Talk:Xinjiang internment camps/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Todd McClay

*In 2017, National MP Todd McClay represented his party in Beijing before a dialogue organised by the International Liaison Department of the Communist Party of China. McClay also referred to the Xinjiang re-education camps as "vocational training centers" in line with Communist Party of China talking points.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Cook, Sarah (2020-01-14). "Beijing's Global Megaphone: The Expansion of Chinese Communist Party Media Influence since 2017". Freedom House. Retrieved 2020-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Lulu, Jichang (2018-11-16). "New Zealand: United Frontlings bearing gifts". Sinopsis. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
This seems WP:UNDUE to me for this article. The content appears to already be covered under the Todd McClay article. There's a Guardian article [1] covering it, but it's in the "Comment is Free" section which I don't believe counts as WP:RS establishing that inclusion would be wp:DUE. It doesn't seem to shed much light on New Zealand's stance. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
What we have now seems due. Not so sure about Sinopsis but Freedom House is a WP:RS, are you challenging that reference? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally get why our readers would care about what comments the Minister of Trade for a small country has made, given that the international media doesn't seem to care either. If nobody else objects to the inclusion of things like this, though, I'll let it go. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I get that you object to the text, I’m trying to figure out why you’re bringing up The Guardian when its not among the sources on the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye Jack: I think Rolf h nelson brought up The Guardian because of the opinion article he originally linked here. The verifiability isn’t a concern though, as there’s the other source that Horse Eye Jack pointed out.
    I’d agree on different grounds that the McClay bullet is slightly out of place though. It’s not really in WP:PROPORTION for the article to note when an MP (from any country) just uses the governments official terminology while meeting with them. Whether the passage is verifiable to an RS isn’t an issue for the PROPORTION concern. But this wouldn’t be a big deal either way. — MarkH21talk 16:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I admit that my edit summary about the Guardian was confusing. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I think its appropriate here, I wouldn’t hate seeing it condensed to one sentence. Not really sure the first one is that informative. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential connection to Islamophobia in China

There may be a connection between the camps and generalized Islamophobia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: It’s a bit unclear what you mean / what you’re proposing here. — MarkH21talk 01:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: If a connection between Islamophobia and the camps can be drawn (which seems possible to me- the page is in 'Category:Islamophobia' after all), then I think the word 'Islamophobia' should be linked and discussed on this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, thanks to MarkH21 for your continuing work on this page. Glad someone is trying to keep this page as close to Wikipedia standards as can be done. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it, I’ll keep an eye out. This definitely has an effect on public perception of Islam in China, although I’m not sure what RSes say. There are more sources relating the effect of the various attacks in the Xinjiang conflict to Islamophobia than there are relating these camps to Islamophobia.
Thanks, but I only play a small part here. Thank you for your many contributions here! — MarkH21talk 02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So far, I haven't found any useful such sources. I generally just see articles that describe the existence of the camps themselves as Islamophobic, but not anything on the camps having an effect on the general populace or subsequent trends. — MarkH21talk 06:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely plays a role in the camps but sources [2] seem to treat Islamophobia as a national issue (ie its a problem everywhere in China) whereas Xinjiang’s problems are for the most part confined to Xinjiang. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Now it should be noted that there are good academic sources who link the camps to international islamophobia[3], particularly as practiced post-9/11, but generally the oppression of Turkic peoples in China is seen as primarily racist with the islamophobic bit being secondary and I think thats how we should treat it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

PBS Frontline: China Undercover

I just wanted to alert interested editors here to an excellent documentary on PBS Frontline, in season 2020 episode 18 called China Undercover covering Chinese persecution of Muslims, including secret filming inside Xinjiang. The documentary also links China's massive domestic spying network and new tracing devices and software, with the persecution of Uighurs. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pulitzer finalist NYT series, add?

Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting Finalist:

X1\ (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps to New York Times, but it doesn’t seem particularly relevant or due WP:PROMINENCE here. Where would you mention it in this article? — MarkH21talk 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
If it wins a Pulitzer we should note that here on the article as that would be encyclopedic. I recall in the past there was a whole section on this NYT expose, we can simply add "NYT's pullitizer prize winning expose stated..." But just for being a finalist, I think probably not yet, just my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It is less about Pulitzer finalist (only two, Notably) and more about the list to be used as RSs (if not already):
  • November 16, 2019 ‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims
  • May 22, 2019 How China Uses High-Tech Surveillance to Subdue Minorities
  • April 4, 2019 Interactive: How China Turned a City Into a Prison
  • December 28, 2019 In China’s Crackdown on Muslims, Children Have Not Been Spared
  • February 21, 2019 China Uses DNA to Track Its People, With the Help of American Expertise
  • April 14, 2019 One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China Is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority
  • December 30, 2019 Secret Video Offers Rare Look Inside Chinese Labor Program
  • December 3, 2019 China Uses DNA to Map Faces, With Help From the West
  • November 24, 2019 Leaked China Files Show Internment Camps Are Ruled by Secrecy and Spying
  • December 9, 2019 The Daily: A Woman’s Journey Through China’s Detention Camps
X1\ (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're proposing a specific change to the article then state what it is, otherwise you can just leave it there as a suggestion for sources that editors can incorporate into the article if they desire. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Overcite

