Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 4

1315:

the Indian removal, do you see any pictures of random Native Americans? No. And the list goes on and on. Pages like these either feature actual victims (with the picture showing visual relevance to the topic at hand, not just random images) or specific persons significant to what the page is about. Knowledge articles do not include pictures solely based on a shared ethnicity. In fact, pages about ethnicities in general typically do not feature lead pictures specifically to avoid what you are doing here, namely implying that "this is how ethnicity X looks like". There have been long discussions about this already, and the consensus is to not use individuals as a representation for an entire ethnicity. This is also not helped by the fact that the images chosen here -- a young girl and an old lady -- seem like an attempt to elicit an emotional response rather than contributing anything directly relevant to the article.

643:, implying the inmates in the image are Uyghurs. And did anyone along the way provide any source for changing what the image portrays? Nope. What the image shows was simply being slightly modified each time: It went from 1) being officially published as a prison for people involved in drug crimes, to 2) becoming a picture of "Xinjiang Re-education Camp Lop County" (with no source, unless drug rehabilitation programmes in prisons are generally labelled as such on Knowledge, which I don't think they are), to 3) being used on this page, implying it is specifically used for Uyghurs. I tried to find any articles in German/French/English that would disprove the claims of the Judicial Administration regarding these images to no avail. Hence I can only presume that the person who uploaded the image and the person who put it in the article have taken some "editorial freedom" in the description/usage of the image. 2179:). Such images seem perfectly reasonable in the Background section (where currently one is), but their use in a "Marriage incentives" section seems questionable. These photos are of real people, possibly living, and are presented here as examples of marriage incentives despite there being apparently no connection. The comparative examples above are good examples. The Polish clergy picture is quite clearly relevant, they are hostages. The Yazidi image is in a treatment sub-section, and shows the receiving of aid. The Rohingya genocide images are direct depictions of a topic mentioned in the text. War in Darfur uses dated images within a Timeline. (I cannot figure out which image is being referred to in the Holocaust article.) None of these take photos of random living people and insert them somewhere that deals specifically with a sensitive topic. 265:-- neither in German nor in English -- for trying to erase Romani culture by forcefully "re-educating" people in a quite similar fashion that this article describes the Chinese government's policies in regards to Uyghurs. I do think the article should stay up to document human rights abuses, though that should -- as is normal on Knowledge -- include context about the accusations, the accusers, and relevant questions regarding the validity (such as Zenz calling his own estimate "speculative", a statement which is not found anywhere on this page), as well as not applying labels that have not found anything close to majority recognition within scholarly debate. See my comment below for a more detailed description of what I think the primary issues with the current state of the article are. 3266:

exact thing or quoted OTHER sources that were mentioned. I will revert your edit because it is something unacceptable in Knowledge policy. Other than all of this, I do not like your behavior at all mate. All of that started simply because I and some other editors told you to stop tag bombing articles with CN-tags, and you made a whole song and dance about it. You went to an article talk that I participate in saying that you were surprised that I didn't know this or that, talking with coarse behavior, and so on. And here, you completely ignored my premise about overciting and said that biased sources have nothing to do with overciting and paying attention to the small mistake I made while completely ignoring my suggestion.

1014: 2528:(which definitely do not do this) are disingenuously alluded to above by Mikehawk10 and Adoring nanny implies that a thorough search has been done by those in favour of option 1 and they have been unable to come up with any comparable example. (The comments referring to the Yazidi and Rohingya articles should, of course, also be weighed accordingly.) What's more, the use of random images of Uyghur people in this article reeks of the kind of ... well, "race-baiting" may be the wrong term, but ... that shows up in some Euro-American media discussing this issue -- I distinctly remember a certain 3121:). This particularly happens in the lead section (one has 10 references on a singe claim!!!), Middle east section, Organ harvesting section and the Oficial visits to the camp section. We do not need all of them. This is a common problem on controversial topics, where a person spams citations on a controversial claim or a bold/serious one, hoping that it somehow increases the verifiability. We could definitely trim a lot of these excessive citations, especially ones that mention the exact same thing or ones that may be biased in some way. 792:

run 're-education' camps as part of 'de-extremism regulations.'" The language it uses in the sentence I've quoted is unequivocal about stating the number, which is notable. Other sentences in the same paragraph use "hedging" statements, like prefacing claims regarding forced labor and political indoctrination with "reportedly" and saying that "reports... assert" that forced sterilization has occurred. This provides for contrast, and this sort of word choice makes me think that

2713:: Keep the image of the woman with hijab as it is related to the section on clothing, but remove the image of the child since a direct relation between the image and the text (of any section) is in my view missing. The other images included in the article already give a good and relevant representation of the content. Removing the image of the child does not degrade the quality of the article, if anything, it probably enhances the presence and relevance of the other images. — 3343:-actions you explicitly did yourself. Yes, I am referring to the gender pay gap. If you are wondering why I am here then it is not because of certain editors, I generally visit good & featured article nominees and try to fix existing issues or sometimes visit their talk page and see if the issue has already been discussed, usually in articles with interesting content. Also, you are yet again dodging what I said earlier. I didn't only mention the lead, I 2317:. I just tried removing all the said images and previewed the article and I found that these images are indeed creating an impact on the perception of the issue being discussed in the article. In other words, the images serve as an aid in visualizing the actual situation there, how it impacts people of all ages (from children to elderly adults), and so forth. I feel including these images only adds to the credibility of the facts that this article presents. 1834: 692:) also uses the 1 million number frequently, both in Latin American publications and publications based in Spain. In short, the one million number is well reported, and it is not sourced solely from Zenz; we should avoid making the assumption that Zenz and the United States are the only sources of the number. Additional sources (such as the ones I have included above) should be added to the opening paragraph along these lines, which I plan to do soon. 2033:, I will assume you didn't scroll down to the section that contains the image (and that you instead assumed I was talking about the photo in the opening section). I am, however, quite a bit disappointed in the sloppily constructed accusation here that I'd somehow categorize a photo of Hungarian Jews going to a Nazi death camp as an image of "random" people, especially after framing my comments as either peddling disinformation or being posted " 31: 1355:

the page just because they represent people from the oppressed ethnic group". Again, that goes against the consensus to not add images for the purpose of "this is how ethnicity X looks like". Ethnic groups exhibit a vast variety of physical features and there are no rules for determining whether a person is of a specific ethnic group by their looks, and as such images used for ethnic generalisations are inherently exclusive and unscientific.

290:

government are reliable sources? Do you still remember 2003 Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? On the other hand, why do you think Youtubers cannot be reliable sources? They show you real-life local videos that mainstream media do NOT have. Besides factual things, their opinions are also real opinions. You can state clearly that these are opinions from Youtubers. Without these, currently this page is very biased and one-sided.

1021: 408:

campaign to begin with. Though no western media would dare to comment more than what the Economist had already done, otherwise they will be condemned by the more naive general population as well. Hopefully, just like 2003 Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, years later after seeing millions of Uyghurs living happily in Xinjiang, people will realize they have been fooled by the biggest lie since 2003.

2241:. Seems like a BLP violation, and in any case inappropriate, to use images of random living people and imply that they're victims of a genocide. The one in the background section is probably fine, and maybe one of the others could be moved to that section, but I don't think it's appropriate to use them in the "Marriage incentives" section. (The one of Mihrigul Tursun seems fine as currently used). — 116:) had explained many suspicious points of the US's Uyghurs genocide claim in details. There are also thousands of videos on Youtube or TikTok showing the normal modern daily life of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that is totally different from what the western media portraited. Not to mention the China government and media have already given tons of evidence that disproved many of the Uyghurs genocide rumors. 2405:: I'm mostly convinced by Rasnaboy here. Trying to imagine the article without the images, it strikes me as much drier and frankly less informative. This convinces me that the images really do serve an actual purpose in the article. I would not be opposed to replacing them with different images if better images can be found, but the current images strike me as significantly better than no images. 569:(kind of): I don't think YouTube is a good source or that there needs to be a new section, but I would say that this article does not match journalist criteria, nevermind encyclopaedic ones, in how it presents sources. I have mainly read about this topic in German and French media, and when those accusations are voiced, it is most often presented in a way that gives information about 3151:

the archive link). The third, after "called it a genocide", has news reports (including one ICIJ news post), two US government press releases, and one Canadian government statement. At the very least, all should be culled to have one news source at most. Some of these sources aren't even used in the article body, so it's unclear what unique information they are meant to bring.

2559:, while there is no other claimed relevance of the pictured individuals besides their ethnicity.The inclusion of the image picturing what appears to be a minor in the "Marriage incentives" subsection (image 3 in the RfC statement) is by far the most problematic of the three images. The article does not suggest that this particular young girl (or minors in general) are at all 522:, we need expert sources. That means actual experts rather than governments, human rights groups or news reports for analysis. Some of these sources however be fine for facts, such as what happened or what was said. There is for example academic consensus that the Armenian genocide was a genocide and documentation of the Turkish government's refusal to acknowledge it. 956:, which, as several participants describe, encourages images that are relevant and “not primarily decorative.” Discussion participants here have coalesced around the idea that the headscarf image is helpfully illustrative, that the image of the child tends towards “decorative,” and the image of the man is appropriate in the background section of the article. 2156:. In my view, if an entire gallery of images is not fit to appropriately represent an ethnic group, then three images aren't either. They serve a solely decorative purpose and are in my opinion highly problematic as they imply to readers that "this is how Uyghurs look like", which is an inherently exclusive and unscientific suggestion. 388:. It's a document that outlines Knowledge's reliable source policy, and it's a big help for those that are interested in learning about how Wikipedians handle these sorts of things. Wikipedians happen to have discussed whether or not to consider YouTube as a primary source before. At the time, Wikipedians had achieved a consensus that 2055:(shortly after it was occupied by the Wehrmacht) -- are you disputing the image description? Anyway, I assumed you were talking about the lead image because it is the most prominent; I had noticed the image you are now referring to, but it, too, shows Jews apparently being marched somewhere, flanked by soldiers with guns. Our 2341:

in the water. I would say given the sensitive nature of these marriages it's inappropriate to put random people's faces in there. A page on "Rape in Country X" would not include random portraits of identifiable women just because women are the more likely to be raped, that would be an atrocious abuse of people's privacy.

2411:

are, under "marriage incentives", I agree feels odd. As Unknown Temptation pointed out, neither of these people is directly affected by that particular aspect of the genocide, whereas the woman would be affected by the suppression of traditional clothing and the child would be affected by the policy on children's names.

861:(already cited on the page) includes a quote of the Chinese official line that the camps are "vocational education and training centres". China's official denial probably is notable enough to include somewhere, although not in too much detail unless its weight can also be established by reliable sources. 2796:

statements, and (depending on the full text of the statement) we might need to modify the lead to incorporate it. I is not 100% clear from the Reuters report that the joint statement is a statement of affirmative support for Chinese policies in the region or if it is a statement telling the US and UK to

2425:

Even though I am mostly for removal, I agree that the image of the woman could fit under the "clothing" section. Perhaps that is a compromise we could settle on. Though I find it difficult to put the image of the girl in the "names" section considering you cannot "see" a name, nor do we know the name

2340:

and these mixed marriages are being presented as being promoted to make mixed babies, so not only are this old woman and girl most likely not in these marriages, they likely don't look like anyone in those marriages. The argument of "we need to see what the women in these marriages look like" is dead

1130:

No it's not, these images have nothing remotely to do with the article unless you're trying to say these are images of people who were genocided. PailSimon is correct, their inclusion is strange and doesn't make sense. These images are also from 2005, way before the so called "genocide" even started.

3424:

says that controversial topics are usually overcited. Adding citations that say the exact same thing (which is why I deleted some redundant citations) are discouraged. If one has, say, 6 citations, it is best to trim three of them and leave three of the best. Anyways, it seems like there hasn't been

3265:

paid attention, I mentioned other sections rather than the lead. Just because I didn't participate further (I didn't have time) doesn't make a policy-breaker okay, it doesn't even need consensus if it is an obvious or important policy. I checked the sources and simply removed ones that said the same

3180:

My proposal would be to keep the WSJ source for the first bunch, on the grounds that it is used in the actual article body and arbitrarily that it is currently first, keep the two academic sources for the second bunch, and keep one US government press release (the one on the bipartisan bill) and the

3083:

This thread has been inactive for 1 month, 7 days. It does not appear there is any consensus for action and I have closed it due to inactivity. If any editor wishes me to rv my close so they may continue this discussion, please ask (and ping me) and I will reopen it. If there is no objection, I will

2827:

frames the statement as one in opposition to non-specific actors that promote "unfounded allegations against China out of political motivations". It appears to be significantly differently phrased and framed than those statements which RS have said explicitly provided affirmative support for China's

2410:

However, I feel the image of the woman would probably be better under the "clothing" section, as she's wearing a headscarf which is one of the clothing items that the Chinese government discourages, and the image of the child would be better under the "children's names" section. Where they currently

2355:

Also, unless it's been changed in the meantime, that image of Polish clergy shows them gathered with their hands up, and the image data says they're hostages. The date is also within days of the Nazi inavsion. It's clearly related to Nazi crimes against Polish clergy and not a picture of what Polish

2147:

and adding images of random homosexuals "to show what they look like". In my opinion, it is simply inappropriate and does not contribute anything informative. My argument is mostly grounded in the consensus that was reached in the RfC about including galleries of people in pages about ethnicities or

1477:

My argument is about the whole ethnic group, don't pretend that you know me. I don't care if you would choose pictures of two men instead (although then I would at least be less suspicious that they were chosen to elicit an emotional response, which still wouldn't solve the issue of generalisation),

1235:

Since the section talks about family policies, it is helpful to show images of people subjected to such policies. This article is about an ethnic group, so showing members of that ethnic groups help people visualise the topic (it helped me, for one). And that's what I'm saying: I agree with you that

759:

used as a prison for drug criminals. The images were not taken by the BBC or any other news outlet, and there has not been any article with evidence or an argument of why it should not be such a prison. In light of this, I do find it rather questionable that Knowledge editors would act as an arbiter

754:

one, in which you can read on the jumpers of the prisoners something like "Compulsory detoxification ". I have not been learning Mandarin for long and I cannot recognise the last character, but the first part of it seems in line with what the claimed purpose is. Plus, China is indeed extremely harsh

3150:

Bias or no bias, that first paragraph of the lead is pretty bad. The first set, after "one million Muslims", is all newspaper source (including two separate Al Jazeera articles). The second batch, after "ethnocide or cultural genocide", is news articles and two journal articles (one only visible in

2982:

reverted my edit, per: 'Reverted good faith edits by Blue Wiki (talk): They are many non-Uyghur Muslims that are also wrapped up in this, including Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslims.' In fact underlining my assertion that the Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples are not being persecuted because of their

1354:

to elicit emotions, that is not their goal. And since the consensus on Knowledge is to not include images of individuals whose sole purpose is to imply "This is how ethnicity X looks like", random images of Uyghurs simply have no place here. You specifically said, I quote: "these images are good on

736:

put the topic on the front pages of the international media and was eventually taken up by the United Nations. Three months after Zenz's paper was published, the chair of the UN Committee against Racial Discrimination in Geneva announced that there were "believable reports" that one million Muslims

603:

This claim about "one million" is accompanied by three sources. Source is the Trump administration, which as basically everyone agreed above, is not a good source since it is a government statement without any accompanying evidence. If it is used as a source, it should be made clear in the article

2936:

This thread has been inactive for 1 month, 19 days. There is no consensus for any action and I have closed it due to inactivity. If any editor wishes to continue this discussion, please ask (and ping me) and I will rv the close so they may contribute to the discussion. If no objection is raised, I

1632:

I have filed a dispute resolution request as I believe ethnic generalisations are a serious issue that should not be left for such a limited amount of users to decide; especially since consensus on other pages about this topic seems to have already been reached (namely that images should not serve

1331:

Well, if the images "elicit an emotional response" on the subject of the page as you say (and I agree), then they arguably belong to the page. An idea that WP pages (or any other information) should not elicit an emotional response would be wrong. To the contrary, the pages should be interesting,

1314:

This is not in line with other Knowledge pages. For example, if you go to a page about the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, do you see pictures of random Muslims? No. If you go to the page about Francoist concentration camps, do you see any pictures of ordinary Spaniards? No. If you go to the page about

807:

of the investigative reporting, which I think would bring up problems if it were the only source saying what it is saying. But, RFA is not the only source saying that this is an image of a "re-education" or "internment" camp, and I don't think that we should go with the official government Chinese

791:

that was released later, in October of 2020. The language of the report indicates that has since firmed up on the number and states on page 6 that "China has sought to justify its coercive detention of over a million Muslim Uighurs, Kazakhs and other predominately Muslim ethnic minorities in state

745:

1 million, it is either usually in reference to Zenz or referring to "reports" with no further explanation. And I think it would be fair that -- given that even Zenz himself has called the estimate "speculative" (since he's extrapolating based on very few interviews) -- this circumstance should be

541:

Naturally, genocide denial is going to both occur and be espoused as an ideology by those responsible for said genocide. This whitewashing attempt reminds me of the time a friend sourced the claim that Trumpcare would significantly reduce medical costs in the US... to Trump making that claim. What

426:

questions the label 'genocide', but in now way questions the human rights violations. So no, there is no evidence that "the whole thing was a fake propaganda campaign to begin with" (or if there is evidence for such an affair, you have so far failed to provide it). Your talk about the "more naïve

325:

It does not work like that: You're saying that " 'overwhelmingly conclude that the genocide is real', sorry, it is NOT. ", but then back up your claims with sources only questioning the word used to describe it. Just because the word might be a misfit doesn't mean the events don't happen. You're

252:

The first movements to recognise the Armenian Genocide as a genocide came up about 20 years after it happened, and after extensive independent investigations. That speaks to the amount needed to apply this label. Reading through articles, any sort of conclusive evidence regarding Uyghurs speaks to

3278:

but because this case is relatively obvious, the underlying principle should be to remove redundant overcitations. Now please, if you think that my intention is bad or mean, then I am sorry because it is not my intention. I want Knowledge to be a great place for everyone. I hope you understand :)

2998:

I don't think that the persecution is happening exclusively because of religion or ethnicity, but instead as the result of both. This is what the vast majority of RS appear to be reporting, from what I can tell. This is certainly the case in Western media's reporting on the overall situation, (ee

2800:

as it pertains to China's domestic policies, so we should be careful in how we frame it and should seek a more detailed report. Reuters seems to use a few see the direct quotes without providing a real framing to the statement itself, so it's hard to see if we are in danger of comparing apples to

1704:

I consider the image of the man a generalisation too. My opinion on this discussion includes all images that are used as a meaningless generalisation. The article about Hijabs you linked is specifically about Muslim clothing, hence the image of Muslims wearing those clothes is appropriate in that

1448:

greater understanding of the topic at hand. How does knowing about the looks of a single Uyghur child or a single older Uyghur woman foster any understanding about a political policy? It doesn't. It doesn't even foster understanding of an ethnic group unless you believe in ethnic generalisations.

1447:

Again, images of random Uyghurs that serve no purpose other than implying that "this is how an Uyghur looks like" do not serve any informational purpose. This is why you do not see any images of completely random Italians on the page about Italians for example. MOS:PERTINENCE is about fostering a

915:

The issue here pertains to illustration of an article about the genocide or attempted genocide of an ethnic group and whether, in that context, it is appropriate to include images of members of that ethnic group as part of the article’s background information. Over the past six weeks, well over a

3378:

here regarding the content of the page. We have been through a bit of a cycle of people removing things because they were "unsourced" or "insufficiently sourced" and then accusing the page of being biased because they allege it linked to too few sources. Some of them were added were to show that

2795:

The part about the decline in the lead section was accurate at the time of writing, though I am wondering if anybody can find a full list of countries or a fuller version of the statement from an RS. We have pretty good details in the lead regarding the changes over time between the previous two

2024:

The file of the old market appears to show a bunch of priests with their hands up in the old market, but it doesn't actually appear to show any sort of crime being committed. If you think it does, would you please elaborate on what crime is being committed? Additionally, I don't quite know where

823:

owns the copyright on the image, for example, but I don't see why Reuters would own the image any more than the Chinese government). The original source image seems to be correct in handling the copyright, but you do bring up some good points regarding how we should be cautious in handling these

648:

To summarise: I do see where the complaints about this article are coming from, since it features editorial decisions that are in my opinion not just below the standards of encyclopediae but also most news outlets. Though should they be rectified, I see no reason why there would need to be a new

354:

It clearly isn't just that. To cite some examples from the post that started it all: " debunked many rumors ", " showing the normal modern daily life of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that is totally different from what the western media portraited.", " these explanations/debunking". Or take a look at the

289:

Nowadays, it is hard to define "reliable sources". You think mainstream media and "independent non-profits NGO" are reliable sources? Look at those reports about Syria a few years ago, all came from the same source White Helmet, which was later found to be an unreliable source. You think western

2842:

I don’t think we should have so much information about that in the lead, its a little two scoreboard like. I’d recommend cutting the whole thing down to a single line about opposing letters at the UN. I’d also cut the ICJ section down to one line, its just way too much specificity for the lead.

2736:

I think that I am seeing an emerging consensus regarding the use of image of the woman in the hijab, namely that the article would be better than it is now if the image is moved from the marriage incentives section to the clothing section. Should I move the image into that section while the RfC

2532:

programme back in 2009 giving air time to someone saying they had been surprised by images of the Uyghur people back then and how they didn't "look Chinese", and while I am not sure what percentage of this article's expected readership are as ignorant as that Newstalk caller back in 2009, but I

581:

are there any questions regarding the validity of the accusations (which this articles does not do at all). So I was rather confused when I first saw this Knowledge article, which makes the same claims that I have read in news articles, but mostly without any such accompanying context about the

3165:

Oh yeah I completely agree that we have citation overkill in the lead, but its an issue we’ve tried to address before and leads to a cycle of uninformed or malicious editors removing “unsourced” content and then other editors overreacting and overstocking the citation supply. Personally I like

1744:

page has images of assorted Darfur men and Janjaweed tribespeople. Each of the images serves a purpose, and it's to provide a visual aid to see the subject that the text is depicting. I believe that is what is going on here as well, and they should stay as they are pertinent towards that end.

407:

Ok, if Youtube is not acceptable, at least consider the article from the Economist I quoted above. As you can see, some people here do not even know that the use of the word "genocide" itself is already controversial. Not to mention there is evidence that the whole thing was a fake propaganda

1462:

But if thats your argument then why not include the random picture of a man in traditional dress? Your argument is inherently about the fact that these are pictures of women, don’t now pretend that your argument is about the whole ethnic group. BTW this isn't a page about a political policy.

3398:

invitation, as there are more than two editors actively involved. Please assume good faith and avoid ad hominem attacks on each other. All editors clearly have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and I am confident that a sensible agreement can be reached. Please consider

3379:

non-Western sources were also reporting this, per my comments in above sections. Pages that are of controversial topics tend to have more citations and attributions in the text, simply because this ends the edit-revert cycles that, for example, we have been dealing with constantly. —

2088:

Visual information is very important for the readers to have a grasp of the characteristics of the actual peoples who are being persecuted. This is especially important given the heaviness of the topic and the susceptibility of it being "abstracted", "politicized", or "ideologized".

966:

I thank all participants in the discussion for their thorough, well-reasoned, and good faith contributions and invite any conversation about this close to occur in appropriate venues, namely a closure review if someone thinks I misread the consensus, or my talk page if appropriate.

1954:

article. The Rohingya and Yazidi articles, similarly, do not contain any image use comparable to what we are discussing here. Either Mikehawk10 just assumed these articles provide a precedent for these images, without actually checking, or he checked, saw that these articles did

3025:

on the topic which that explicitly states that the estimate refers to the number of "ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities" being forcibly placed in the Xinjiang re-education camps. For this reason, I believe that the current phrasing of there being "more than one million

308:). "Some human-rights campaigners argue that calling the atrocities in Xinjiang “genocide” will stoke useful outrage and rally the world to oppose them. Others retort that making an accusation the dictionary makes clear is false undermines the credibility of the accuser". 1926:

On each of the pages noted above, the images provide a visual aid, allowing the user to see the subject that the text is depicting. I believe that is what is going on here as well, and, if better images cannot be found, then the current ones should be kept pursuant to

1388:

You can think whatever you will of it, Knowledge is an encyclopedia. Unless you can prove that these images contribute anything to the article other than an attempt to generalise an ethnicity by its looks, the images have no place here. It's as simple as that.

783:

reflects exactly what you're saying, writing that the " United Nations human rights panel said on Friday that it had received many credible reports that 1 million ethnic Uighurs in China are held in what resembles a 'massive internment camp that is shrouded in

1009:

The placement of these images under the "Marriage incentives" subheading have nothing to do with marriage or wedding traditions. Is the child or grandmother getting married? If not these images don't belong here and should be removed. (Stop undoing removal)

2881:

I agree with Mikehawk and HEB that this doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead, and this also does not really contradict the earlier reported numbers.The new statements are suitable for the "Reactions at the UN" subsection in the body though (cited to

1236:

simply taking a random picture of a Uyghur woman/child is not very illustrative for the purposes of this section, but instead of just discarding those pictures, we should try to find better alternatives (more connected to the topic) to replace them.

1617:

Indeed, I missed TucanHolmes in my count, but 3:3 is just as little of a consensus as 2:3 is. But the consensus on this topic in previous, larger discussions has as far as I can see been to not use images of individuals for ethnic generalisations.

1723:

All images that are meaningless are meaningless, tautologically. I think the central point of contention among editors is which images (if any) those images are. Many of us have taken the angle that they are pertinent to the topic of the article.

3308:

Also what do you mean "All of that started simply because I and some other editors told you to stop tag bombing articles with CN-tags, and you made a whole song and dance about it.” Following editors around wikipedia is generally discouraged per

2983:

religion, but because of their ethnicity, and because they are not Han Chinese. I want to resolve this issue by seeking the opinion of other editors, because this is an important distinction in understanding the reasoning for the persecution. --

1759:

These images do not belong, clearly, the individuals in the photographs have no idea their images would be used to portray a "genocide" when these were taken in 2005. Clearly they should be removed. lol Mikehawk10 you tried to ban me

827:

I admittedly cannot read Chinese, so I can't speak to the meaning of the characters on the uniforms in the photo you've linked. But, it looks like generally reliable sources are supportive of the caption that is currently present. —

916:

dozen editors have contributed to this discussion, which has largely petered out in recent days, and I am an uninvolved admin (though here, acting only in a capacity as an uninvolved editor) here to assess consensus per a request

778:

UN report that stated that estimates of the Uyghurs in camps ranged between "tens of thousands" to "upwards of one million" Muslims, and I think the analysis that you've put above is fair regarding the 2018 statement. A Reuters

597:

Since 2014, the Chinese government under the Xi Jinping Administration has pursued a policy which has led to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in secretive detention camps without any legal

729:

Thanks for the level-headed discussion! Regarding your first point: Indeed, the number of one million is mentioned by multiple media outlets and is sometimes attributed to the UN. However, that is a bit of a distortion. In the

392:

because most videos are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable. For those reasons, we try not to use YouTube in articles except when linked to a verified account of news organization or other public, verifiable source.

2555:: The subjects of the images are not tied to the topic of the article by anything other than their ethnicity. The use of images of individual ethnic group members to represent the whole is directly against the consensus at 3020:

Regarding the first sentence in particular, the three sources cited each refer to the number as being the number of "Muslims" that were detained. This phrasing is not accidental, as the original source of this number is a

749:

Regarding the image: Yes, I have seen it be used on BBC this way too. But the image was published by an official Chinese WeChat channel and not the BBC, and it was published among other images of the facility, including

663:

Regarding the variety of sources in the lead, you raise a good point about how the article currently stands. That being said, doing a bit of searching in both Western (there are countless througout the article) and Arab

3209:

My slight modification to your proposal would be to drop the government sources as well and leave that bit unsourced, none of the sources support the whole thing and its a general enough statement to be left unsourced.

1986: 119:

I suggest maybe we can add a section about all this. Even if some people will never believe in these explanations/debunking, it is still part of the story and should be mentioned to give everyone a complete picture.

618:

The edit got immediately removed. Why is it not important context for a reader of Knowledge to know that the person upon whom most of the estimates in this article rely on has called his own estimate "speculative"?

1207:: " are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." 107:

There are now more and more voices suggesting that the "Uyghurs genocide" was nothing but the US government's fake propaganda strategy during Trump's term, mainly advocated by Pompeo. For example, this Youtuber

1373:

Given that this page is about a genocide I think its a long shot and more than a little bit disrespectful to say that those images specifically are whats going to elicit an emotional response from this page...

542:

beautiful, unimpeachable logic.I'm obviously well aware, of course, that the two examples are not even close to comparable in terms of scale, but for the sake of our sanity, I'd prefer not to dwell too much on

261:, at least in German, refers to the physical mass-murder of an ethnic or similar group. I would presume a similar distinction to exist in English given that for example Maria Theresia is not being accused of a 959:

I also find a strong consensus that the images can and should be improved should other images more consistent with the manual of style emerge. Furthermore, the image implicated for removal here (of the child)

1681:

page has the photo of a Uyghur man that is included in this article (but doesn't appear to have been challenged) as well as the photo of the young Uyghur girl. The picture of the adult woman is also used on

743:

1 million so that there was a scientific consensus, I'd be happy to leave it as it is. It's just that as far as I have seen so far, when any international organisation or NGO that references the number of :

2108:, with the caveat that there is always room for improvement. These are not the best imaginable images, but they are better than no images and I share the OP’s reading of MOS:PERTINENCE as it applies here. 1709:, and you will also not find such images, since it is not about specific Christian clothing and including pictures of random Christians would be a generalisation of "how Christians look like" as well. 1064:

Keep the pictures but move the pic of the kid down under "Children's names” or somewhere else. The use of that image long predates the existence of any of those sections by the way, see December 2019:

924:

I find a consensus that context-specific images of members of the Uyghur ethnic group are permissible provided the captions and accompanying article context are verifiable and do not otherwise violate

755:

on drug abuse and does have prisons specifically for convicts involved in drug crimes. If those images are to be used in another way, in my opinion there needs to be some evidence that the facility is

2375:. Here we make allegations that China is forcing minorities into marriage with ethnic Han Chinese (inserts random image of child and grandmother that have nothing to do with it). Yup, pretty absurd. 2464:

Inappropriate to use such images. There is also the issue of using more Western-looking people to represent Uyghurs - while there are a wide range of appearances of Uyghurs, blondes are uncommon.

3240:

don’t falsely claim a talk page consensus when you haven't participated here since opening the discussion and no consensus has been reached. We haven't even discussed anything outside the lead.

1897:

I believe that the images are pertinent to the topic of the article, and that they provide useful information to the reader by serving as a visual aid. Per my comments in the above subsection,

917: 760:

for which description is correct in cases like these, since none of the articles even mention what the source of the image is, what its original description is, and why it should be wrong.

2874: 2852: 2220:

for now - simply as best available images that are at least remotely relevant to the subject. Replace by better images as soon as they will be available. This is all work in progress.

941:

The image of the child is inappropriate in the marriage incentives section and probably would be in the children’s names section insofar as we have no idea what the child’s name is.

3353:

This particularly happens in the lead section (one has 10 references on a singe claim!!!), Middle east section, Organ harvesting section and the Oficial visits to the camp section.

1250:

I would agree better pictures should be provided but that does not justify their present inclusion. Either better pictures should be provided or there should be no pictures at all.

2772:

Whilst CGTN cannot be cited as a "reliable source"- The lead part about the decline in countries supporting China is false, was speculative and is designed to push a narrative- --

3326: 3219: 3204: 3175: 224:

was regarded as false, we therefore state so. Countries press agencies are not reliable source, independent non-profits and NGO's are. I really don't understand your denialism.

3303: 3145: 2722: 1656: 1472: 1442: 1383: 2264:. If there is evidence from RSs, as there is, that an entire group is the subject of genocide, then it seems to me reasonable to include images of any members of that group. 1168: 1104: 1076: 2117: 1081:

As far as I'm aware the individuals in said pictures have no relevance to the subject of the article, they haven't been victimized or anything so their inclusion is strange.

2787: 2865:

you’re going to need to provide a detailed explanation with diffs to support your assertion that it "was speculative and is designed to push a narrative” or retract it.

2149: 604:

where the claim is coming from. Source is Adrian Zenz. And source appears to be Human Rights Watch, but it is actually just Human Rights Watch referencing Adrian Zenz.

796:

was reporting responsibly when it published in January 2021 that "he United Nations says at least one million Uighurs and other Muslims have been detained in Xinjiang".

3011:), but also in the Chinese academy. (See Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences researcher Li Xiaoxia's quotes referencing "religious extremism and ethnic separatism" in 623:

A similar lack of transparency exists with the article image for example. According to the image description, the image was taken from "the wechat MP platform account

3136:

Citation overkill and biased sources are completely different and unrelated issues. If you have concerns about biased sources those need to be addressed separately.

1690:, especially given their use throughout Knowledge for the apparent purpose of intentionally providing visual representations of people from the Uyghur ethnic group. 1479: 929: 94: 2768: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1782:

page. I don’t believe the knowledge of the individual that they would later be used on a page describing genocide is relevant to established inclusion criteria.

1595:

I agree that there is currently no consensus, but it’s currently 4 in favor of keeping them in some way (unless we can find better images) and 3 in opposition.

2125:, per my reasoning in the initial discussion. If there are better, more pertinent alternatives for the images in question, they should be replaced immediately. 2059:

article does not include random photos of members of various European Jewish communities years or decades before the start of WWII, as your comparison implies.

677: 857:

reliable news sources (that is, "reliable" by established Knowledge standards) reporting that China officially denies that atrocities occurred. For example,

607:

Upon seeing that and having read a bit about Zenz in German media, I tried adding the information that Zenz himself has called his own research "speculative"

3249: 2051:

I'm sorry, but the description of the images refers to the people all with their hands raised as "hostages" and it says it was taken in September 1939 in

1778:

anticipated that their figure would be used in a Knowledge article on genocide either, but they are appropriate there. Same thing for the pictures on the

3050:

Thank you for your comprehensive comments. This remains a complicated issue, maybe in the future there will be more clarity on the topic. We shall see.

2660:: Inappropriate use of living person's image. Not specifically tied to marriage. Appearance overrepresents and underrepresents certain Uyghur traits. 3004: 3166:

completely citation free lead sections and support the removal of literally all of them, but sorting on grounds of bias is not part of the process.

1905:

has a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes).

1728:

has a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes).

944:

The image of the unnamed “Uyghur man” in the background section is probably acceptable so long as the caption does not go further than it does now.

816: 715:). The image description itself should be edited to incorporate the RS, accordingly, but the image description as its stands appears to be true. — 1933:

hen possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals.

731: 608: 501:. "Neutrality" doesn't mean that all viewpoints are given equal weight, especially when the sources are all fairly conclusive in one direction. — 964:

be appropriate in another context within the article should a general conversation about the genocide’s impact on children, for example, emerge.

322:

The source you are citing only questions the accuracy of the label, and does not dispute the reality that atrocities are committed in the region.

3012: 2887: 708: 695:

You make a good point with respect to the wechat link that you have described, though further investigation shows that multiple (activist and

689: 681: 3000: 2815:

After further review, it looks like we'd be comparing apples and oranges if we compare the numbers. Previous statements have been focused on

1991:

a photo of a bunch of Polish clergy in the section that is associated with crimes against the clergy (even though the image is not of crimes)

1902: 1725: 669: 613:

Although he described his own estimate as 'speculative', the 'one million', a number with symbolic political power, was now out in the world.

304:

Also, to those who think it is "overwhelmingly conclude that the genocide is real", sorry, it is NOT. Read this article, from The Economist (

3190: 3160: 1950:

Just noting here, as I have below, that "a photo of random Hungarian Jews" is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the infobox image in our

1670: 1495: 1457: 1398: 1140: 1125: 1090: 47: 17: 1633:

the purpose of generalisation), yet any edit to remove the images with that purpose seems to be going to be reverted by Horse Eye's Back.

1300:

the subject. Do we have better/more relevant images? If so, they can be used. If not, I do not see any problem with keeping what we have.

665: 981: 885: 1580:

I don’t think that count is accurate. Per my comment above, I am in favor of keeping the images in place, at least for now. This, plus

3294:

We haven't discussed those yet, we’ve only addressed the lead so far. If you would like to discuss other parts of the article we can.

2301: 793: 3117:

I have added a reference to the last CN-tag that I found, but as soon as I finished, I realized that so many sections are overcited (

928:

and are consistent with established consensus from previous RfCs on how to incorporate images in articles about ethnic groups (e.g.,

3022: 2252: 1993:? Or how you think it is appropriate to describe an image of "Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz II in German-occupied Poland" as 775: 952:, which I believe serves in an advisory capacity here since the scope of that RfC was slightly narrower than the context here, and 2029:, which is in the article, shows Hungarian Jews in 1944 in the city of Budapest, not Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz II. Per 2777: 2686: 2153: 1185:

I agree with HorseEyeBack: these images are good on the page just because they represent people from the oppressed ethnic group.

774:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Just to lay out my understanding of the reporting on that "one million" number, there was a

2970:

I wanted to start this discussion because I recently changed the lead of this article to focus on the ethnicity of the Uyghurs (

712: 192:

If you have reliable news or other sources providing coverage that there is no current genocide occurring, please provide them.

2682: 2390: 1040: 680:) english-language media both often refer to the United Nations as the source of the 1 million number. Spanish language media ( 384:

Hey! If you're looking for guidance on how Knowledge handles reliable sources, and for some general guidance, please check out

811:

There's also a bit of a mess with different reliable sources assigning the copyright of the image to different organizations (

2542: 2068: 2026: 2014: 1968: 555: 2586:: This doesn't just impact the people who are destroyed - it impacts their families, friends, communities, for generations. 3109: