Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

The first picture has been proven to be illegitimate. The picture is in fact of a drug rehab center in Xinjiang. https://twitter.com/Kanthan2030/status/1743809318896738711 High quality pictures, including other angles, can be seen here. Xiliman (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Twitter accounts aren't reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Xiliman: @Czello: I looked into this, and it appears the article isn't citing any reliable sources at the moment showing that this image is depicting a internment camp in Xinjiang. So, this editor does have the right to challenge it. Perhaps there is an alternate image which comes from a reliable source? Sagflaps (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Really? It took me all of ten seconds [1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

So that resolves their edit request if it's not already added to the page. Sagflaps (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have found the resource: https://web.archive.org/web/20180821032854/https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1564669932542581

The original article should be news from Luopu County, Xinjiang, which mainly talks about how extremist religion leads them to commit crimes. This picture comes from a prison and is a normal state judicial act. There is no evidence to prove persecution. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that a blog post or a news article? I am not sure 石亭资讯 is considered a reliable source. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a news gathering platform. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it’s a new aggregator without a clear original source then. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no clear source for that image either. Although some Western media forwarded it, they did not indicate the source when forwarding it. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA's account of the provenance and content seems fairly complete - is there any reason to doubt it? Pincrete (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Still can't complete. Because Radio Free Asia is a political media, controlled by the US government.

Template:U.S. Agency for Global Media - Wikipedia

U.S. Agency for Global Media has a channel for all its competitors, such as Radio Free Europe for Russia. Such targeted news media cannot guarantee its neutrality and objectivity.

In addition, this is just a text description and cannot be proven true or false. Since you think the proof link I gave is not credible, please give me a more credible link, preferably this origin article, instead of giving me a paraphrase of the RFA. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the political bias of RFA, but in this context it doesn't impact its reliability - and the article itself shows detailed fact-checking, unlike any of the PRC sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What you said is obviously discriminatory. Inkuaxjieng (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Pincrete (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

They have an awful lot of (cowed and obedient) young male prisoners taking part in that "drug rehab program in a prison"!Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tibet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

there could be another page made for "Persecution of Tibetans" too. I think there's sufficient material on it. Also I think any instance of diving into any issue China related always leads to at best overcompensation or at worst straight up apologia. China is not the only country in this probably but I think Wikipedia administrators or editors should make a distinction between apologists and those who actually want to contribute 2409:40E1:100A:5F28:3733:DD4D:B76B:926 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it could be a page in theory given the content, but FYI, some existing articles are Human rights in Tibet, Antireligious campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party, Sinicization of Tibet, Labour camps in Tibet. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butterdiplomat thanks. yeah I've taken a glance at them. It's just becoming increasingly common nowadays seeing anti Tibetan hate everywhere so I'm just looking for better resources to refer to since there's so limited coverage 2409:40E1:100A:5F28:3733:DD4D:B76B:926 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope your comment is not conflating "anti Tibetan hate" with criticism of the Dalai Lama since I rarely see the former in the Anglosphere but have been seeing a bit more of the latter recently. Your suggestion that admins should divide and possibly restrict users who are "apologists" is not plausible because it would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. What matters most on Wikipedia is reliable sources and while many of those come from the West, non-Western sources are also encouraged if it can make the page more balanced or neutral. Suggestions like yours are not in line with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day by anti Tibetan hate, I don't mean the criticism of the Dalai Lama. it's basically doing apologia for the Chinese side of things about the rationale of Tibet's occupation and denying it's sovereignty completely and smearing the other side and many times being condescending and racist towards Tibetan culture or whitewashing human rights abuses by the CCP towards Tibetans. I never said anti Tibetan hate was all over. I just gave my personal observation about what I thought I was seeing, merely the outright anti Tibetan voice getting louder. my comment was just to be cautious and combat outright apologia,not to completely invalidate the other side 2409:40E1:110B:380D:A1DF:AC10:9699:32AF (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "denying Tibetan sovereignty" since it's part of China. This fact is accepted by everyone/countries including people in Tibet itself. This reality won't change whether you like it or not. no matter how many fantasy wiki pages you create. And the only one here who's doing any sovereignty-denying is you.

It's sad to see people like you continue to destroy the reputation of wikipedia by creating false narratives. But it's also immensely satisfying to see people like you continue to fail. DemisJohnson (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@DemisJohnson pretty rich of you to claim I'm destroying Wikipedia by creating false narratives by regurgitating propaganda points. ik Tibet is considered a part of China today by most countries but you are portraying this in a completely simplified and dismissing tone for the other side. there is a whole debate on Tibetan sovereignty. do I think it's a black and white issue? no. but u certainly seem to think so 2409:40E1:19:14B:7EF6:4D8F:E268:2917 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I politely remind both of you that this article isn't about Tibetan sovereignty and that the WP:NOTFORUM sole purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to THAT article.Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete yeah Ik. I was just responding to claims. I didn't want to bring up other stuff. I was just giving an idea for another article. sorry if it fell out of the genre 2409:40E1:19:14B:7EF6:4D8F:E268:2917 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply stating fact, if you consider that propaganda then you should perhaps consider going back and continue your education in high school.

It's not my fault that you can't handle the simple truth. You love to live in your own fantasy but please don't conflict that with reality. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment by doing that. DemisJohnson (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's stop pretending that people here are interested in the fact.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source in the slightest when it comes to anything geopolitical or political.

It doesn't take a genius to see how biased and unreliable this page is. You aren't allowed to use any sources that oppose the "genocide" or "prosecutions" narrative. But you're allowed to use RFA, Adrian zenz, NYT, and Victim of communism. Hell you aren't even allowed to debunk the cited sources itself.

Outrageous claims like " 1 million Uyghur detained" are considered reliable claims despite having zero reliable source or proof backing it.

Look at this page's history. You will realize there are a few prominent editors who also dictate many other pages related to China, i.e. Chinese tech companies like Huawei.

But thankfully, the majority of people in the real world don't buy this bullshit. The Uyghur genocide narrative is pretty much dead. And was never even prominent in the first place because this page and western media aren't arbiters of reality.

IF you want to see an actual Genocide that's being protested by millions of people daily, go look at the Palestine genocide. The majority of people in the world recognize this genocide but not the Uyghur one because the former has a sea of verifiable proofs such as videos, photos, testimonies, and other forms of evidence. Despite the fact western media like NYT, WAPO are trying their hardest to protect Israel and the American interest. DemisJohnson (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed some unreliable sources I saw at a spot check (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and news.com.au). In my personal view I think we also shouldn't be using US govt mouthpieces as sources either (VoA and RFA, or even ASPI for that matter), but that would require broader consensus. Regarding the 1 million figure; that is sourced, in §Inside internment camps. Cheers, Endwise (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It says the sad state of Wikipedia that we are debating whether we should use RFA or ASPI. The fact that it's even allowed to use them as sources(but not Chinese sources or others) should tell you how unobjective this page is.

These people don't care about being objective, only their narrative. But unfortunately for them, they can only dictate the narrative in Wikipedia. As Western media and America's reputations continue to tank, and the horrors of the GAZA genocide continue to get broadcast, the Uyghur genocide narrative will continue to fade into irrelevancy.DemisJohnson (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@DemisJohnson the problem is that any deep dive scholarly research on the latest wave of persecution or genocide against the Uyghurs is pretty much non existent because of the Chinese government's denial to let any research on the issue happen or even let any coverage happen. u act as if the West is an unequivocal evil. there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia and atrocities done or supported by the west, I think portraying claims by more one side leaning or biased sources as facts is wrong but those claims shouldn't be absent since they're many times supported by looking at even Chinese government policies available to the public. as for the "1 million detained", it's accepted by many scholars and organisations including the UN and other human rights groups. u have no problem rightfully criticizing the atrocities now being done in Gaza. idk why do you feel a need to defend it in the case of East Turkestan. I agree with dealing with claims properly but u just say to avoid claims that have considerable weight to them which I think is not right 2409:40E1:110B:380D:A1DF:AC10:9699:32AF (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

Change "political dissent" under "motive" in the infobox to be a link to the Wikipedia article for political dissent. Skylerthegamer (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Increase in anti-Chinese racism?

The CIA-funded conspiracy theory that China is committing "genocide" against Chinese Turkic Muslims has had a demonstrable impact on the increase in anti-Chinese attitudes globally. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:14A8:9E0:45A3:2D98 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bring forward Wikipedia:Reliable sources, otherwise this proposition is WP:SYNTH. I'm willing to review an RS for this if you bring one forward. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)