Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Uyghur genocide)
Former good article nomineePersecution of Uyghurs in China was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2020Articles for deletionKept
February 11, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 2, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Genocide

[edit]

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

It was called "Uyghur Genocide", but time seems to have debunked that. Persecution is true, however. 131.111.5.131 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only a relatively small number of sources and states refer to this as the “Uyghur Genocide”, which is our principal naming criterion.Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is not a genocide? According to the UN's definition causing bodily or mental harm to members of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group and deliberately inflicting conditions of life that bring about its destruction in whole or in part all count as genocide. Just because they aren't outright killing every single Uyhgur, doesn’t mean that it's not genocide. The word genocide is also mentioned in the article 252 times at the time of writing. Chelk (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for Wikipedia editors to judge the genocide criteria - only to assess whether there is academic consensus.
There are academic sources that say that the label of genocide has not been substantiated yet, for reasons such as the underlying data from Zenz being speculative (as the disclaimer in Zenz's report says) and other claims being exaggerated or unverified. The 2023 Springer Nature book here is an example, summarizing: it is obvious that a campaign that aimed at Muslim minorities and abused their most basic rights definitely took place. However, the often exaggerated numbers, the way those numbers are presented—constantly repeating that millions of Uyghurs are being still and forever detained—and, principally, the unsubstantiated accusation of genocide, have to be criticized.MarkH21talk 19:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make essentially the same point as MarkH. Some sources, including some academics and Govt sources say that what is happening is genocide and many others are more cautious. Ditto, some sources refer to the HR abuses by PRC as the “Uyghur Genocide”, the majority don't. We record those sources, but it isn't our job to 'endorse' or 'verify' claims made that the HR abuses are genocide, nor to endorse the 'name' of the event. You are engaging in what we would refer to as original research, ie assessing whether you think that the policies of the PRC fit the UN definition of genocide. We simply don't do that here, whatever the issue, merely record/reflect what has been produced by sources.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas on Uyghur persecution

[edit]

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

There is a subsection on brainwashing under the human rights abuses section. It has plenty of content, and sources are cited. Will see if that section needs to be expanded even more. I do not think it is for Wikipedia to decide whether this is ridiculous. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Brainwashing" should indeed be re-assessed. If meant literally, it is akin to arguing the earth is flat. "Brainwashing" is non-scientific, asserting "brainwashing" in some literal sense would raise the WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. However, in most instances, someone saying "brainwashing" means indoctrination. We should avoid colloquial or metaphorical language and simply say indoctrination.
Feel free to bring forward more sources on your broader point. Editors on this talk page will read them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling

[edit]

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