Misplaced Pages

Talk:Xinjiang internment camps

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 16 August 2020 (→Requested move 15 August 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:29, 16 August 2020 by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 15 August 2020)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xinjiang internment camps article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCorrection and Detention Facilities (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam in China (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam in China, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Islam in ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject Islam in ChinaTemplate:WikiProject Islam in ChinaIslam in China
Template:Vital article

Archives

1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Shouldn't this be called Xinjiang internment camps

These camps are widely regarded as "internment camps". Calling them "re-education camps" sounds a bit too similar to CCP propaganda term "vocational education centers".VR talk 06:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: See Talk:Xinjiang re-education camps/Archive 1#Requested move 16 December 2019, where the consensus was that "Xinjiang re-education camps" is the WP:COMMONNAME per usage in reliable sources. — MarkH21 06:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The official term is "Vocational Education and Training Centers" and that's also what this article should be called. Anti-Chinese propaganda sources (especially Western imeprialist media) commonly refer to them as "re-education camps" and the article uses it even though it's loaded language. The purpose is to link these facilities to the abolished 劳动教养 system in China (re-education through labour). They also aren't "internment camps", even though someone made an edit claiming that they are they are permanent facilities serving as schools that the Chinese government uses to enforce compulsory education in the region. People have been trying to set the record straight on this page, but vandals keep reverting the edits to inject their anti-Chinese propaganda every single time. English language Misplaced Pages Articles on China are regularly being used as a tool to spread anti-Chinese propaganda. I will start making substantial changes to this articles as well as the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Why would you want to call them "internment camps" considering that their purpose is education and training, NOT imprisonment? Do you call compulsory schooling in the Western world "child internment camps"? This wording makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
We follow the WP:RS on this issue. There are a huge number of sources to support the name and this issue has been discussed many times before. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Where has the topic of this article being named "Xinjiang re-education camps" been discussed? Please point me to several of the "many" instances of this specific topic having been discussed. Please refer to WP:TITLE. Again: These facilities have an official name that can be directly translated. The official term is "Vocational Education and Training Centers". The term "Vocational Education and Training Centers" is also more commonly used by media and all official English language communication about the subject (easily confirmable by looking at the number of Google results where name beats the loaded term 5 to 1). Therefore, that's what this article should be called. This name is also more precise, neutral, consistent and better supported by reliable sources. The loaded language currently used in the article's name is an invention by English-language media and should also be treated as such (i.e. by clearly stating that this is one of the terms regularly used by English-language media in US-allied countries to describe these facilities but isn't commonly used anywhere else).
The continued use of the English-language media-invented term should cease, as otherwise this article itself can be used as a platform to promote anti-Chinese propaganda (see: WP:NPV). If you disagree, provide arguments why these facilities should be called "Xinjiang re-education camps" and why the official name should not be used. Provide your citations. If no sufficient arguments/citations are provided, I propose to change the article title to "Xinjiang Vocational Education and Training Centers" and will proceed to make that change (Note: The current article title doesn't even make sense outside of the context of anti-Chinese propaganda, starting with a historical and philosophical discussion about the term "re-education". What's the etymology of the term? The Chinese term 劳教 commonly translated as such certainly doesn't support that type of language as the literal translation is "teaching through labour". Promoting the use of this term on Misplaced Pages is not really neutral but perpetuates a highly specific propaganda meme stemming from the Red Scare era.)
AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Overcite

This article has problems with WP:OVERCITE. Please use WP:CITEBUNDLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove all false statements or misleading language, as well as unsubstantiated claims and wording, from this article

This article is using unsubstantiated allegations without providing citations and loaded language to paint a clear negative picture of the facilities. Vandals have repeatedly reverted changes made to paint a more balanced picture without raising a content dispute on this talk page. It should be obvious that there is an anti-Chinese/anti-communist agenda at play here and that people's unsubstantiated political opinions get in the way of due diligence and unbiased editing.