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

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. — MarkH21talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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)

@188.2.95.0: Technically British overseas territories are not a part of the United Kingdom proper though defense and foreign relations fall under the UK and the populace of these places are British citizens. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proof of signatories for pro-camps countries in October 2019

Is there proof of the list in the Belarussian statement from October 2019? How do we know they signed anything? Are there secondary sources? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Geographyinitiative, hope you're doing well. Main source from that seems to be this statement from the "Permanent Mission of Belarus at the 44th Session of the HRC". Shady direct link here from China's .cn website, but the article does seem to support the claim. [4].

Kobentori (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a PR WP:PRIMARY, this is not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming question

@Newfraferz87: you pinged me on your talk page User_talk:Newfraferz87#Acknowledgement regarding something on this article. Please do not do that again, at least as long as it relates to me. You can discuss on this talk page. Your account appears to be a WP:SPA focused on promoting China matters. You and Geographyinitiative are free to carry on your discussion of course, but dont presume any 'consensus' you find on your talk page will be honored here at the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We can do without the reflexive SPA nonsense. The addition of "East Turkestan" in parentheses is irrelevant in a context where the name of the region is not being discussed, per WP:FRINGE; even the infobox of Rebiya Kadeer, the foremost exiled Uyghur activist, does not have that parentheses. So your revert of Newfraferz87 was poorly explained and disruptive. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:OSE is not a justification to delete content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I acknowledge your request to use the article's talk page so I shall do so -- though I have given the reason for my reversion of User:Geographyinitiative's edits clearly on my talk page already, and I believe it is WP:POVNAMING that was violated. Outside of discussion on nomenclature, it's not encyclopedic practice to add alternative place names beside introductions or infobox descriptions, and in addition the term East Turkestan is less frequently used in English sources AND has political overtones. That's why I felt inappropriate to equate it directly to the more recognized term Xinjiang, as User:Geographyinitiative tried to do.
And also - before you make personal ad hominem attacks such as accusing me of WP:SPA, you can take a good look at my editoral history since 2008, both here and on Commons. I can be very vocal about any opinions I have on talk pages but I have been very carefully objective in making edits on Article spaces. I'm not sure what fault you are trying to find in that. NoNews! 18:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


Political overtones dont matter here at wikipedia. If an altname is controversial it tends to add to WP:DUE weight. The 'its controversial, so we wont use it' logic doesnt work, in fact controversy lends to additional weight. The fact that the Chinese govt pushes back against the name just as they push back against the culture (the subject of this article) sounds relevant to me here. POVNAMING is doesn't appear to be relevant here, as this East Turkistan topic (never heard of it till I saw your revert today), clearly passes notability as it has a standalone article...thus the name isn't going away regardless of your displeasure with it. Does anything in WP:MOS to state that an altname cant be added to the infobox? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Per MarkH21's comment below and also from my own talk page reply -- per the name isn't going away regardless of your displeasure with it, I have clearly stated that I am not against the use of the term East Turkestan in the article, so long as it is presented objectively and reasonably. In fact the term has already been mentioned multiple times with relevant article links. What I am against is it being used to directly denote or replace the existing name Xinjiang in the intro and infobox, as Geographyinitiative had been trying to do, because it's both non-encyclopedic and political. Your argument that the Chinese govt pushes back against the name just as they push back against the culture shows that you're trying to take a political stance as well on an Article page, based on your edit reversion. I simply don't see how if an altname is controversial it tends to add to WP:DUE weight is in anyway violated here. NoNews! 02:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree, this East Turkmenistan name is more of an ALTNAME to my understanding.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Infoboxes generally don't list alternative names of anything except the article subject itself. Alternative names rarely have a place in any article except in the lead of the main article or certain infobox parameters for the actual article subject (e.g. "native_name" in Template:Infobox country). It's not about POV, but brevity and relevance (i.e. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE).
    This specific article isn't any different; the infobox shouldn’t list "East Turkestan", "Uyghurstan", "Zhongguo", nor any other alternative names of Xinjiang and China. — MarkH21talk 01:51, 26 August 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 Wikipedia 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: [5], [6], [7] 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: [8]. 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 Wikipedia 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 wikilink above for CPC that links to the CCP article is cute ;-) . Why is this even being discussed. If you want to discuss the atltame for the CCP article, this talk page is not the venue for it. On this article we will use consensus created over at the CCP article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Map has been removed. It should be brought back.

Why was the map for the International reactions removed? Was there any discussion regarding this removal? I propose it should be re-added to the page, as it helps to visualize the table data. Mapmaker345 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the map. Have previously discussed with the user Geographyinitiative on this issue and they agreed to the changes, so not sure why they keep reverting. Rationale given on the file's Commons page was that China should be colored green like the other countries but I feel that's only an issue of technicality. Opening the discussion here for further comments. NoNews! 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Remove the map, it has been the subject of widespread POV pushing as discussed earlier on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Map is set to static per discussed, so the POV issue is no longer applicable. NoNews! 10:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
One person's comment doesnt set anything. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither does the POV issue discussed earlier. We are talking about the map itself, which has been adjusted to list the countries based on their positions declared at the UN in October 2019, such that there is no ambiguity. It is the same user Geographyinitiative which agreed to this, but later removed it for unclear reasons, for which both Mapmaker345 and myself are expressing non-understanding. NoNews! 13:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The current wording of the caption for this map is more source-based and seems WAY more reliable than what we had before. I have not done a full check of the map yet, but many of the complaints I made before were validated by replacement of inferior forms of the map. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
If the color scheme is supposedly what violates the NPOV, then we can change the colors. Even though it can be correctly argued that green is "for" and red is "against" without making any moral judgement of "good" or "bad". Perhaps Orange and Blue colors can be used if we want things that are totally neutral. Mapmaker345 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Further comment: one thing I noticed was that China signed the October statement too, so I would tend to (not firmly) believe it should be colored the same as any other country that signed the statement. If China had not signed that agreement, then I would say that it should be colored in a third color. I believe it changes the meaning of the October statement if we portray it as 53 countries supporting China, when in fact it was China plus 53 countries saying China was right- China was not a bystander to the October statement, but an active participant. That is my professional opinion as an amateur. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Usage in news media tends to favour "re-education camps", while usage in academia is more even. There is no consensus for the move. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Xinjiang re-education camps → Xinjiang concentration camps. – added after this initial thread was initially called "title?" by — RealFakeKimT 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisted.  —usernamekiran (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisting comment: this is a procedural relist: the discussion was not relisted since it was initiated. A relist will probably increase input from more editors. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 05:05, 4 September 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). — MarkH21talk 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)[9]
  • "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 [End Page 544] 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. — MarkH21talk 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I ran the searches and posted the results below. — MarkH21talk 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 Wikipedia and blog via X -Wikipedia -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.
      — — MarkH21talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC); Updated with Broader international English-language sources 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    — MarkH21talk 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Your search seems to be neglecting academic papers or books entirely. (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: Yes that wasn’t supposed to be a definitive search. Just some data on usage by news outlets. — MarkH21talk 00:24, 29 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 search):
    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)
    • — MarkH21talk 08:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • As stated above concentration and internment are synonyms and concentration camps even redirects to internment. So if you combine concentration camps and internment camps as one result it's a tie on Scopus, Web of Knowledge favours re-education camps and Google Scholar favours concentration/internment camps. — RealFakeKimT 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Since most of the hits for Xinjiang "concentration camps" and Xinjiang "internment camps" are the same sources (i.e. there is a large overlap), you can’t just add them up like that without a large amount of double-counting. The Scopus hit for the two terms, for example, are actually the same one paper. — MarkH21talk 21:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I have retracted the statement. Sorry about the confusion. — RealFakeKimT 08:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support Comment. 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 Wikipedia 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)
    • Proven interference and I'm not so delusional as to think that changing the name of an article on Wikipedia will stop it. I simply want the title to be factual to what is happening. — RealFakeKimT 10:44, 16 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)
    • You seem to have miss interpretade my point. My point is that the title conformes to more colourful Chinese government names for the camps which doesn't truly represent whats happening. So I would site WP:CENSOR and WP:CONSISTENT as reasons for the name change. — RealFakeKimT 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The current title is far from conforming to the Chinese government name, which is Vocational Education and Training Centers. There’s a massive difference between education and re-education. — MarkH21talk 04:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Re education is defined as education or training to change someone's beliefs or behaviour. Not as your misleading redirect to brainwashing suggests. This is exactly what the Chinese government is advertising them as. Employment centers for education, in Han Chinese beliefs. — RealFakeKimT 08:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Again you are miss interpreting my opinion. I'm saying the camps are there to make them more like Han Chineses people by forcing them to eat pork etc removing there culture. NOT that Han Chineses people belive that this is right. Employment centers for education, in Han Chinese beliefs. not that theses are Han Chineses beliefs. That is misleading. Also I don't see how Re-education through labor has a "See also" link to this article is relivent. — RealFakeKimT 09:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Extrapolated claims that forcing them to eat pork is anything beyond individual isolated cases; singular testimonies should be objectively reported and not to be automatically taken as truth. As for removing there[sic] culture, there's no evidence that inmates or former inmates now recognize themselves as Han and follow Han customs; halal restaurants and mosques still dot Xinjiang. Learning Mandarin and Chinese laws is a national rather than an ethnic issue (just like all ethnics in China have to do), and is perfectly justified. In any case, don't understand why you're presenting this strawman argument that has nothing to do with the naming issue, other than exuding your own WP:RGW agenda. NoNews! 08:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Newfraferz87 Ok I'll break this now point by point. Extrapolated claims that forcing them to eat pork is anything beyond individual isolated cases; singular testimonies should be objectively reported and not to be automatically taken as truth. Is not an isolated case and the testimonies of the Chinese government shouldn't automatically taken as truth [10][11][12]. As for removing there[sic] culture, there's no evidence that inmates or former inmates now recognize themselves as Han and follow Han customs; halal restaurants and mosques still dot Xinjiang. I'm say that that's what the Chinese government is trying to do [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Learning Mandarin and Chinese laws is a national rather than an ethnic issue (just like all ethnics in China have to do), and is perfectly justified. I never brung that up as a problem. In any case, don't understand why you're presenting this strawman argument that has nothing to do with the naming issue, other than exuding your own WP:RGW agenda. I'm bringing these arguments up as they show that the title violates WP:NEUTRAL as these are much more than re-education camps. — RealFakeKimT 12:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • RealFakeKim To your first point that Is not an isolated case, your first two sources both cite the same person, Omar Bekali, and your third source's origin is anonymous. Are these reliable backgrounds to source from? It doesn't defeat my observation that it looks like individual isolated cases. To your second point, take a look at [19], [20], and if you would like to look at visual happenings in Xinjiang, search [21], [22], [23] or similar videos.
    • Most of my sources are reliable you have presented 'alt news' sources and youtube videos which couldn't be used. — RealFakeKimT 19:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Additionally, based on rhetorics such as [24], [25] and [26], I would argue that there is a prominent anti-China bias in Western mainstream media that must not be discounted in their reporting on Xinjiang, and would like to hear your opinion on this. Can you read through [27] and logically dispute it -- even simply for the first two sections, rather than just automatically take Western media reports as truth? Would you say the interviews of 8 anonymous Xinjiang villagers by CHRD as the sole basis of obtaining the detainee number of 1 million, and the unquestioned acceptance of this number by mainstream Western media, is simply poor research and journalism? NoNews! 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Your now promoting a fringe theory that the camps don't exist from unreliable sources. The Grayzone and Blumenthal have rejected mainstream reports concerning the detention of a million Chinese Uyghurs in Xinjiang re-education camps. is stated on Max Blumenthal owner of the sites Wikipedia page. In your own words you are trying to push your own WP:RGW agenda that the west is anti-China. — RealFakeKimT 19:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    Rejecting claims of 1M+ detained is far-removed from claiming the camps don't exist, mind the giant and terribly bad-faith strawman. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I’m proving the unreliability of the source there by disproving the point it is even listed as a deprecated source (discussion listing) so there is no point in debating it because what they say can’t be used. — RealFakeKimT 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I am very well aware that Grayzone is listed as a deprecated source. At the same time, there could always be singular objective articles from deprecated sources and biased articles in approved sources. What I simply wanted to invite you to do is to (1) discuss the issue of anti-China bias in prominent Western mainstream media today, the ones considered "reliable", and (2) critically analyze that article by Greyzone as a thought experiment to see if the articles reported actually follow proper journalistic reporting. It's clear that you're not interested and only want to take the words and stance of Western mainstream media at face value. Sure, I get that this is a WP move discussion and I'm quite going out of scope, but I would say there's really no point in this entire move discussion if every editor is going to follow the same as you do. I rest my case. NoNews! 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • the ones considered "reliable". So does Wikipedia so you need to follow them if you want to edit Wikipedia. anti-China bias in prominent Western mainstream media today. There is but for good reason. See events like this one, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. That show China has done bad things and gets called out for it. It's like saying there is an anti-Jeffrey Epstein bias in western media. It's clear that you're not interested and only want to take the words and stance of Western mainstream media at face value. Yeah becuse that's what wikipedia is built on reliable sources and constructive disscution not throughing conspirasy theorys around. — RealFakeKimT 08:20, 26 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.
    • The mentions of Nazi concentration camps/US Japanese internment camps are in comparison. — RealFakeKimT 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support, the most appropriate terminology is 'concentration camps', as per results returned from Google Scholar, 17 August 2020:
    1. Xinjiang "concentration" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2020) → returned 254 results
    2. Xinjiang "internment" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2020) → returned 89 results
    3. Xinjiang "re-education" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2020) → returned 134 results
    1. Xinjiang "concentration" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2019) → returned 592 results
    2. Xinjiang "internment" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2019) → returned 152 results
    3. Xinjiang "re-education" camps (-blog, -Wikipedia, since 2019) → returned 275 results

