s quality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the first and only non-government agency calling the situation a genocide, without qualifications, is Newlines. https://newlinesinstitute.org/about/#/our_team

Newlines report is cited by all MSM in the west, including CNN, BBC, Aljazeera, WaPo, etc, describing "clear and convincing evidence" of genocide. Additionally, Newline is currently the only non-gov't entity that asserts the mass killing, mass rape, etc are targeting Uighurs with intent to destroy the people in whole or in part. Other sources, like HRW, which reports abuses, does not use the term genocide, nor does it allege these actions arise to the intent to destroy Uighurs.

However, Newlines background is highly unusual. It is a think tank with approximately 100 individuals of which 22 are considered staff or fellows. Newlines is funded by Fairfax University which has enollment of about 150 students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_University_of_America

How does a school with 150 students fund a think tank of 22 staff on payroll? And they published their genocide report summary in 6 languages - but the report itself is only in English. The report itself, 55 page PDF, of which only 30 pages actually discuss the actions of PRC. Executive summary is 3 pages and the biographies of the authors are 5 pages. Because the actual report itself is only 30 pages, covering 32 subtopics of violations, they merely accept the allegations of wrong doing as fact and argue why these facts together give rise to meeting the definition of genocide and why the PRC should be held responsible. Also within the 30 pages of discussion are the citations. So the actual space remaining for analysis is incredibly thin, given the need to prove 32 pts of abuse within that space. There is no actual questioning of the veracity of the alleged crimes.

I question whether Newlines should be used as source and whether MSM that refer to Newlines should be cited in this article. Currently, MSM appears to be giving a lot of due weight to Newlines. They all cite Newline without questioning.198.48.246.37 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is according to large amount of reliable sources that use it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the particular Newlines report in contention is reliable, as established by its widespread use by other reliable sources for facts. The notable individuals who have signed on also lend credence to it based upon their being experts on the topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me then, where is this "clear and convincing evidence" which all MSM quoted Newlines claims to exist? All of the MSM reported that it exists. Now where is it? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It came up before. Newslines is a division of Fairfax University of America, which is a tiny (153 students) for-profit university with questionable academic standards. The fact that it is oft quoted makes their claims noteworthy but not definitive. TFD (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@198.48.246.37: Are you asking what sources refer to Newlines as a source for facts, or are you asking if there is evidence in the Newlines report? I'm a bit confused as to the question. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

i am asking whether Newlines work and articles that cite Newlines should be used in this article. as stated below, I am not able to follow how Zenz came up with 80% figure, which is cited in Zens published work, which is then cited by Newlines, which is then cited by Aljazeera. there is a whole ton of citations used here that are based on citations. But the ultimate evidence or what gave rise to the claim is rather ambiguous. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources that have reported on the Newlines report are usable in the article. Additional citations of the report up the chain are generally considered evidence of the reliability of report itself, so I am a bit confused by your question here. We make the article based off of the coverage from RS in line with verifiability policies, not based on original research into the area, if that helps. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is wp:or personal opinion. We follow sources. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Read down to the first paragraph of WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously some degree of critical thinking is required to determine if sources are reliable and talk pages are the proper place to discuss them. TFD (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

i am at a loss of what to conclude about this..... MSM (in the West) unanimously report "clear and convincing evidence exist". but MSM didn't actually cite the said evidence. The report itself blasts thru 32 topics of abuse in under 30 pages. what exactly is the evidence really? for example i think Aljazeera quoted Newlines, which in turn relied on Zenz's work to claim 80% sterilization or IUD rate. This is a very bold claim to make. But details in the report itself reads as this: "By 2019, XUAR planned to subject at least 80 percent of women of childbearing age in Southern XUAR to sterilizations or IUD placements.186". The 186 is citation to Zenz, which eventually goes to this page: https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Internment-Sterilizations-and-IUDs-REVISED-March-17-2021.pdf?x83747 // that page simply claims the 80% rate without explanation. but it does provide a link to the government budget: http://archive.is/hfGL6 . The document is a general healthcare budget for the year 2019, it includes everything and the total revenue and total expense is about 17 billion yuan for the entire province. the gov't stress how important it is to work hard and ensure the health and wellbeing of citizen. theres nothing incriminating about the gov't budget. The strategic objective of 2019 includes: raise healthcare awareness, to increase coverage to rural villages and areas of hardship, increase quality and accessibility of healthcare, and reform healthcare to create proper oversight. The budget is all about improving public health. not sure where is the deep dark secret that Zenz is trying to unveil. Its a public document, whats the secret here? 198.48.246.37 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's stretching the policy. Do Journal articles regularly use inline citation of Newlines articles? I doubt it. OTOH, quality newspapers are routinely sourced in journal articles without intext citation. For example, a journal article might say that Pompeo declared a genocide in Xinjiang and in the footnote it will say that the information is from the New York Times. Since many journal articles do this, we can assume that the NY Times is reliable. If they said, "According to the New York Times, it would create doubt. And I haven't seen Newslines cited about any other topic. In any case, the issue is not whether their facts are accurate, but the weight of their opinions. If they form a conclusion not reached by any similar organization, do we treat it as a finding of fact? I would suggest that even opinions of the venerable Brookings Institute are not treated as fact unless other institutions agree with them. TFD (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean it has been listed among the references of an article in the Oxford-published Journal of Global Security Studies This is rather quick given how recently the Newlines report was released, though I do believe that the use of the source as a reference provides additional evidence for its quality. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The policy says, "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." One citation doesn't do that. But bear in mind that Newslines is cited as a source for the existence of "allegations of “mass atrocities”2 including genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in China." The article doesn't use Newslines as a source that mass atrocities occurred even though it comes to that conclusion. Ironically, the article concludes that "naming and shaming" China is counterproductive, that it will lead to more human rights abuses. Maybe that should be in the article: that calling the human rights abuses a genocide is more about politics than any concern about the people affected.

Note there were 22 Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, all of whom were later released without charge. Where was your outcry then?

TFD (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

How many MSM "outlets" reported the Curveball bullshit, in the lead-up to Amerikkka's second kick at Iraq's can? The idea that more for-profit corporations selling the same story makes it more plausible is a flaming bag of dog filth. Just stop it. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C84:C06:A3C1:2409 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The same MSM outlets also reported the baby incubator story (First Gulf War), Wood chipper story (2nd Gulf war) and Viagra rape squad story (Libyan war). come to think of it, MSM has a very bad track record at falling for false rape accusations in particular. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As much as I 100% agree and sympathize with you, it is important to note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a tool of social change. Wikipedia does not lead the forefront of confronting misinformation presented by governments and will always favor certain viewpoints as “reliable” over others as a western based website with a heavily American userbase. This has the unfortunate effect of putting significant amounts of weight on the words of western governments against those of the global south and will ultimately always lead to the safer defaulting towards whatever narrative American media has until enough years of retrospect allow us to face facts. I have no doubt that if the Iraq War had started while Wikipedia was a thing we’d have an article titled “WMDs in Iraq” and that the policies in place would heavily support such an article. With that being said, this article still has issues with attribution in wiki policy and has ultimately become a slapfight between two ideological groups based on a misunderstanding of policy and a number of (in my opinion) unfortunately unorganized and underdiscussed reliability consensus discussions that have led to blatant propaganda outlets like RFA being given enormous amounts of weight while Chinese state media is somehow not relevant for discussion of China’s response to accusations. Deku link (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason Chinese state media is not as relevant for the discussion of China's response is this masterful display of cognitive dissonance:

China resolutely denies all accusations of wrongdoing in Xinjiang, and runs an increasingly vociferous global campaign to discredit accusers, deny allegations and findings, and promote the region as a “wonderful land” where minority communities are protected and celebrated. It refuses journalists and human rights groups free access to the area and repeatedly dismisses investigative findings as lies. (From a recent Guardian article)

Chinese claims are largely unverifiable because the Chinese government refuses free access to independent organisations and investigators, and the claims that were verifiable (e.g. the non-existence of camps) turned out to be — lies.

The bottom line is this: While it still needs to be demonstrated (either through disgrace or tragedy) whether the claims of sources discussed here are reliable/true, Chinese (especially state) media have already demonstrated their own unreliability, which is why not much weight is given to them. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I really think we are going in circles here, rehashing a conversation we had multiple times, and even going into forum mode with these references to the Iraq War or other events. If the Newsline report is indeed inadequate or biased, some reliable sources will report this, and we should then include this reporting in the article. This is a much more productive conversation than trying to have Wikipedia "not follow" reliable sources, as understandably that won't happen. Morgengave (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that if something is unreliable that a reliable source will inherently report on it anytime soon. There are many situations where think tanks fly under the radar of reliable sources because they are giving information perceived as beneficial to the vast majority of reliable sources (or otherwise fly under the radar). Naturally there is little to be done as far as Wikipedia is concerned when this loophole occurs, although maybe this phenomenon leaves something to be gleaned on the limitations of policy. Deku link (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be the case that the Newlines report is flying under the radar, especially given the extensive media coverage thereof. If the report was inaccurate or unreliable, would reliable sources not have said so? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

When non-academically sound thinktanks were peddling garbage to support the Iraq War, few reliable sources were commenting on the inaccuracy. Something founded in falsehood being granted undue weight and perceived reliability due to an abundance of citations is not a unique or new phenomenon. Deku link (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Newlines report is false or not reliable (aside from comparisons to the Iraq war)? It looks to be written by experts in the relevant fields and it's certainly been widely cited (and not just in US media). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As an example, the claim of 80% sterilization or IUD cited in the report could not be verified. the report links to Zenz, but his number could not be reproduced, verified, or checked. significant portion of Newlines report is also citing from RFA without questioning it. RFA claims also can not be verified or checked. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We are contributors using reliable sources, we cannot be reliable sources ourselves. To nuance or dispute what reliable sources report, we need other reliable sources doing so. If your analysis is correct, either some sources have already reported on this, or will do so in the future. Once they do, we should include them in the article. Morgengave (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Newlines Institute's claims can (and should) be discussed in this article, but we should frame them as the vast majority of reliable sources do: as claims. We cannot put them in Wikivoice or otherwise state that they are true. At the same time, this article is seriously lacking in balance. Allegations by the US government and DC think tanks are given an enormous amount of weight, but there is very little explanation of Chinese responses to the allegations. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia with a global view, or at least, that's what it's supposed to be. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not supposed to factcheck reliable sources, we are not supposed to publish claims as true unless mainstream media (MSM) say they are true. MSM did not say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they said that the U.S. government had made that claim. They then quoted "experts" who said the claims were true. As far as I remember there were no experts who refuted the claims, because there was no way of knowing that they had been fabricated. I should mention too that the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs were far better supported than in this case. It wasn't just two contributors to the Victims of Communism website, an obscure think tank and a U.S. Secretary of State speaking over the objections of his department. TFD (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re forgetting the dozens of witnesses whose testimonies WP:RS have been treating as trustworthy and for the most part verifiable. There were not dozens of independent witnesses to the alleged ongoing Iraqi MDD program. The existence of the camps can also be verified remotely, remember that way back when the Chinese government denied even the existence of the camps but survivor testimony plus satellite imagery put an end to their ability to issue blanket denials. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If I had the time and aptitude, I could read through the dozens of statements and possibly come to a conclusion with some degree of accuracy. I assume you haven't done that. But fortunately we can follow policy and guidelines which say that we are not supposed to do that, but leave it to writers in reliable sources and we then report their conclusions. What bothers me about these claims is that the two main investigators work on the Victims of Communism website. Its statement of the number of deaths attributed to Communist states is widely seen by experts as wrong. That makes me wary of any claims they make about genocide in Communist China. TFD (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes what do WP:RS report... WP:RS where reporting on horrible things happening in Xinjiang *before* Zenz opened the open source floodgate. Remember that Al Jazeera English was thrown out of China for their reporting on Xinjiang in 2012. Since 2012 there have been at least 20 foreign journalists expelled or forced out of China for covering Xinjiang. WP:RS have largely corroborated the testimony of witnesses and treat them as veracious. Note that this was not the case for the Iraqi WMD program. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Another source: "Rape, internment camps, mass sterilisation: How China is committing genocide of Uyghurs". [2] Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