Examples: 1. Using the word "Xinijiang re-education camps" as the name for these facilities. The official name is "Vocational Education and Training Centers" while "Xinjiang re-education camps" is an invention by Western mainstream media to link these facilities to the abolished 劳动教养 system in China. Why is the Western mainstream media term being used, not the official description?

2. Asserting that these facilities are "internment camps", which is a negative term implying that the purpose of these facilities is "imprisonment without charges". There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that claim. The facilities are used for compulsory education and voluntary vocational training and people are being released after completion of a basic education. They should be called "compulsory education facilities". The point isn't to imprison people.

3. Asserting that they are used "for the purpose of indoctrination". This is charged language. "Indoctrination" is a strictly negative term. Why is it called indoctrination and not education?

4. Asserting that they are used to "indoctrinate Uyghurs". These facilities aren't used to target Uyghurs. They are used to target what the Chinese government considers extremists amongst the entire population in the region (which simply happens to be majority-Uyghur).

5. Using the term "reportedly" rather than "allegedly" when it comes to the claim that "hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs" are held in these facilities. There are no reliable reports of this, so far there are only allegations.

6. Wording such as "in a strong condemnation of the "concentration camps"", implying that these are actually concentration camps, not ensuring it's clear it's just the personal opinion of an American. Better wording: "in what he calls "concentration camps"".

7. False or misleading information "a United Nations human rights panel said". This never happened. It is a lie not supported by evidence. At no point did the United Nations officially criticize China for these camps. What happened is that a US-led delegation made unsubstantiated claims. As Americans love to do. It's not "the UN" supporting these claims.

8. Wording "condemning China's mass detention of the Uyghurs and other minority groups". This implies that their allegations are actually true. Correct wording: "condemning China for what they claim to be "mass detention of the Uyghurs and other minority groups"".

9. Wording "and policies punishing certain expressions of Uyghur identity". This implies Human Rights Watch's allegations are true (i.e. factual and verifiable). Correct wording: "and policies US-based organization Human Rights Watch claims to be punishing certain expressions of Uyghur identity".

10. Wording "Zhang proposed "modern culture leads the development in Xinjiang"". Where is that conent in brackets coming from? It's just the personal opinion of the editor not backed by the citation.

11. Wording "Since 2014, the Chinese Communist Party has shifted its policies in favor of outright sinicization of ethnic and religious minorities.". This implies that this is actually happening even though there is no evidence of this (amount of Muslims and mosques in China is increasing, China has extensive support programmes for ethnic minorities and uses affirmative action to promote their interests). Correct wording: "In 2014, David R. Stroup claimed that the Chinese Communist Party has shifted its policies in favor of sinicization of ethnic and religious minorities."

12. Wording "According to the Chinese ambassador to Australia Cheng Jingye in December 2019, all of the "trainees" in the centers". Wording like this makes the bias of the editors most apparent. While all the unsubstantiated allegations made by Western mainstream media and Western ideologues and Western politicians and Western political organizations attacking China aren't put into quotes, the description provided by Chinese officials is put in quotes. Correct wording: "According to the Chinese ambassador to Australia Cheng Jingye in December 2019, all of the trainees in the centers".

13. Wording: "sourced from a member of the Chinese government hoping that Xi Jinping is held accountable for his actions.". There is no evidence of these documents being sourced from a member of the Chinese government. They might very well be completely fabricated (something that isn't being discussed in the article despite plenty of debate on the subject". Correct wording: "allegedly sourced".

14. Random quote "We must be as harsh as them and show absolutely no mercy. — Xi Jinping on the terror attacks in 2014". Why is that random quote by Xi Jinping mentioned at this point in the article? What relevance does it have?

15. Wording "the majority of camps were specially built for the purposes of re-education". Again, the term "re-education" makes no sense here. What does that term even mean? The correct wording is "built for the purposes of education".