    Total for concentration/internment: 343 in 2020

    Total for re-education: 134 in 2020

    In recent years, and especially in 2020, the terminology being used in scholarly papers is concentration camps/internment camps. To quote WP:AT:

    When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title...

    This is a significant majority of English speaking (scholarly) sources. IMO, article title should be Xinjiang concentration camps. India.OHC (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

    Only putting quotation marks around "concentration" leads to lots of hits like "The concentration of the total RNA was analyzed" by researchers in Xinjiang for diabetic rats. It's far too loose of a search query. — MarkH21talk 04:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support for all the reasons cited above. However, in case of failure to arrive at such a decision, immediate action should be taken to change "re-education" to something at least more neutral. The current one is a blatant violation of WP:NEUTRAL and is perceived as an inhumane insult by Uyghur people. They say, "what would happen if the other concentration camps in history were also called 're-education camps' in Wikipedia?" It's a shame that this has remained so for so long. :-( Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Re-education is not a neutral term. It is essentially what the Chineses government is saying they are. Even though their purpose is completely different. — RealFakeKimT 09:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    @RealFakeKim: and @CaradhrasAiguo: you both are WP:BLUDGEON this talk section. Please stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • My intention is to argue with what I believe to be wrong information but if more think I’m going over the top I will stop. — RealFakeKimT 10:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The Chinese government also uses the term propaganda (or it did, until realizing recently that the word has a very ugly connotation in English; thus the "Publicity" Department now). Does this mean using the term propaganda for something like a People's Daily editorial is caving to a pro-CCP viewpoint? WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose, primarily on the common name basis as demonstrated by MarkH21. As MarkH21 also demonstrated in reply to India.OHC, the latter's search results were not designed. I will add as someone who considers themselves particularly passionate about the ongoing oppression in Xinjiang that it I feel it is ahistorical to draw direct comparisons to naming of, say, Nazi concentration camps, as Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 does above. There are salient differences, and condemnation of the the Xinjiang camps should not rely on false equivalency, however insinuated, with things like the Holocaust. Oxford Languages definition of concentration camp, via Google:

    a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.

    What we know about the Xinjiang camps at present—as horrible as they are with credible evidence of torture, indoctrination, and general misery—is that they are not facilities like the camps described above, which are the definition that pops up when one Googles "concentration camp." The reeducation camps, vile as they are, do not seem to be systematically underfunded/with inadequate facilities (on the contrary, as Zenz' research showed, quite a lot of effort was put into their construction and "livability", if we can call it that), nor have I seen reports of mass executions. The forced labor programs, ironically, appear to occur elsewhere, after internment. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The camps do fit that description that you have proved as they are held in small cells and are there because of their ethnicity. Along with the wide spread accusations of prisoners are mistreatment. A lot of effort was put in to hide the camps as the government denied it for a long time and for when they leat news crews into the camps to make them seem human. Mass murder isn’t part of the description you gave and are normally exclusive to death camps. — RealFakeKimT 10:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @RealFakeKim: This does not explain, then, why we tend to call them Japanese internment camps as opposed to Japanese concentration camps. The Internment of Japanese Americans article takes a sensible approach, one that also might be advisable here: keep the naming as is, but mention concentration camps in the lead section. And, again, while I'm sympathetic to precise definitions, as my Google example showed, the use of "concentration camp" is popularly tied to mass murder. That's why it shouldn't be in the title of all places. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • You didn't refer to Japanese camps only Nazi death camps. — RealFakeKimT 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose responsible journalistic sources - BBC etc - are not equating these reeducation camps with genocide gas chambers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support CourtlyHades296 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose There is literally no proof that China is slaughtering Uyghurs by the thousands. How can they be considered concentration camps if they can leave? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • KingSkyLord Concentration camp is distanced from a death camp. Add they can't leave. — RealFakeKimT 16:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Stick with re-education camps. The scholar searches above show a roughly even split. The results can come out one way or the other depending on how one searches. The question then becomes how to best enlighten the reader? "Concentration camps" suggest mass killing, or working to death. There is no question that there is both some degree of both, but that doesn't quite seem to be the main purpose; it's more a desire on the part of the government that the detainees start thinking like Han Chinese. "Re-education camps" captures that perfectly. Lastly, I don't think the term "re-education camps" is in any way detrimental to the reader's understanding of just how brutal the Chinese regime can be. It's best to simply describe what is happening, as precisely as we can. The reader will understand that a "re-education camp" is likely to be a brutal place. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Adoring nanny The reader will understand that a "re-education camp" is likely to be a brutal place. You can't assume that. The facts have to be laid out how they are. — RealFakeKimT
    • And they should be. There is no inconsistency between using the term "re-education camps" and laying out factual information on what happens inside. For example, to the extent that there are allegations of killings, those should absolutely be included. I would add that you are not helping your case by answering the vast majority of votes that do not go your way. See WP:BLUDGEON. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand you said 'the reader will understand that a "re-education camp" is likely to be a brutal place'. Which you can't assume because people could interpret it as a voluntary process or that of only education not oppression. — RealFakeKimT 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support：The term Xinjiang concentration camps is commonly used especially in the Chinese literature. The term also catches the essence of the object better as they are indeed concentration camps.--D7CY689 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Important to maintain objectivity in controversial subjects. Concentration camps is loaded with cultural baggage and support being conservative about these concepts. Dhawk790 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support per Buidhe's analysis: "concentration camps" is synonymous with "internment camps", and these two outweigh "re-education camps" quite significantly. feminist (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      @Feminist: Those searches from July (before this requested move) included tons of unrelated hits, such as 20th century laogai camps or Xinjiang researchers writing about totally unrelated things. The specific time-focused searches show that there are significantly more hits for "re-education camps": 318 to 190 in Google Scholar and 2150 to 450 in media RSes. — MarkH21talk 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      Even if you go with your post-2017 searches, that still shows 351 for "concentration camps" + "internment camps" versus 318 for "re-education camps". feminist (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
      @Feminist: As I told RealFakeKim who agreed above, you can’t sum the two numbers because a large proportion of the hits for "concentrations camps" are the same hits for "internment camps". Adding them up is double-counting a lot of sources. — MarkH21talk 13:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    You are WP:BLUDGEON this talk page. We dont need to count the sources, we will apply due weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support as "concentration camp" is an accurate description of what is happening here and is being used by outside sources per research above. Also note that a "concentration camp" is not the same as a "death camp" and does not automatically imply gas chambers, etc. as some commenters seem to believe. WestCD (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support per WP:COMMONNAME concentration camp is clearly used more in WP:REPUTABLE sources. blindlynx (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and because current name is violation of WP:NPOV (political obscurantism and propaganda). Melmann 17:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support There's plenty of sources that use both terms, but concentration camps as a term has much more precedent in history in addition to being obviously much easier to understand. Tinyds (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Most English sources use 'detention' or 're-education' to describe the facilities. Loaded language such as 'concentration camps' are only used by right-wing American sources as part of their anti-China rhetoric. Renaming it to 'concentration camps' only amplifies the China-bashing regime of Mike Pompeo, and doesn't address the real issue at hand which is the arbitrary detention of an overwhelming number of Uyghurs suspected of terrorism. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    This goes beyond Trump and Pompeo. We have already moved the bigger topic to Uyghur genocide.VR talk 22:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Support the term "concentration camps" seems to be fast becoming the WP:COMMONNAME (if it isn't already).VR talk 22:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Most media outlets and other sources call the camps re-education camps or internment camps which makes it more clear for the readers about what the camps are exactly so that there first of all won't be any confusion.Finn.reports (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Per my response above, I don't think the article should be renamed. However, I do think that the term "concentration camps" is used frequently enough that it should appear in the lead, right at the beginning. I propose that the first sentence use the phrase "concentration camps." This would require a bit of cleanup to prevent the sentence from becoming too long, resulting perhaps in something like the following:

    The Xinjiang re-education camps, also known as the Xinjiang concentration camps, are internment camps operated by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region government and its CCP committee. They are officially called the Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Government of China.

    Adoring nanny (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Something like this would also work, although "Xinjiang internment camps" is significantly more common in media coverage (1000+ vs <500 in the previous search above) than "Xinjiang concentration camps" with both receiving similar usage in academic sources (see the list of hits above). So "also known as the Xinjiang internment camps" may be more appropriate than "also known as the Xinjiang concentration camps". — MarkH21talk 16:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    I put it in because it seems reasonable at least until this move is resolved.blindlynx (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    I would be in favor of something like this along the lines outlined by MarkH21. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    I support this but I still think even if not changed to concentration camps that the title isn't nureral. — RealFakeKimT 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think it is quite reasonable to put these terms in the lead. The terms are used frequently enough that they should appear in the lead, no matter what the result of the requested move is.--SUN8908──Talk 10:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [to the exclusion of Uyghur tradition] 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 Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith and Wikipedia: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)
    The satellite pictures splashed in the western media are not always even prisons. They certainly cannot house a million or three million people. The claims of huge abuses are made by assertion in the Western Press, not evidence. There is no denying that racism and corruption are problems in Xinjiang, but these million-people accusations are on a much larger scale. Calling any part of China a concentration camps is an extraordinary accusation and extraordinary evidence should be offered. It is also belittling the seriousness of the concentration camps in 1940 Germany. Even if all these exaggerated accusations were true, China would still have fewer people in prison than the US. I encourage contributors to this article to demand a high level of evidence and reject any claim of proof by assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.185.233 (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

    A preemptive apology for the short reply as I am on mobile but I would like to warn everyone to some misinformation. I don't anticipate it to be an issue because of the protected status but there have been some widely shared unsubstantiated posts that are saying the death toll from these camps is higher than the holocost. With the current information we have this is false. Not sure if it has been an issue in the last but I have been seeing dozens of these on social media in the past few days so it may be worth being on the lookout for. Hollywood43ar (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

    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 Wikipedia 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)
    @76.14.116.190: It is even more offensive and pretentious for you to claim that state-based media innately or automatically projects propaganda while other supposed free press (that typically work for self-profit) don't [28] -- and hence you need to censor Chinese sources because they are state-based. Per definition of propaganda: Propaganda is communication that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Current accusations made by Western MSM use more emotional narratives that echo such sentiments than formal Chinese state media statements, backed by flimsy evidence that is potentially questionable -- would that not count as propaganda by that definition? To your second point, even if you claim you want accuracy for Wikipedia, removing a viewpoint as important as the Chinese official stances show that you're advocating for full-on bias by conforming to one narrative and exactly shooting yourself in the foot. NoNews! 09:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    This response is absurd and your comments are a perfect example of PR edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Jtbobwaysf: See my comment here. NoNews! 14:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    The link to your edit describes an WP:OSE response. BTW there is a big difference between state owned and sponsored media, vs independent media. Or at least that is my POV ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Jtbobwaysf: Then I'd recommend you the book Can Asians Think? (in particular the chapter on "Asian Perspectives on Human Rights", page 74) by Kishore Mahbubani then, here. In any case, I think we're going way out of point w.r.t. the article, so if you want to discuss this topic, let's adjourn to either of our user talk pages. NoNews! 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    If we are not discussing the content on this article anymore, then I dont need to take this to my talk page, as I would not be interested. I am only interested in discussing article content, and not general theories or politics. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

    Lead

    @MarkH21: I think you went a little over, we can use Xinhua for only part of that sentence... Xinhua can be used for "The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Government of China, are internment camps operated by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region government and its CCP committee.” but not for "The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Government of China, are internment camps operated by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region government and its CCP committee." so we either have to move or remove them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Horse Eye's Back: Haha looks like I noticed that at the same time you wrote this! I moved it to the comma, which is also where those citations were previously (compare with August 2020). — MarkH21talk 20:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for moving it, the old location is definitely superior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    By the way, it looks like this is the edit where it was moved to the end of the sentence: 05:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC). — MarkH21talk 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

    New map, new data - any complaints here!

    Hey folks, I've just updated the article to include data from the latest round of joint letters the other day at the UN.

    I've also changed it all into a table that shows support/condemnation over time rather than static lists, added a summary table for raw numbers, changed the colours to something more neutral and suitable for colour-blind people (no red-green), and changed the map to reflect these changes - and have also added a category for countries which have previously supported Chinese policies at the UN but have since withdrawn their support (24 countries now - so a substantial number worth mapping).

    I've tried to have a skim over the talk page to make sure I didn't make any decisions that have previously been declined, but hard to sort through all the partisan complaints here so can't promise anything. Let me know if there's any issues here and I can try to address them. Nrg800 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

    Oh! And forgot to mention I changed it from oppose to "condemn" as a number of countries have publicly opposed the policies but did not sign on to the UN joint letter formally condemning it. Nrg800 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

    Flagging changes here, the map has been removed in edits. That cites an issue with French Guyana which can easily be fixed and does not affect the overall data on the map, it also points to a decision to make this map static and not try to keep up with ambiguious statements of opposition that are difficult to keep track of and to verify. This is valid and countries that have said words in opposition to the policies (such as Taiwan and Turkey) are difficult to map. However, the discussion to keep it static predates the October 2020 UN letters, which is what are mapped here, and only show countries that have unambigiously signed letters in support or opposition to these policies. To keep an outdated 'static' version of the map when identical but updated sources of informaiton are available is anachronistic, incorrect and misleading (as a significant number of countries have removed their signature from support since 2019.) Nrg800 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Nrg800: Thank you for the map updates, but do keep in mind that the discussion regarding the previous map being set to 'static' was before the latest UN opinions in October 2020, at a time when the UN opinions in October 2019 were the latest authoritative one; therefore your accusations to it being anachronistic, incorrect and misleading aren't valid. NoNews! 06:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

    Bitter Winter videos

    @MarkH21: You removed completely correctly cited information why? I have a hard time assuming good faith on you're actions. You're statement appears to be Xinjiang re-education camps. I think we should all make our political and biases clear before editing further. I am an anarchist and a communist, I despise the actions of genocidal murderous government, such as Xi jinping, as well as apologists of any genocides such as Holocaust, Holodomor or otherwise. Please state you're own biases so we make this clear. Keep in mind if you defend the Chinese government you are directly defending a government that banned Wikipedia for not censoring itself. You have no case, as to it's section information regarding, I am simply updating it with relevant information, no new section was created. Why then did you remove it? Thank you. Vallee01 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Vallee01: Regarding this revert: again, Bitter Winter is a CESNUR publication. CESNUR is listed at WP:RSP as generally unreliable: the source should normally not be used. Business Insider saying that Bitter Winter posted this footage isn't much better. These shouldn’t be included unless there's a reliable source about these particular videos per WP:CHALLENGE. — MarkH21talk 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    The above two comments were posted at the same time in different sections, so I have moved them together. — MarkH21talk 06:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    I am not trying to defend the Chinese government, and please stay away from ad hominems about editors. It goes without saying that I am personally against genocides, but that is not what this is about. This is about referencing article content.
    This is a simple matter of not including material unless it's cited to a reliable source, which is required by basic Wikipedia policies & guidelines.
    I also have no idea what you mean by as to it's section information regarding. — MarkH21talk 06:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    @MarkH21: That's fine, I believe you. It would be good for you to simply state you're biases however. It reveals potential biases. Of course you don't have to, no one is forcing you and if you would like to just keeps a neutral environment. It makes things more clear and I don't know why you wouldn't care about revealing you're biases. Going through you're edits it seems as though you have a particular fixation for Chinese related articles. "You're against genocides" ah completely vague but fair I don't know many people who are for genocides not even Nazis, stating you're biases just makes the space more neutral. Anyway if you don't want to discuss this that's fine I won't bring it up again. It would just help alot. Vallee01 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    There are biased and sometimes paid PR editors on wikipedia that dont disclose their bias. Just something we deal with here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

    Lead does not discuss conditions within camps

    The lead currently does not say anything about the conditions in the camps, other that they're reportedly used for ideological indoctrination. My understanding is that there have been a lot of concerns from the human rights community about the forced labor, sterilizations, and other aspects of the conditions within the camps. These would seem to be due for a mention. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

    Agree. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

    the source for 215 is a link that does not functional or is mismatched or no longer has permissions I don't know why the correct link is below it comes from a site which had the same title as the citation

    https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/Lehr_ConnectingDotsXinjiang_interior_v3_FULL_WEB.pdf 206.163.238.7 (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

     Done Lamacha9617 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

    Should this article be merged with the article regarding laojiao and laogai to form one combined article about re-education camps in China in general?

    There were re-education camps all across China, not just in Xinjiang (the others were removed in 2013), but the Xinjiang ones seem to get the most attention. Should we merge this article and the articles regarding laojiao and laogai to form one article regarding re-education camps in China as a whole? Félix An (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

    If you go and search "新疆劳教" (Xīnjiāng láojiào, "Xinjiang Re-education") on Baidu, you see that many WP:RS use this term to describe the camps, which used to exist throughout China. On the first page of the search results, there was even one person sharing his bad experience in them on a legal forum. Félix An (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) According to Chinese media, it is different from the old laojiao system, but they share many similarities. It would be nice to have one consolidated article regarding re-education in China. Félix An (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

    Given the size of the three pages a merger appears to be out of the option. An overarching article for unfree labor in China would be the way to go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

    Ignoring the size issue, the camps in Xinjiang are substantively different from laojiao etc. given their use in an exclusive region and against exclusive ethnoreligious groups. Most importantly, they are uniformly treated as separate phenomena in reliable sources, occasional comparisons notwithstanding. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

    This page contains examples of bias and does not fit the standard of an objective information source.

    change "The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Government of China,[8][9][10][11] are internment camps operated by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region government and its CCP committee." to "The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Government of China,[8][9][10][11] are alleged internment camps operated by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region government and its CCP committee." since this is a disputed claim.

    Another example of bias skew of the article should be changed from: 

    "The camps have been criticized by many countries and human rights organizations for alleged human rights abuses and mistreatment, with some even alleging genocide.[14]"   to    "The camps have been criticized by many countries and human rights organizations for alleged human rights abuses and mistreatment, with some even alleging genocide.[14] Although more countries have supported China in what they see as its de-radicalization program." source: https://jamestown.org/program/the-22-vs-50-diplomatic-split-between-the-west-and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights/ and https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/2020-edition-which-countries-are-for-or-against-chinas-xinjiang-policies/ . Only citing the countries that have criticized the program gives more weight to the statements of statistically fewer countries. There should be balanced accounting of the sources that criticize versus support the program for this article to meet an objective standard.

    There are similar issues throughout the article and it is one of the articles with the most clear subjective framing that I have seen on wikipedia. Ohserahse (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Not done, please review WP:NPOV, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:BIAS etc. It seems you are using the term bias as a colloquial and not how we use it here on wikipedia. Also just FYI the odds that whatever the CCP/Chinese Government is claiming and the objective truth being the same thing is slim, they live in an alternate reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree with @Horse Eye's Back: in that I do think it is worth mentioning in the lead, and at present the wording is indeed non-neutral. A significant section of the article itself catalogs which countries have or have not expressed support for China's Xinjiang policy. Odious as well may find it, that fact is important and definitely germane, and is indeed reflected in the third paragraph. I have appended though others have expressed support for the camps. to the end of the first paragraph and added a relevant citation. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    To clarify, though, "alleged internment camps" is absolutely not wording that belongs in the lead; an overwhelming volume of evidence demonstrates they are detention/re-education centers first and foremost. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am open to a different wording, the yes/no and X to Y aspect of semi-protected edit request doesn’t really allow much room for nuance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

    Uyghur genocide has an RFC

    Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

    Correct the name of the CPC

    I noticed while reading this article that Communist Party of China is referred to as “Chinese Communist Party” and even abbreviated as CCP in a way that gives the impression that this is the official name of that party, such is not the case and can create confusion when trying to research further. The article should be corrected. The official name is the “Communist Party of China” and the official abbreviation is “CPC” Notemaker1k (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

    See Chinese Communist Party, both forms are correct. CCP is widely used even if not official. Vpab15 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xinjiang_internment_camps/Archive_2&oldid=1137334978"