what are you trying to prove with that link to Times of India? the website lifted quotes from a report without citation. In other words, plagiarism. Times of India should be RfC'ed for deprecation. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing dependent on a diploma/visa mill like Fairfax "University" or it's publications should be cited anywhere here. The fact that the whole premise of the article is dependent on such sketchy sources (like ASPI, Zenz, RFA, and "reliable sources" citing them) doesn't look good for those pushing the claim.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Headlines are not reliable sources, news articles are. The article says "the report alleges." The word allege means that the reporters of the Times of India are not confirming the report as true. TFD (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

At a fraction of the length, this article has only 10 less references cited than the page on The Holocaust. It seems like the article is being edited with every new shred of press on the subject that can possibly stick in any way, and the number of in-line citations on each claim is (in my opinion) cluttering the article. Not an actual wikipolicy, but I do think we're reaching WP:OVERKILL levels Deku link (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. One form of citations that could be omitted are references to news articles solely used for quotes from other readily available sources. For example, the paragraph in Uyghur_genocide#Genocide_or_crimes_against_humanity on the Newlines Institute report has about 8 citations to news articles that are all based on the already referenced report. Unless these citations are used to add any further information or context that is not directly found in the report itself, I believe there is no need to have these news articles cited and a single reference to the primary source would be sufficient for that paragraph. D'Lemelo (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire to avoid citation overkill, but the Newlines report is a good example of why we need more than we normally might. Its reliability has been disputed on this talk page, and the strongest case for its reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS so it is natural for editors to make sure use by others is clear by multiple RS citations, to pre-empt bad faith questioning of reliability. If these disputes ever settle down, we can trim citations then; for now, I think safer to leave them. However, I do think that there are too many citations of opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the reason we have so many sources for this article is of a natural result from so much scepticism about the genocide's existence. Given that there are a lot of people questioning the very name of this article (to the point where there is a prohibition on renaming it for a year), every claim needs to be rigorously sourced in order to justify its existence. Not to mention that it being a current event means there is a continual stream of new information. It probably is overkill, however -- although I'd be cautious in removing too much, as we're likely to get sceptics claiming there isn't enough evidence for certain claims. — Czello 14:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think when all the sources cited on a claim are just referencing each other or a specific report already referenced, it looks more like a self-fulfilling ouroboros of accusations than a credible claim. Deku link (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There definitely are isolated cased of citation overkill, but comparing it to The Holocaust is comparing apples and oranges... One of these is a mature page and one is a young page... One is for a historical event and one is for an ongoing event... One has yet to have significant sections broken out into their own pages, the other already has... Lets focus on individual sections, comparing total citation count is a non-starter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Vast majority of the citations here, at least with respect to the elements of a genocide itself, comes from Zenz and RFA. Everyone else is just circular referencing to each other. HRW, Newlines, BBC, etc. all referenced back to Zenz and RFA. 198.48.229.13 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Zenz is cited 39 times in Newlines report, RFA about 21 time. But it has 316 footnotes so it is completely inacccurate to say that they are the main sources for its report. Ditto the HRW report, in which Zenz is cited 20 times and RFA 17 times in a report with 235 footnotes, many of which cite multiple sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do a complete check, but a large number of Newline reference either a) reference directly to Zenz b) reference to "Victims", of which Zenz contributed most of that source or c) to another source like Buzzfeed, CSIS, FT, etc, which then cites Zenz in their article, d) references to Chinese gov't pages, which by itself is not incriminating, but was given an incriminating interpretation by Zenz. Of course there are also other references that r not related to the allegations - such as the legal definition of genocide, etc. And there are interviews, of which the accuser is the primary source itself. But in respect of core evidence of genocide, a lot of it really does go back to Zenz and RFA. 198.48.229.13 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, that does not seem to be true, do you have any WP:RS which say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust did not have many citations, nor a diversity of sources until after the Nuremberg Trials. --Ooligan (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember the pre-Nuremberg version of the Wikipedia article was basically a stub. — Czello 07:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I recently created an article for the Xinjiang cotton industry. It is believed that hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs are forced to work in the cotton industry of Xinjiang. Any help improving the article would be really appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Amazing, yet another page to have endless proxy edit wars that ultimately just loop back to this article. In all seriousness, I hope it ends up being an informative article. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created an article for the Xinjiang Victims Database. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making stubs related to this topic, at least flesh out the articles you make a bit before you put them up. BSMRD (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The recently renamed Fairfax University of America (likely due to their reputation) is known for their subpar education standards, grade inflation, and being a visa mill - and it seems they have tried to polish their image in their wiki article too by even deleting talkpage comments noting the controversy and replaced it with PR talking points. Nothing that comes from Fairfax "university" or its thinktanks should be treated as reliable. It says a lot that this article needs to stoop that low to a source like Fairfax.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that nothing is sourced solely to them beyond their own public response, in the "Other reactions" section, this doesn't actually give rise to any sort of verifiability problem. Removing them from the article wouldn't change the content, but I will note that their report was covered by at least one national newspaper, so it may not entirely lack notability even if it does lack reliability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that FUA is unreliable and we shouldn't be including info on their report, it is cited by many "reliable sources". Wikipedia deals with potential misinformation reported as fact very poorly, as per policy it can only report what others have already said, meaning we can't say anything about "Newlines" unless a few RS say it first. If potentially faulty info is reported as fact by RS there isn't much we can do, which gives Wikipedia articles a big bias problem when it comes to recent/ongoing events but that's a discussion for another time and place, so the best thing to do is find Reliable Sources calling out the accuracy of the report. BSMRD (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the teaching standards of the university have any bearing on the reliability of the research of an institute that seems to be only tenuosly attached to it. The report by the Newlines Institute has been cited by numerous reliable sources. The relevant initiative at the Institute involves leading experts from other universities.[3] and p.7 of its report lists a whole bunch of experts consulted, so I don't think its reliability is either based on or invalidated by whatever connetion it has to Fairfax. At any rate, as everything we say about the report is attributed, all via secondary sources (demonstrating DUE-ness) except the final sentence (which could be removed without hurting the article, or probably sourced via a secondary cite) it doesn't really matter anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The particular source that is cited in the paper is a paper that was published jointly by both the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. The way that WP:RS have described the report have generally been positive and reflect some level of trust in the source:

1. South China Morning Post calls it the first independent legal analysis of the applicability of the Genocide Convention to Chinese authorities' actions against the Uygur people and notes that it was written by a group of experts in international law, war crimes and the Xinjiang region
2. Radio Free Asia (RSP Entry) notes that the report is based on the analysis of more than 50 global experts on human rights and international law who examined evidence from state documents, witness testimony, and open-source research to make their determination.
3. The Week notes that [t]he report was put together by a host of global figures in human rights, war crimes and international law
4. The Independent calls it an independent legal analysis by experts on international law.
5. ABC News (Australia) called it a major new report at the time of its publication.
6. The Guardian calls it a landmark legal report.
7. USA Today calls it an extensive report.

Taken together, it looks like reliable sources recognize that the report is both independent and written by experts on the topic, as well as reliable given that they cite it for facts. Even if we were to consider the source to be self-published owing to questions about the editorial process of the Newlines Institute and/or the Raoul Wallenberge Centre for Human Rights, self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. There's plenty of evidence for that here, so it would seem to be the case that the source constitutes a WP:RS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly an incestuous reliance on the Fairfax report that makes the rounds among numerous generally reliable sources, but as always there is an insistence on bible thumping RSP rather than seeing how putting claims from the report in wikivoice creates issues. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: I don't think that bible thumping RSP rather than seeing how putting claims from the report in wikivoice creates issues accurately describes what I'm doing, and to be frank I think this is a wanton mis-characterization of what my comment fundamentally is. I'm making an argument for reliability of this particular source, not Newlines writ large, based upon an analysis of the source's use by reliable sources for facts and the expertise of the source's writers. This is how we're supposed to evaluate sources; the creator of this section wrote that [t]t says a lot that this article needs to stoop that low to a source like Fairfax, and I wanted to push back on the notion that the source itself is not reliable for facts.

Also, what do you mean by [t]here's clearly an incestuous reliance on the Fairfax report? I've read the comment a few times and I can't seem to figure out exactly what this means.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Because there is not much scholarly consensus or research on the situation as of late, an overabundance of RS reports on the situation in Xinjiang are overreliant on the report, which leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of effect where an abundance of reliable sources continue to lean on the fairfax report. This does not inherently make it credible, it just means that there is currently a reliance on it due to a lack of reports of the same caliber. It's in the same way that Radio Free Asia and Adrian Zenz sourced claims (such as forced marriages or the infamous IUD claim) make the rounds through several RS outlets and are repeated endlessly regardless of the provable nature of the original claim. This is what I mean by incestuous. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are framing the IUD claim as "infamous". The Globe and Mail reports that extensive documentation of the country’s efforts to incarcerate, indoctrinate, sterilize, relocate and transfer to distant factories large numbers of Uyghur people has been uncovered. The Associated Press itself has produced an investigative report that concluded that the state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands according to interviews that it conducted and data it analyzed. Zenz's reports on this topic have repeatedly cited in peer-reviewed journals. Other generally reliable sources seem to have reported the mass forced insertion of IUDs, as well. The AP investigative report continues to be used, and reliable sources are generally reporting the IUD claims in their own voice without attribution. If you have sources that dispute the claims of widespread forced IUD implantation, I'd love to see them. In any case, our articles are supposed to reflect the coverage provided by reliable sources, so I'm not exactly sure where you are quite going with this line of reasoning. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The claims are infamous due to ignoring the overarching presence of pregnancy tests in China due to the one child policy and the fact that Zenz's methodology is notoriously poor and has been heavily criticized by a number of individuals. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that back that up? The vast majority of reliable news sources and academic papers that I have seen (if not all of them) have not described the numbers in this way. So far, I haven't seen reliable sources listed to support that sort of line of reasoning. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not wont to encourage original research and this discussion is (admittedly by my own doing) becoming more forum than article oriented, but there is very clearly a good number of people who have called into question Zenz's methodology, namely using the ratio of insertions to removals to magnify his own statistics to seemingly ginormous numbers and also erroneously labeling insertions as per capita when they are clearly not. This has gone on a bit of a tangent that doesn't quite have to do with analysis of the Fairfax report directly so I won't be continuing discussion past that. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

insistence on bible thumping RSP rather than seeing how putting claims from the report in wikivoice creates issues - except we don't currently put claims from the report in wikivoice; the report's claims are attributed, and sourced via independent secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Fairfax University may not be a “reliable source,” but it’s a reliable source for its own opinion at least and can be used in that context, with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)