16. Wording "independent researcher Adrian Zenz". Adrian Zenz is a religious conservative without any scientific credentials. He is taking great interest in the educational facilities in Xinjiang, allegedly because he doesn't like the fact that the Chinese government is fighting against religion. He is a biased, anti-communist blogger and shouldn't be described as an "independent researcher". The only real publication he ever worked on in this context was published in an American self-proclaimed "peer-reviewed journal" that has zero academic credentials and refers to the Communist Party of China as the "Pooh-Bear Regime" (https://www.jpolrisk.com/the-we-chinese-problem/). Correct wording: "political activist Adrian Zenz" or "Christian apologist Adrian Zenz".

17. False information "On 8 July 2019, 22 countries signed a statement to the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights in which they called for an end to mass detentions in China and expressed concerns over widespread surveillance and repression". This is plainly false. It's a lie that implies China is actually engaged in unjustified mass-detentions, which is NOT what the statement said. The statement expresses CONCERN over potential violations in China, it also calls on China to REFRAIN FROM mass-detentions (and makes no accusation). This is a complete misrepresentation of the letter, which is publicly available. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/190708_joint_statement_xinjiang.pdf It should also be explicitly noted what kind of countries signed this letter, to make people aware of potential biases. 5-eyes and NATO countries signed this statement, not a single independent, Muslim-majority country.

18. False information "In October 2019, 23 countries including United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Canada, Japan, Australia and United States signed a joint letter to the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly's Third Committee urging China to close the camps in Xinjiang.". This never happened. This is a reiteration of the news from 8 July 2019. The citation provided does not support the claim that anyone ever urged China to "close camps" and not "in October". The citation only discusses that 23 countries, represented by a British speaker, spoke at the UN and repeated what was written in the joint statement... which never included any demand for China closing any facilities.

19. False or misleading information. "The Chinese government denied the existence of re-education camps in Xinjiang". The Chinese government never denied the existence of the facilities. It might have denied the existence of "re-education camps", which implies something sinister is going on. But even for that claim no citation has been provided. This should be removed if no further citations proving these claims are provided.

20. False or misleading information. "When international media had asked about the re-education camps, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that they have not heard of this situation". The citation provided only alleges that that international media asked about "intense indoctrination procedures that force them to proclaim “faith” in the Chinese Communist Party while denigrating large parts of their own religion and culture", which China's Ministry of Foreign affairs claimed to have never heard of. This should be removed if no further citations proving these claims are provided.

21. Wording "On 12 August 2018, a Chinese state-run tabloid, Global Times, defended". Once again, the bias of editors is shining through. Why isn't the name, format and all affiliations of Western news agencies explicitly mentioned? Why is it mentioned when a Chinese newspaper reports something? Correct wording: "On 12 August 2018 an article in the Global Times defended".

22. False or misleading information. "In March 2019, against the background of the US considering imposing sanctions against Chen Quanguo, who is the region's most senior Communist Party official, Xinjiang governor Shohrat Zakir denied the existence of the camps." There is no evidence that this ever happened. Shohrat Zakir - an thenic Uyghur and chairman of Xinjiang - has been on record promoting these facilities for years. He is not on record denying their existence.

23. False or misleading information. "In December 2019 Hong Kong, a mixed crowd of young and elderly people, dressed in black and wearing masks to shield their identities, held up signs reading “Free Uyghur, Free Hong Kong” and “Fake ‘autonomy’ in China results in genocide”. They numbered around 1000. They rallied calmly, waving Uyghur flags and posters as part of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. The local riot police pepper sprayed protesters to disperse the crowd.". This never happened that way. These people were part of the ongoing protests/riots in Hong Kong. There is no evidence whatsoever that peaceful protesters were being pepper sprayed. The citation provided only mentions that people protesting inside a shopping mall (which is private property) were being removed by police. No mention of the arrested protesters even being the same that were mentioned to protest against the facilities in Xinjiang.

As the entire article is rather unbalanced and pretty much exclusively presents the views perpetuated by Western mainstream media without fairly representing opposing views, I will make changes to all of these points unless the editors explain and substantiate their choice of words with verifiable and conclusive evidence backed by citations in case explicit claims are being made. I will also add more official Chinese sources and generally enable a more balanced understanding of these facilities. In general, all of the positive views about these facilities (which are overwhelming in China, including Xinjiang, and in the Muslim-majority world) are being completely neglected in this article. The credibility of Western mainstream media on this subject as well as its biases is also not being discussed (Bias in English-language media coverage of the facilities and events should be an entire section or separate article). I recommend people to go to this page for more information, non of which is represented on this article as of yet, which I will make sure of: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XiHrkJ_zudQZP1hBIBCgJKKAfAILxEG0cmQGrNH8pIU/mobilebasic

AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be an WP:SPA created today to edit this article. Many of your proposed changes are controversial and should not be made without seeking consensus first on this talk page. Some of these issues have been discussed on this talk page previously. I think you raise too many issues at once to really be dealt with. For example article naming has been discussed many times, your opinions on the name will not have any weight. You really need to deal with this by challenging sources or providing your own sources, not a crusade against the article in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment seems to be attacking me personally in response to my proposal without any relevance to the content. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Assume_bad_faith and Misplaced Pages:This_is_not_a_content_dispute as I will follow due protocol and will escalate any attempt of moving this conversation away from content in the appropriate manner. As I am transparent about what I am doing and highly specific about my edits, please be clear in your accusations against me and then substantiate your position appropriately. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of WP:Advocacy and try to refrain from such. Remember: Just because you heard something on the media and came to your own conclusions, doesn't mean it's true or supported by the primary sources. I expect thorough argumentation and substantiation for each of the pieces of the article I pointed out. Note that your comment seems to try and shift the burden of proof on the defending party rather than insisting on people who are including unsubstantiated allegations in this article to substantiate them with verifiable citations supporting them.
Please remember to sufficiently substantiate your arguments: Why will my "opinions" (what "opinions" are you referring to?) on the article name not have any weight even though my arguments have not been addressed? There is only one discussion about the article's name on this talk page and it is entirely irrelevant to what I discussed. These facilities have an official name that can be directly translated. The loaded language currently used in the article's name is an invention by English-language media and should also be treated as such (i.e. by declaring that this is one of the names often used by English-language media). The continued use of the media-invented term should be justified with thorough argumentation. Do you have such arguments? I would motion to start with a historical and philosophical discussion about the term "re-education". Where does that word come from? The Chinese term 劳教 commonly translated as such certainly doesn't support that type of language as the literal translation is "teaching through labour". Please provide arguments why these facilities should be called "Xinjiang re-education camps" and why the official name should not be used. Provide your citations.
What do you believe is controversial about any of my proposed changes? My comments and proposals are highly specific and address both content and sources. Most of the things I pointed out are simply not supported by any evidence and therefore should not be contained in the article. Please be specific in your arguments and substantiate them with arguments (and citations if you are defending claims made). Please feel free to go through all proposed changes and highlight the ones you have an issues with and explain why. For any of the things I pointed out as not/insufficiently supported by evidence, please point out the existing evidence and include it in the article. If you have questions for me or think anything I said isn't sufficiently supported by evidence or would require additional citations, please point this out on a point-by-point basis. I started this conversation on the talk page precisely to give users the chance to defend the content they edited into the article.
If there are no further arguments against any of the changes I proposed, I will proceed to make them and expect no vandalism of my edits.
Please only discuss content or next steps in proper content dispute processes from now on.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You realize the other side of the coin is WP:BRD. You should absolutely expect your edits to be reverted, and then we talk about them here. Ideally, focus your edits down so that we can get to the bottom of this. Since several things we generally view as WP:RS here in America contradict points you make here, expect an uphill battle for changes, and have alternative sources ready, not just paragraphs of WP:OR. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Just as a footnote though I _would_ look favorably on edits to streamline the WP:OVERCITE and edits that bring the cited text more in line with what can be demonstrated in NPOV by its sources. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As it stands, this article seems to take the theories/accusations regarding the facilities as facts rather than mostly unsubstantiated theories. In accordance with WP:NPV this probably needs to be addressed, especially since the majority of sources trace back to Adrian Zenz, Radio Free Asia and other American mouthpieces. I think that this should be clearly established in the lead, and I'd support other edits outlined in your post as long as they are properly sourced. Nathan868 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Classic CCP response PR, 'they dont exist we dont know anything about them.' There are plenty of sources that cover this including some very indepth NYT releases. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
We’ve all seen the satellite pictures and stories from WP:RS, nobody outside China doubts it exists they just argue about the scale (e.g. hundreds of thousands vs millions) and purpose of it (deradicalization vs cultural genocide). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this was meant as a response to me or to Jtbobwaysf, but I didn't express any doubts about the existence of education facilities in Xinjiang. The disputes are in calling them "concentration camps" and unsubstantiated claims of abuse/torture, imprisonment and genocide being treated as true despite the lack of evidence from sources other than the explicitly anti-China sources I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean re-education facilities? Those are very very different from education facilities, almost the exact opposite in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
These are top tier education facilities, like Harvard/Oxford/Tsinghua. Right? Maybe the China ivy leagues? We might rename the article... ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Map of supporting and opposing countries needs to be corrected

As the given source states, Qatar merely withdrew support instead of expressing opposition because it does not want its stance to compromise its foreign policy (bold marking by me):

“Taking into account our focus on compromise and mediation, we believe that co-authorizing the aforementioned letter would compromise our foreign policy key priorities,” Ambassador Ali Al-Mansouri, Qatar’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, wrote to Seck on July 18. “In this regard, we wish to maintain a neutral stance and we offer our mediation and facilitation services.”

Yet, in the file itself, Qatar is coloured as a country which opposes the policy:


The file has to be changed to correctly display Qatar's neutral stance towards the re-education camps. Unfortunately, I cannot edit the file myself.
--2003:F6:2715:8D00:4010:69FF:5A94:B375 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I say we get rid of it entirely, its misleading and truncates political opinion in democratic countries. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a visualization of the list next to it, which is compiled of the letters to the UNHRC signed by the governments of those countries. It gives a quick overview and, in my opinion, thus adds value to the article. It goes without saying that political opinion of a country's population is not necessarily aligned with its government's actions or statements, whether democratic or non-democratic. What do you mean by misleading? If I understand you correctly, perhaps, the image's caption could be changed from "Nations that..." to "Nations the governments of which ..." or something similar to make that explicit (although I personally do not think that it is really necessary, it would leave less room for misunderstandings).--2003:F6:2715:8D00:4010:69FF:5A94:B375 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone corrected the map and updated it, thank you. I haven taken the liberty to resize the file in my original post so that it is not needlessly large and takes up an enormous amount of space in this talk page. --2003:F6:2718:C500:3477:85E1:F90A:2BD7 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

CCP/CPC

@Acalycine: I see reputable sources using both CCP and CPC interchangeably, and the Chinese 中国共产党 does not unequivocally translate better to CCP or CPC (adjectives don't work the same in Chinese). I could not find established Misplaced Pages consensus for the name change edits you've been making. Also, it's not like there are that many communist parties in China, so I don't think reader confusion is a huge risk. All that being said, why would you want to pivot to usage of 'CPC' only? Some examples: , , Thank you. Doanri (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding translation, perhaps my Mandarin-speaking friend is mistaken in telling me that CPC is the 'literal' translation. My reasoning was primarily that CPC appears to be the form of English translation used by the Party itself: . Where the two are synonymous, and where you say no translation is literally better, it seems obvious that the official name is preferred. Adding to this reasoning was the name of the CPC's article on Misplaced Pages itself. For consistency's sake, considering the infobox was using CPC, I thought it uncontroversial to change this uniformly across the article. Happy to hear arguments and policy for/against this reasoning. Acalycine (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Acalycine:The page being titled CPC doesn't necessarily indicate a community preference for using 'CPC' outside of the article's title, just like 'Republican Party' is not necessarily preferable to 'GOP' in an article on US politics. In English academic writing the Party is very commonly called CCP, and whereas the official name an organisation uses is definitely a factor in determining an article's title (WP:OFFICIAL), I don't think it's enough to remove all reference to other common names (WP:OTHERNAMES provides a redirect policy for this reason). Doanri (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Doanri, CPC may be the part’s preferred abbreviation but CCP is the common abbreviation which is overwhelmingly used by WP:RS. When people here see CPC they think of petroleum companies not the Communist party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with, honestly, favoring CCP per Horse Eye Jack's reasoning. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The map falsely colours dependent territories in grey

The map of ations that have expressed support (green) or opposition (red) towards the Xinjiang re-education camps falsely colours dependent territories in grey, even when the respective countries have expressed a view towards the resolution. For instance, the island of Great Britain is correctly marked red, but Gibraltar is marked grey, even though both are parts of the UK and have a common UN vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.95.0 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2020

It has been proposed in this section that Xinjiang internment camps be renamed and moved to Xinjiang concentration camps.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Xinjiang re-education camps → Xinjiang concentration camps. – added after this initial thread was initially called "title?" by RealFakeKimT 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Google scholar is giving me 511 results for Xianjiang "concentration camps", 457 for Xianjiang "re-education camps", and 254 for Xianjiang "internment camps". Also, 381 for Uyghur "re-education camps", 239 for Uyghur "concentration camps", and 235 for Uyghur "internment camps". Since concentration and internment are synonyms (concentration camps -> internment), would it make sense to move to a different title including "concentration camps"? (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You may want to try "Xinjiang" instead of "Xianjiang". One might also need to check that they are about these 21st century camps rather than something else (e.g. laogai). — MarkH21 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You get the same results either way, since Google Scholar corrects typos automatically.
Samples ("Xinjiang "concentration camps""):
  • "...in Xinjiang, where approximately one million people are currently being held in concentration camps" (2019)
  • "It has been rightly observed that while the Xinjiang internment camps share a mass character and common purpose (quarantining a specific population within the polity) with twentieth-century concentration camps, they do not (yet) reflect the latter's brutality" 2019
  • "Despite such attempt, news began to leak out from 2018 onwards regarding government’s effort to indoctrinate Uyghur Muslims in numerous mass concentration camps built throughout the province." (2019) Springer
  • "About 10% of China’s Uyghur population is now detained, although some say that is a conservative estimate. Satellite images of large internment camps provide evidence of a wide network of buildings with dorms enclosed by high security fences and watchtowers" 2020
  • "...between one and two million Uyghur and Kazakh Chinese have been indefinitely detained in concentration camps for the ostensible purpose of cultural education." 2018
  • "There are even reports of forced marriages of Uyghur women to ethnically-Han Chinese men, as well as reports of torture in these modern-day concentration camps" 2019
I wasn't able to find any sources referring to pre-2000 concentration camps in Xinjiang. (t · c) buidhe 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
After the first few pages of results, there are several results from your Google Scholar searches that were published before these camps existed. They’re increasingly common in the latter pages of your searches. For example:
It would probably be useful to apply date filter on these Google Scholar searches (or run a Scopus/Web of Knowledge as they’re more reliable, as suggested at WP:NACADEMIC for notability searches). I can run some Scopus/Web of Knowledge searches on post-2017 sources talking about post-2017 camps when I have time. — MarkH21 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I ran the searches and posted the results below. — MarkH21 08:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reposting the December 2019 statistics, which may need to be updated:

    Google search results (English-only, Google News only, excluding Misplaced Pages and blog via X -Misplaced Pages -blog, sub-results using site:Y):

    • "Xinjiang re-education camps": 2,150 results
      • Generally reliable sources: 10 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 28
    • "Xinjiang detention camps": 4,960 results (3,350 of which are from the Shanghaiist blog, 1,610 from all other sources)
      • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 17
    • "Xinjiang internment camps": 3,240 results (1,820 of which are from Radio Free Asia, 1,420 from all other sources)
      • Generally reliable sources: 7 results
      • Broader international English-language sources: 16
    • "Xinjiang detention centers": 587 results
    • "Xinjiang concentration camps": 450 results
    • "Xinjiang re-education centers": 141 results
    • Using Uyghur or Uighur returned relatively very few results that are not worth listing here.
      Generally reliable sources here means: Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Der Spiegel, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, TIME, and The Wall Street Journal.
      All of these are generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. I'd run a thorough search on non-Western English sources too but it's a bit time-consuming.
      Broader international sources here means the previous list plus: ABC (Australia), AFP, Al Jazeera English, DW News, Haaretz, The Diplomat, The Japan Times, The Korea Herald, The Straits Times, and The Times of India.
      — — MarkH21 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC); Updated with Broader international English-language sources 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    — MarkH21 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to concentration camps as it explains it more clearly and also follows the breadth of sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I ran the academic source searches with results showing that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Xinjiang re-education camps" (similar to the December 2019 news outlet serch):
    1. Scopus (since 2017):
      • 2 results for Xinjiang re-education camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang concentration camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang internment camps
    2. Web of Knowledge (since 2017):
      • 2 results for Xinjiang re-education camps
      • 0 results for Xinjiang concentration camps
      • 1 result for Xinjiang internment camps
    3. Google Scholar (since 2017)
    • — MarkH21 08:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support Genocide is defined by the UN as:
    a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    Accusations from former inmates almost certainly suggest a and d are taken place and others suggest a and e are. Just as we use the term concentration camps for the holocaust we should be consistent with this genocide. Also the proven interference of Misplaced Pages by the Chinese government means we should make it crystal clear that this is more than the Chinese claimed 're-education' in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose per MarkH21's results above (WP:UCN), and preferably impose a move moratorium, too. A 43 to 9 ratio (2,150 for Xinjiang re-education vs Xinjiang concentration) is overwhelming usage against the move proposal. WP:OSE-like arguments are irrelevant when not dealing with article series, such as "Foo in the COVID-19 pandemic". The desire to counter alleged Chinese government interference mentioned by the last user are a textbook case of WP:RG"W". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Not the point. You cited means we should make it crystal clear that this is more than the Chinese claimed 're-education'. There is no other interpretation other than a WP:RGW violation, and coupled with the fact that the common state claim is "vocational centers", a very poor case for a move. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Acording to Google Scholar about 216 documents from 2016 to now, meaning they are more than likely referring to the current conflict, called them concentration camps. — RealFakeKimT 10:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Less than the current name. Even worse, most of those are about Nazi concentration camps and US Japanese internment camps if you look at the actual results. 2001:579:B100:740:6945:9106:C25F:76AB (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)— 2001:579:B100:740:3997:26CB:935C:890E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Re-writing article to remove disturbing normalization of Chinese propaganda

    It is offensive to the idea of objectivity that this article is written in a manner which accepts state propaganda regarding the horrifying violence, torture, and denial of rights to an entire culture of people.

    1. The below conversation on renaming the article should be adopted, though "internment camps" are still not fully accurate, as these go beyond the Japanese internment camps of the US, and into cultural genocide including forced sterilization and psychological torture. The term "concentration camps" or "extrajudicial prisons" would be more accurate, given the forced sterilizations, violence, and psychological torture performed daily in these concentration camps. Any rational person attempting to

    2. No mention of the "official purpose" is necessary, given that the goal of Misplaced Pages is accuracy, and not opinion or propaganda. Perhaps a small section can be written titled "Chinese Government Efforts to Cover-Up Official Purpose".

    3. The article needs to be opened to editing, as it is a travesty as it currently stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.116.190 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

    Third, It would be useful if you could create an account that would allow you to edit. Right now the article is blocked from anonmyous editors. Please create some sample content and sources relation to your #2, I would support inclusion if we can find good WP:RS. #1 we are using what has the most high quality sources, but we can look at changing it if the sources support it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

    this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unpUSB3ne6M 68.0.188.149 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

    What about it? This wouldn't count as a reliable source, if you're suggesting inclusion. — Czello 12:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Categories: