Talk:Xinjiang internment camps/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• A reeducation camp in Azaq Township, Atush.jpg
• Big march by Uyghurs in Brussels.jpg
• Opening Ceremany of a political reeducation camp in Lopnur County.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Opening Ceremany of a political reeducation camp in Lopnur County.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A reeducation camp in Azaq Township, Atush.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is free content worth preserving. Please make an effort to fix the alleged copyvios instead. --Doanri (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Tarim116 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) The existence of Xinjiang reeducation camps is irrefutable, it is possible to delete the specific paragraphs which violated copyrights.

Contested deletion

This page should not be deleted, I would like to begin working on a new version of this article and publish soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarim116 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Tarim116 I have done the new version of Xinjiang reeducation camps in the temporary page

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Kokbayraq New version of Xinjiang reeducation camps by Tarim116 in the temporary page already, please administrator move the new article into place if the issue is resolved.

@Tarim116 and KokBayraq: thank you for creating a new version of the article. An administrator or copyright clerk will check the new version and process it within a couple of days, per Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Closing listings. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

@Clpo13 and Tarim116: This page is under investigation since July 30, 2018, and July 31 Tarim116 already published new version of Xinjiang reeducation camps in the temporary page; and how long it will take to check the new version? Please administrator or copyright clerk check the new version and move the new article into place if the issue is resolved. If any further unsolved copyvio issue please inform in this page, thanks.--KokBayraq (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that KokBayraq has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tarim116, who has been indefinitely blocked for this activity. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate uncopyrighted material /Temp

It's been more than a week, can Talk:Xinjiang_reeducation_camps/Temp be reinstated as the page? This page has a lot of politically sensitive content that shouldn't be suppressed as it's a critical human rights issue. It's not being present may be affecting peoples' abilities to get information about the subject. Thank you. 47.156.233.252 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Article would benefit from a neutral tone

This article reads like an exposé. And moralistic in a Western-centric sort of way.

For example, the article refers to people "locked up without any trial" and "outside of the [regular] legal system" as if to imply that lack of trial is an irregularity. The moral outrage of the authors oozes through each paragraph, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. In some societies, a person need not be convicted (or even suspected) of a crime in order to be detained: the government simply has the power to do it. What one culture sees as a wrongful exercise of authority, another regards as natural.

Another example:

    "Increasingly, massive detention centers were built up throughout the region and are being used to hold hundreds of thousands of innocent people  
    targeted for their religious practices and ethnicity." (Emphasis added)

Innocence is a culture-dependent concept. It's possible that from the Chinese perspective, practicing a disfavored religion -- thereby impeding cultural homogeneity -- could be the very opposite of "innocent" behavior. From their perspective, "failure to assimilate" might be more serious, in the grand scheme, than robbing the local gas station with a gun.

We may not choose to view the world that way, or run our own country along these principles, but the job of passing judgment is not for a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Suggestions: The tone should be neutral. Morally-charged language should be confined to the "Criticisms and Controversy" section.

This is more than just a surface problem. Because the mere existence of the camps is presented as self-evidently disastrous, all analysis stops there. It severely limits the article. Why did the Chinese decide to build such a big (and expensive) program in Xinjiang? Why devote the resources to it? And why now? What were the perceived failures of earlier policies that necessitated it? What outcome are they looking to achieve? China has many ethnic and religious minority groups; so why is this program specific to the Xinjiang region? What determines how long people are held in the camps? What determines when and why they get released? A more neutral tone would open the door to all of this. Even if such questions can't be definitively answered right now, the article should sketch out the framework, instead of more "dispatches from the front"-style quotations from newspapers. Xanthis (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

---

"In some societies, a person need not be convicted (or even suspected) of a crime in order to be detained: the government simply has the power to do it. What one culture sees as a wrongful exercise of authority, another regards as natural." According to the Human rights, signed by China, this should apparently not be the case here.

"It's possible that from the Chinese perspective, practicing a disfavored religion -- thereby impeding cultural homogeneity -- could be the very opposite of "innocent" behavior." Same for the freedom of religion.

Therefore, these are referenced irregularities within the system that can clearly be mentioned as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.194.64 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Neutrality is not always the best approach when a person bears witness to oppression. If anyone wants to add provisions in the article which debunk claims or justify policies, they are free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.126.23 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Xanthis. This place is for writing an encyclopedia, not moralizing on Chinese politics, and all articles must follow WP:NPOV. Most of the sources here rely on speculation since information in Xinjiang is still controlled, so if for instance, Amnesty International makes a statement, pleas attribute the source as such.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Maybe reading Regulation for the Removal of Extremism in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is helpful for answering some of your questions although it's written in Chinese.Mariogoods (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

---

I agree. For example it claims bot that "the camps are operated in secret" and that China invited outside agencies including the EU to inspect the camps and that the camps have support from 37 other nations. If they are operated in secret then how does everyone know about them and support or decry them? These contradictions show obvious bias and the article's credibly suffers as a result. Another example is the claim that China denies the existence of the camps. They don't deny they exist they merely call them vocational schools rather than concentration camps and the citation given doesn't make this claim. It seems clear many editors have significant bias and the article as a whole needs attention.

---

Please read the talk page I made down in the article. Bohaska (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

New source on 23 October 2018

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reeducation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Bravo to the Straw Man!

The above section, "Article would benefit from a neutral tone," and the message concerning "encyclopedic content" at the top of the article are both straw men, diversionary tactics to cast doubt on the content of the article, or at least draw attention away from it. There is little if any incendiary or emotive language in the article. The language is formal and descriptive—hence, encyclopedic. It will take a very strong counter-argument to convince me not to delete the encyclopedic content challenge, and hence the "multiple issues" challenge tomorrow. Tapered (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The tone banner is pretty old. If you feel the issue has been addressed, be WP:BOLD and remove it. Strangely, your edit reinstated an old synthesis banner, which I removed here. I'm not sure if that was intentional. Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Done! Tapered (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edit

Revision # 886443642, 6 March was not made by me, at least deliberately, and looks to complex for me to have done late at night by mistake. I've undone the revision. Possibly someone with skills did this before I cleared the web browser cache, or perhaps something went haywire in the software! Anyway, the material has been restored. Tapered (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Description of latest changes

Given that the article is covering an ongoing incident, I've updated it to a) add new updates (Chinese officials have indicated the camps might be phased out), b) add latest estimates of number of detainees, c) remove old estimates, d) remove citations that were irrelevant (I removed a Smithsonian citation describing the Japanese-American internment camps while leaving the reference comparing the Xinjiang internment camps to the Japanese-American internment camps as well as the Palestinian internment camps), e) remove citations that did not backup the claim in the article (that EU officials declined the invite from Chinese officials), f) remove undefined named-citations

Please discuss here if you'd like to contest any or all of these changes. I saw a revert of my changes on the claim that this is POV pushing because one of the citations is a report by the US senate. In recognition of the fact that the US Senate could be a biased source, the text of the article clearly attributes the estimate to the US Senate.

Also, let me know if there is anything I can do to make the edit higher-quality so the article is not biased one way or the other.

• Dear :@Divzsd:, thanks for your kindness edits for Xinjiang re-education camps. In your last edit, you removed the topic's most comprehensive summary in top paragraph which gave sufficient authority on this article with U.S. estimates. It is more appropriate to put certain countries estimates in relevant paragraphs within the article.--KH561 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @KH561:, thanks for the feedback! It was very helpful! Given that this is a developing story, I chose to prioritize the most recent estimates on detainees and removed obsolete ones. Most of the news publications I could find were referencing these estimates from the US Senate and the Pentagon as well. Would you prefer that I reinstate the old numbers from the non-US sources and add an extra sentence or two stating that the latest numbers from the US Senate and Pentagon are higher? Would that work as a solution? Divzsd (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Divzsd:. You are right, recently U.S. even said maybe closer to 3 million (some media cited that only) and one sentence was added for this already. Up to date, most countries and mainstream media which raised the camp issue often used the number one million, so now changing 1 million to 3 in the summary part will not benefit the article itself. At this moment, it is better always to mention who said 3 million due to insufficient voice for this number from different countries and international organizations like UN.--KH561 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Wide spread negative reactions..."

@HaeB:According the article in this encyclopedia, the United Nations has 193 member nations. Each of those nations has varying outlooks and opinions. Given that, seven refences do not constitute proof that there is "widespread" negative reactions. That would require many more references, or an authoritative assessment from a reliable source. Ms. Applebaum's piece is rightfully classified as opinion, but she is showing the divergence of reaction to the existence of the camps. And she is an eminent historian (her books would certainly be reliable sources). Quite frankly, that intro sentence was POV, and verging on propaganda. So, rather than try to modify it again, I cut it out. I detest the Xinjiang concentration camps—see, I can use that word here in Talk! But this is an encyclopedia to present information, not to vent opinions or attempts to persuade. I'm curating this article to keep it as neutral as possible. To include "widespread," would require a source that made a real effort to examine opinion and reaction around the world. Tapered (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and Emotive Language

The reasonable suggestion, made above, that the article would be improved by replacing its Western-centric and moralizing tone with more neutral language was itself met with shrill outrage, profanities, emotional assertions that the article is NOT emotional and even a suggestion that a neutral tone is not required because the article deals with “injustice.”

So are we going to write long articles moralizing NATOs unprovoked, and illegal, wars in countries far form its borders? How about the economic sanctions against Venezuela and Iran that target, and harm, the civilian population and are considered by many people to be collective punishment and a form of siege warfare? And surely the Trump regime’s blatant war mongering against Iran is cause for moral condemnation, NPOV be damned?

Or does throwing the rules out the window only apply to situations that happen in countries that resist western domination? User2346 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is quite neutral. If it still seems like it's discussing something reprehensible despite that, well, that may be because of the nature of what it discusses. FOARP (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kazakh and Chinese president sign deals.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed

This article is based almost entirely on news stories, even when describing official documents that should be able to serve as their own source. The number of sources is very excessive and serves to distract the reader, while tending as well towards the perception of authoritativeness, which some of the sources most certainly do not have. Philologick (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree and refer to WP:REDFLAG and WP:CIRCULAR. the UN expressions of concern relate to reports by journalists, not experts. these journalists essentially create a fantasy in which they see a policeman in town and then conjure up a delusional schizotypal fantasy world in which that policeman is running a death camp in secret and anyone who disagrees with me must be in on the conspiracy. So far i have to agree with mainstream mainland chinese news. this is fake news. not a single case identified out of at least a million claimed cases. supposed witnesses claim their sources are internet forums. people claiming political asylum rather than refugee status are the ones making claims about relatives but to the media, not to the department of foreign affairs etc. claims follow the format of, "I cant tell you their name or the secret death camp reptilian MIB will assassinate them." I honestly believe this should be in fringe theoryWP:FRINGE. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do they sell Halal Red herrings in Xinjiang? Of course the sources are going to be news sources, it's an ongoing current event! For my part, I'm terribly sorry for you that this article isn't behind the Great Firewall. Tapered (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Exiles

@CaradhrasAiguo: @The Account 1: Since 2 editors seem determined to remove word of the petition from the 'government response' section, with some justification, there's now a category for "exiled dissidents." Hopefully, this will stop the edit warring without any formal action. Tapered (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: an example of the type of torture that appears to be routine in the camps:

Quote from the article:

But for Ms. Auelhan, who calls herself Muslim but does not pray, one of the chief hardships was use of the toilet, because women were restricted to two minutes each time. Detainees frequently experienced constipation − she’s not certain whether it was the infrequency of bathroom access or the daily diet of steamed buns, rice, potatoes and maize. But if they spent more than 120 seconds on the toilet, “you can expect you will be electric shocked,” she said. Stun guns would typically be applied to the head. “They explained that if they did it on the body, it might leave a mark,” Ms. Auelhan said.

Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Official name

The official name is due here: Vocational Education and Training Centers. I didn't figure out how to add it though. --MarioGom (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Done. We’ll need to find the official name in other languages though. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

@Amigao: The category "Ethnic cleansing in Asia" has been added to the article. I see little or nothing in the article to support the category given the definition in Ethnic cleansing. I intend to remove it unless presented with a strong argument backed by references. Tapered (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tapered:  Removed --MarioGom (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of sources

I don't think that all of your data is impartial. Think of this If the CCP hates the Uighurs so much, then why do they have to waste money on building camps and give them food and water? Why didn't they build execution grounds, execute them and pretend there was an epidemic? Bohaska (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bohaska: There are indeed some problems with sources that some of us are trying to solve. Other than that, note that Wikipedia is not a forum (see WP:NOTFORUM). If you think any other source should be considered, you can bring it here. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of number of camps by Zhang

The article covers the estimates of number of camps by University of British Columbia student Shawn Zhang. During July-August 2018 media widely reported his attempts to document camps based on satellite imagery and government documents. At that time, the estimation was 31 camps. Since then, he has continued documented further suspected camps. This article has an estimation of 66 as of May 2019, referenced to his Medium blog. The count is 95 now. This looks like an extraordinary claim, given that:

• On November 2018, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's (ASPI) reported camps in 28 locations.
• Same month, Reuters and Earthrise Media reported 39 suspected camps.
• All of them, ASPI, Reuters/Eartrise Media and Zhang seem to be working with the same data, but during 2019, Zhang's list has grown to 95 while reliable sources have not picked up this high estimate so far.

Since this seems a bit extraordinary, I have checked Zhang's blog for further information on metodology. I found the following:

• Zhang has removed 5 camps that were misidentified before (e.g. prisons): Note: I removed 5 camps. So the total number of camps identified is 94, including those in the addition list., I removed camp №11 because it is more likely a prison.
• Zhang is including detention centers in the list, while other sources do not seem to do that: Although reeducation camps and detention centers look different, local Uyghur tells me most detention centers also function as reeducation camps. Without clear evidence, I usually do not list detention centers as reeducation camps. (emphasis is mine)

References

My initial thought was adding a clarification about methodology, so the reader understands the difference between figures by different sources. However, that might be original research or synthesis based on a self-published source. So I'm leaning towards removing Zhang estimation altogether. Yes, reliable sources reported the story of a student tracking camps, but his actual investigation does not seem to be covered by reliable sources since the initial July-August story, and the current figures are not being validated by reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In the end, it’s a self-published work. Not validated by reliable sources and not a reliable source itself. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

United Nations position

In order to avoid deflecting the above discussion, I'll expand on this topic here.

There is frequent confusion around Gay McDougall (Committee Co-Rapporteur for China) statement during a session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Her statements are part of minutes of a panel session, not a final report or official statement of the United Nations. So it should be attributed directly to her:

GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Co-Rapporteur for China, said that the Committee needed more than just denials that state and national security laws violated the rights of ethnic minorities. To this end, the Committee needed numbers, figures, data on investigations, prosecutions and detentions, and the number of people in re-education camps.
— Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviews the report of China, OHCHR

While some headlines might suggest that this is a UN statement, actual coverage in reliable sources is quite clear on the statement attribution:

A United Nations human rights panel said on Friday that it had received many credible reports that 1 million ethnic Uighurs in China are held in what resembles a “massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy.” Gay McDougall, a member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, cited estimates that 2 million Uighurs and Muslim minorities were forced into “political camps for indoctrination” in the western Xinjiang autonomous region.
— U.N. says it has credible reports that China holds million Uighurs in secret camps, Reuters

United Nations human rights experts expressed alarm on Friday over what they said were many credible reports that China had detained a million or more ethnic Uighurs in the western region of Xinjiang and forced as many as two million to submit to re-education and indoctrination. In the name of combating religious extremism, China had turned Xinjiang into “something resembling a massive internment camp, shrouded in secrecy, a sort of no-rights zone,” Gay McDougall, a member of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, said in the opening session of a two-day review of China’s policies in Geneva.
— U.N. Panel Confronts China Over Reports That It Holds a Million Uighurs in Camps, The New York Times

A UN human rights committee has heard there are credible reports that China is holding a million Uighurs in "counter-extremism centres".

Gay McDougall, a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, raised the claims at a two-day UN meeting on China.

She said she was concerned by reports that Beijing had "turned the Uighur autonomous region into something that resembles a massive internment camp".
— China Uighurs: One million held in political camps, UN told, BBC

I think the article should be more clear on the attribution here. --MarioGom (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that, as Flaughtin the term re-education camps appeared (within quotes) beyond minutes in the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

(a)Numerous reports of detention of large numbers of ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities held incommunicado and often for long periods, without being charged or tried, under the pretext of counteringterrorism andreligious extremism. The Committee regrets that there is no official data on how many people are in long-term detention or who have been forced to spend varying periods in political “re-education camps”for even non-threatening expressions of Muslim ethno-religious culture like daily greetings.Estimates about them range from tens of thousands to upwards of a million. The Committee also notes that the delegation stated that vocational training centres exist for people who committed minor offences without qualifying what this means;

So I think that, with that source, it is accurate to say that a UN panel (the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) has used the term "re-education camps", as is currently reflected in the article. --MarioGom (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC

Lead revert

@MarkH21: Please explain this revert of yours. MOS:FIRST would support my version of the lead more than it would your version of the lead. And at any rate, leading the article out with the official name that the PRC government uses lends undue weight for its account of these places just like how leading the article out with the name that critics use (e.g. Xinjiang concentration camps) would lend undue weight for their account of these places. The best solution is my proposal, which is to lead the article out with the term Xinjiang re-education camps for reasons that include (but aren't limited to) the fact that it is the: title of the article (and the reality of the consensus that that entails per WP:CON/WP:SILENCE), term that is used by reliable sources, term that's used by the UN, term most commonly used throughout this article and least tendentious term when compared to the altneratives. Flaughtin (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning for this change is invalid; MOS:FIRST explains how the article title does not need to match the bolded term of the first sentence, such as the given example of Paul McCartney. Giving the official name is not giving any more or less weight to the government position. It just gives the official name. "Xinjiang re-education camps" is a convenient alternative name that is descriptive of what the so-called "Vocational Education and Training Centers" actually are. It's also not like most English reliable sources use "Xinjiang re-education camps" verbatim: they use some combination of "Xinjiang", "Uyghur", "Muslim", "re-education", "concentration", "detention", "internment", "prison", "camps", "centers", and "gulags" - and that's just picking from the sources actually used in the article right now. (By the way, WP:OFFICIAL#Where there is an official name that is not the article title is relevant but does not say anything about order here) — MarkH21 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of of problems with your arguments and it seems like there is just sheer confusion on your part as to what is going on. I'm taking issue with the placement of the terms, not what terms are included or how they are related to each other - that is besides the point. The word order is what the fight is about, I am asking you justify that and coming up with these non-sequiturs, strawmen and just unsound arguments (I am saying this as a matter of fact, not opinion) don't do it. I never said anything about the article title needing to match anything that is something you just made up and the McCartney example you gave doesn't work because the words on that biographical article are referring to the same thing (to say otherwise is just splitting hairs: what is so significant about the difference between terms Paul mccartney and Sir James Paul McCartney?) - conditions which don't hold in this case. If MOS:FIRST and WP:OFFICIAL don't make the case for me, they dont make the case (that you say they do) for you either because there's nothing in those two guidelines which says your preferred term should come first. So at the very least, that argument cancels out. And at any rate you still have yet to answer what I said about WP:CON/WP:SILENCE, the UN and quality of least tendentiousness that the term re-education camp comparatively possesses. The term re-education camps is most commonly used (the exact phrase produces 40 results while it's cognate 're-education' produces 67 results) throughout the article by reliable sources entirely in the factual mode - your literalist hairsplitting about the exact word the reliable sources used is doesn't apply because that syntagm of words you used all have the same reference and referent. On the other hand, no reliable source (at least in this article) uses your preferred term (Vocational Education and Training Centers") in the factual mode, the ones that do use it in an ironic mode and the only sources that use it in the factual mode are unreliable ones that qualify for WP:PUS. Make no mistake: this is a political argument that falls entirely within the sphere of NPOV. The way words are used corresponds to the user's political sympathies, beginning (literally) the article with the phrase that the PRC government uses while forcing the placement of the alternate phrases to the right hand side of it carries with it the clear connotation that the PRC's view of the places is the account that we are suposed to take as settled and agreed-on while the other ones that are located after it are supposed to be interpreted as unfamiliar and problematic. And no, this isn't some crazy conspiracy theory that I invented: this is just standard syntagmatic analysis Flaughtin (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary was lead article out with Xinjiang re-education camps as that is the name of the article. Duh, so it’s not something that I just made up. I was pointing out that the article does not necessarily have to start with the article title.
Sure, the sources on the official name are not necessarily reliable sources as secondary sources, but they are reliable for demonstrating what the official name is. Yes, we use the article title because it’s least tendentious and most commonly used, but that doesn’t have to do with using the official name to start the article.
Your point about NPOV is whether starting an article by giving the official name implies that the official position of the governing body that provided that name is the “settled and agreed-upon” interpretation. Giving the official name does not imply this at all - it just gives the official name as one does at Stasi, Laogai, or any of the other government repression related articles. Using the official names of “__ Relocation Camp” for the Japanese American interment camps does not imply, for instance, that the WWII US Government position is assumed and that they weren’t concentration/internment camps as those articles state in their first sentences. It’s just using the actual name of the subject, regardless of whether anyone agrees with the government’s position.
On that point though, this may be something we just disagree on. I’d be happy to hear outside voices so we have a consensus. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think both the official name as well as "re-reducation camps" should be in the lede. Note that "re-education camp" is quite extended in reliable sources, but not so consistently. The BBC often uses quotes around "re-education", The Guardian quotes "re-education centres", and as MarkH21 pointed out, there are other names that are also used quite extensively. Note that, to the best of my knowledge, the UN does not use the term in official communications as Flaughtin suggested. There was a commission meeting where two members used the term during the discussion, but it was not present in final reports in "UN voice" (if I'm wrong here, I'm happy to get a reference). --MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The main question though, is whether the official name or "re-education camps" should come first in the lead. Do you have thoughts on this? — MarkH21 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Well, I was going to agree with you that we should get third party opinions on this, but then I saw this edit of yours and I really do have to ask: what the hell was that? I'd prefer to be civil about this, but you have been here long enough on Wikipedia and are also clearly knowledgable enough about it's policies to know the drill. You should have asked for external input on the RfC or 3O page to eliminate any possibility of bias. Asking for an opinion on the Wikiproject where the likelihood of somebody agreeing with your position is the highest - yeah, that is just not going to fly. (You'll also note how you didn't ask for an opinion on the other WikiProject which are listed at the top of this article) If what you did isn't illegal (Id say it is) then at the very least it is illicit. I mean really: if you don't want to argue in good faith, then just tell me and I will stop debating with you and move this dispute on to the next stage.

"Your edit summary was lead article out with Xinjiang re-education camps as that is the name of the article. Duh, so it’s not something that I just made up. " Actually no. Again, you aren't paying (enough) attention to what I am saying. It's not a matter of whether the words match, ti's a matter of which term comes first. And even if you were right about what you thought I said, I could make the case that you would still be wrong because although the the article title need not match the bolded term of the first sentence per se, I could say that in this case it does because there are two terms with dichotomous meanings, so only the term which approximates closest to the meaning of the article title should be included. Your examples about the Stasi and Logai - like the mccartney example you gave earlier - don't apply, like i said, the syntactical discrepancies don't mean anything because the words in those cases are referring to the same thing - a condition which doesn't hold here. Perhaps in Chinese (or some other foreign language) re-education and vocation mean the same thing, but that is not relevant to the discussion here because we are editing on the English version of Wikipedia and these two terms in the English language have contrastive meanings. It's a semantic isssue, not a syntactic one and your inability (or refusal) to get that is a major reason why you/we are going in circles.

Let me ask this another way to simplify the dispute for you. We've established the case that MOS:FIRST and WP:OFFICIAL (at the least) don't make either my or your case for which term should come first. So why should your preferred term come first in the lead? Flaughtin (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I see that you part of WikiProject China so if you are here because of the other user's canvassing/not-so-subtle-attempt at canvassing, it'd be best in the interest of fairness if you could recuse yourself from this conversation. Of course I am not saying your input should be automatically disqualified and I am still willing to give what you say a go and have a robust debate about this. But at the same time, do understand where I am coming from when I (where applicable) don't make the assumption of good faith that I normally would and instead see this whole thing as a cynical attempt at votestacking.

Lets be clear about the numbers. The exact phrase (re-education camp) produces 40 results while it's cognate 're-education' produces 67 results; on the other hand, the exact phrase Vocational Education and Training Centers is used 3 times (cited to no sources) while its cognate 'vocational' is used 9 times (cited to 2 reliable sources). From that statement of fact, it can only be concluded that my preferred term should come first because: (1) it is (at least in the article) used extensively and consistently while the other user's preferred term is used non-extensively and inconsistently because it is used almost non-existently. (2) even if it was used extensively, but not consistently (as you claim) by the reliable sources the preferred term by the other user is used even less extensively and consistently by the reliable sources. There is no equivalence in the what the quotations mean: the reliable sources employ for my preferred term the rhetorical device in the factual, descriptive mode (e.g. the way you cite something on Wikipedia) while the reliable sources employ the other user's preferred term not only in the unfactual, non-descriptive mode, but also in the ironic, normative mode (e.g. when you use scare quotes); in addition, the only sources that use the term Vocational Education and Training Centers in the factual, descriptive mode are unreliable ones that qualify for WP:PUS. And Your repetition of the otheruser's claim about other words being used by reliable sources does not apply - it's just literalist hairsplitting because the syntagm of words he cited all have the same reference and referent. Even if the claim was to be accepted, my argument that my preferred term vis-a-vis the other user's preferred term should come first would still be stronger than the opposing one for the reasons i just stated.

Your assertion, notwithstanding your qualification of self-confessed ignorance, that the UN has not used the term re-education camp is incorrect as it is contradicted here. You will also note that the other quotes by the UN which are cited in the article explicitly refer to these places as camps. So even I grant that you can discount the cognate argument (i.e. camp = re-education camp) on syntactical grounds, my preferred term would still come first because it approximates closest in meaning vis-a-vis the other user's preferred term to the term that the UN uses. At the very least, it makes no argument for why the other user's preferred term should come first. Flaughtin (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: Notifying related WikiProjects is not canvassing. It’s literally listed in WP:APPNOTE. Assume good faith.
Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that other editors are out to “fight” you or that something is because other editors are somehow unable or refuse to understand anything. It’s just a disagreement on content. — MarkH21 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Flaughtin: Neutral notifications to related WikiProjects are perfectly ok. Anyway, I have a lot of Xinjiang-related articles in my watchlist and started editing this article on 8 September 2019‎, so I would have reached this discussion one way or the other. Same with others like Xinjiang conflict.
• @Flaughtin: The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination source is precisely the one I was already aware of. The term is used primarily by Gay McDougall and is reproduced as is in the summary minutes of the meeting. It is not part of a statement by the Committee (and even less sanctioned by the UN). If it is based on that source, it should be considered an individual position of a Committee member, not an UN official statement. (see #United Nations position)
• @MarkH21: I have no well-formed opinion on the order of the names in the lede. --MarioGom (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Well no no, not really. It definitely isnt battlegrounding on my part or my doing any of the things which you invented that you accused me of doing; if anything that is just you not assuming good faith. As I made clear both in writing and conduct I have no problem continuing this debate with you and the other editor as long as you both do it in good faith. The question I asked was completely legitimate . You didn't go to RfC and 3O (which you know is the way these things are normally done) and you also didn't solicit a third party opinion on the other WikiProjects which are listed at the top of this article. Fine if you don't want to answer it, but it's also fine for me to (at least) ask you to justify the abnormal course of action you took.

But as I was saying: we've established the case that MOS:FIRST and WP:OFFICIAL (at the least) don't make either my or your case for which term should come first. So why should your preferred term come first in the lead? Flaughtin (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The issue is how he went about soliciting a third party opinion, not what the he wrote. He didn't go to RfC and 3O (which he knows is the way these things are normally done) and he also didn't solicit a third party opinion on the other WikiProjects which were listed at the top of this article. Fine if he doesn't want to answer it, but i do have the right to ask him to justify what he did. Whether you were going to contribute to this debate or not is besides the point.

Regarding the UN, no the UN has used that term. Here's another source which also calls these places re-education camps [1]. Just because the term hasnt appeared in a "UN final report" (what is that?) does not mean it hasn't been used in an official capacity - which in any case it has: mcdougall is a UN representative who referreed to the places explicitly as re-education camps while speaking in a public capacity and whose comments were subsequently unopposed by other members of the commission, and recorded and released for public viewership. That said, even if you were right that the UN didnt use the reeducation camp term in an official capacity, it still wouldn't matter because it has used other terms which are coterminous with that term (e.g. camp). At any rate, it has never used the term that the PRC government prefers either. Flaughtin (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So moving past your erroneous initial edit summary and your accusation of bad faith at the beginning, the issue now is that we both do not agree on whether starting with the official name is POV. It's also perfectly standard here to ping related WikiProjects about discussions, it is not canvassing and not abnormal. Nor is there a requirement (as either explicit or implied proper behavior) to ping all related WikiProjects. You may ping them if you'd like, you may start an RfC or 3O if you'd like (although we now have a third opinion which is ambivalent), but notifying a single WikiProject is totally normal. Feel free to ask WP:VP if you really want someone to reaffirm that it's acceptable and legitimate. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have placed a neutral notice of this discussion in all tagged wikiprojects. I hope that solves Flaughtin concerns on selective notices. --MarioGom (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Again you are dead wrong on everything. I have already completely discredited your theory about what my initial edit summary meant (it realy is not my problem that you for whatever reason have no understood it ) and your defense of your selective notification is nonsensical; to illustrate by way of an example if you watch pornography in a public library and the librarian asks you what you are doing, you don't say "something legal."

Why should your preferred term come first in the lead? Stop stonewalling on this and don't tell me anymore about how the term is the "official one" because that isn't even an argument, let alone an argument that makes your argument. Yes we both "do not agree on whether starting with the official name is POV" I made this clear in my opening post and it is also the reason why we are even here on the talk page in the first place. The fact that you are raising this point this late in the exchange is just further proof of what i said earlier that you just don't know what is going on. If you aren't going to answer my question then I am just going to restore my version of the lead. Flaughtin (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you on about? That the name is the official name of an article is a perfectly valid argument of starting an article with it. There's no stonewalling. You haven't raised any reason why the official name shouldn't be the first term, except that "Xinjiang re-education camps" is used more by reliable sources. There's no policy or guidelines suggesting that the more common RS term should be the first in the article. Also keep in mind that just because an argument is not made to your satisfaction, that it needs to be explained in detail - you can't just restore your version because you don't agree with opposition.
I don't agree with your "refutations" or any claims that you "completely discredited" my points. But it is really tiring and time-wasting to have to restate and elaborate pretty self-evident reasoning.
In the name of resolving this relatively minor dispute as time-efficiently as possible, I'll open an RfC. It's better than threatening to edit-war over it. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"You haven't raised any reason why the official name shouldn't be the first term, except that "Xinjiang re-education camps" is used more by reliable sources. " No I already have, you just mentioned one of the reasons why. (it's used more by reliable sources) The burden falls on you to explain why your preferred term should be the used first as YOU are the one making that argument, not me. It's not about my satisfaction, it's about the inadequacy of your explanation Flaughtin (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that in the quoted text (note the “except”). I gave my reasons; you just decided that you don’t find them adequate. But now the discussion continues (and may be clearer) on the RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes but that was not my point, my point was that i have one more reason(which you provided) to go on to support my version of the lead over your version of the lead. But yes at any rate we will now carry over our debate to the rfc. Flaughtin (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the ordering of the names at the beginning of the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In light of the discussion about MOS:FIRST and the prevalence of using the common name as the first noun phrase of the lead (which I had misformed initial impression), I am closing the RfC as the original poster in support of the second option. Thanks to all participants, I appreciate the input and open dialogue. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Which of the following should be used to begin the lead?

1. Vocational Education and Training Centers, commonly known as re-education camps, are internment camps that...
2. The Xinjiang re-education camps (known officially by the government of the People's Republic of China as as Vocational Education and Training Centers, and more commonly as just re-education camps) are internment camps that...

The relevant earlier discussion from which this RfC emerged is Lead revert above. Thanks. 19:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

!Voting

• Lead 1: The official English name, when available, should be used to start an article on the topic. "Xinjiang re-education camps" is a generic name used by more English reliable sources on the general topic and is still used throughout the article, but there is no issue with giving the official name at the very beginning. The alternative is also wordier and longer, whereas giving the alternative name once at the beginning is concise and clear. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The official English name, when available, should be used to start an article on the topic. There's no Wikipedia policy/guideline that says this. That is just a matter of your personal preference.
  • "Xinjiang re-education camps" is a generic name used by more English reliable sources on the general topic and is still used throughout the article, but there is no issue with giving the official name at the very beginning. But then there's also no issue with giving the generic name either. In fact you have just provided two extra reasons why the article should lead out with the term "Xinjiang re-education camps": it's used by more English reliable sources on the general topic and it is used throughout the article.
  • The alternative is also wordier and longer, whereas giving the alternative name once at the beginning is concise and clear. There's no Wikipedia policy/guideline that says the version of the disputed material which is shorter is to be preferred - again that is just a matter of preference. But even if that was policy/guideline, it still wouldnt apply here because lead 2, although longer, provides a clearer description of the terms; it explicitly specifies the terminology by telling the reader which term is the generic one and which one is the official one, and which actor uses/prefers which term (lead 1 doesnt even specify that the term Vocational Education and Training Centers is an official term, let alone an official term that is used by the (government of the) People's Republic of China.) You'll also note that the specific term i prefer (stated in the lead revert section) is more concise than the specific term that you prefer. Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Every discussion about anything that’s not covered by policy/guideline is about “preference”. I’m also not saying that the official term is the one that should be used throughout the article; whether the official name itself is longer than the common name is irrelevant since they’re both in the sentence. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah but that isnt the issue, the issue is that you presented what you wrote as fact. It isnt it is, as you admitted, just your opinion. Noting the specificity of the syntactical construction of the contrastive terms is relevant because you are the one complaining about the need for wordiness and concision. Just one more reason (using your own arguments) why lead 2 is better than lead 1 Flaughtin (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Lead 1 for the concision and for clearly demarcating the re-education terminology. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This argument makes no sense lead 2 explicitly specifies the terminology and the actors which use them while lead 1 doesnt. (lead 1 doesnt even specify that the term Vocational Education and Training Centers is an official term, let alone an official term that is used by the (government of the) People's Republic of China.) You'll also note that the term i prefer (stated in the lead revert section) is more concise than the term that the opening poster prefers. Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the point by CaradhrasAiguo is that the whole sentence is more concise, not the terms themselves (there is no preferred term in either case, just a preferred order in the first sentence). On the point of specification: the “Vocational Training and Education Centers” is implicitly specified as the official name since “Xinjiang re-education camp” is explicitly specified as the common name. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • "I think the point by CaradhrasAiguo is that the whole sentence is more concise, not the terms themselves " You are probably right but that still doesnt make it more concise per se (which was my point). And even if you were right that's not what i said is at issue, which is was about the clarity of the demarcation of the terms. I should also add in light of my comments above that just because a version of a disputed content is more (grammatically) concise doesnt mean that it is better.
      • On the point of specification: the “Vocational Training and Education Centers” is implicitly specified as the official name since “Xinjiang re-education camp” is explicitly specified as the common name. This makes no sense, why should one term be implicitly specified while the other explicitly so? Flaughtin (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Lead 2 for the reasons I provided in the "lead revert" section Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 (Summoned by bot). Concise the other option may be, but it is also more ambiguous, provides less useful context to help frame and understand the subject from the get-go in the rather critical lead sentence, and is considerably out-of-sync with various previous consensus discussions regarding the contentious title: there is always an advantage to harmonizing the first noun phrase of the lead sentence with established WP:COMMONNAME of the article (see WP:FIRST), and when the title of a given article has already itself proven contentious and consensus has arrived at one option over others (for any of a variety of reasons relating to WP:V and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT) then the argument is even stronger to retain fidelity to the common name. Between the two options, this is the description that better parallels that of the sources we are using to support the article at present, the name which most of our readers are likely to be familiar with, and the one which best matches the description that has already been judged to be the more neutral and WP:RS-derived for purposes of the title, so I see no reason to deviate from leading with that phrasing, particularly when the standard/overwhelmingly more common approach on this project is to replicate the common name title as the grammatical subject of the lead sentence. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Snow Rise: An excellent summary. Nevertheless I do have a couple of comments:
  • Regarding the nature of the controversy, it is important to note that the term Vocational Education and Training Centers is not just an official term; it is a term that just preferred by one actor (i.e. the government of the PRC) who naturally has a vested, point-of-view interest in using that term. Even if there were any good reasons to employ that term in this article (and more broadly on Wikipedia), the fact that there is only a limited number of actors (i.e. one) who use that formulation certainly detracts from the legitimation of the term.
  • "is considerably out-of-sync with various previous consensus discussions regarding the contentious title:" For the sake of argument from the naysayers, can you provide a source for this?
  • " particularly when the standard/overwhelmingly more common approach on this project is to replicate the common name title as the grammatical subject of the lead sentence." The same. For the sake of argument from the naysayers, can you cite the relevant guidelines for this?
  • "this is the description that better parallels that of the sources we are using to support the article at present," Your basic position is correct. However this understates what is happening. The (reliable) sources overwhelmingly use the "Xinjiang re-education camps" formulation (in the affirmative, factual mode) so there's a much stronger argument to be made that the description should track with what is in the article relative to what you said (i.e. mere parallelism). See the attached discussion above for more information on this. Flaughtin (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Snow Rise: Yes, I would actually like clarification on the standard/overwhelmingly more common approach on this project is to replicate the common name title as the grammatical subject of the lead sentence. My understanding was almost the opposite, but I’ll happily stand corrected! Some of the prototypical examples (where the common name and official name don’t agree) that I had in mind were articles such as Stasi, articles on nations, and articles on species, wherein the common name comes after the official name in the first lead sentence. I could not find any written convention on the ordering though, but I’m quite curious as to whether the convention is given anywhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Forgive my error, I meant to link to the appropriate bit of codification (MOS:FIRST) in my first post, but inadvertently mis-linked to WP:FIRST! So there is some express community consensus on the manner, albeit the style guide, which I will grant is of the "apparently we now officially call it policy but we all know that the individual points of guidance here represent a smaller consensus than most pages that are classified as a WP:POLICY" class of community consensus, but it's still pretty express. But probably even more compelling, its just what we do overwhelmingly as a statistical matter, as far as I can tell. I mean, I don't have a source to point to for that as an empirical matter, but it's not something that I'd consider much in doubt either, across articles collectively anyway: there may be more nuanced arguments for particular categories of articles.

Certainly there are exceptions, per your Stasi example, but I would say that the situations are not strictly analogous: 'Stasi' was merely a concatenation of the formal title of the organization in question, whereas the differences between "The Xianjiang Re-education Camps" and "Vocational Education and Training Centers" are pregnant with latent meaning and differing innate connotations; we may all have different impressions as to what exactly the semantic implications of one version over another are, but it nevertheless means something (and something rather significant in our WP:RS/WP:WEIGHT-based process) that the independent WP:Secondary sources the articles is built upon overwhelmingly use one description to describe the institution in the abstract. And I'd say the comparison in terms of that critical element is similar for all articles on species and nations.

That's my take on how to filter this issue through the relevant policies anyway, but I appreciate the civil and open-minded tone in which you've presented your own view on what is certainly a complicated issue open to reasonable disagreement. Flaughtin, forgive my not addressing your other three points/requests: I didn't mean to neglect them, but I have to switch my attention to a non-avoidable off-project situation. I will address those points as my first on-project priority as soon as I can get back on. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise This is exactly the point i was making in the lead revert section above. i dont know if you have read what was written there yet but it'd be good to do it if only to get a better understanding of the context/background arguments that led to this RFC.Flaughtin (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Ah okay, I guess the pertinent part you are referring to is If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. I interpreted that to be somewhat more ambiguous than it may read, due to the provision for exceptions such as However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. and fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead as well as the aforementioned classes of counter-examples. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Lead 2 as there seems to be greater weight in the sources, thus greater weight should be applied to the more prevalent name in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• We should use what is more commonly used as the name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as the name of the article. This RfC is about the first sentence of the lead - not the article name. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The user's comments were obviously referring to the issue about the first sentence of the lead, not the article name. Your RfC prompt makes perfectly clear the precise issue at hand. Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Feel free to clarify your comment. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding of the article and looking at the sources I see:

• Vocational Education and Training Centers with three sources. Two of these sources are in Chinese and lack any English translation. One of the sources is a word document and seems to be some official document from xinhua. That means we have at most one source as clearly this is an english language article and we are discussing what name to be used for the english wikipedia. The infobox uses states in chinese 职业技能教育培训中心.
• re-education camps shows a number of sources. Also you will note in the infobox 再教育营 is also used.

Maybe this article should have an entomology section which goes over the disputed naming, if there is a dispute rather than edit warring in the lede. Certainly the PRC PR army is here pushing a POV and we might as well give each equal weight in the section for NPOV, then in the lede we summarize it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I agree with what you’ve said, but I don’t see how your conclusion relates to the ordering of the terms in the first sentence. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark, it appears you are POV pushing. Just let the RfC run the course and see what happens. From my standpoint there lack WP:RS to support this vocational training center position as the primary name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The issue is about the word ordering (as the user right above me pointed out). The lead revert section of this talk page explicates in more detail the fairly reasonable points (minus the PR army bit. We cant have overt POV's like that - at least not on Wikipedia and however reasonable they may be in real life) that you've been making. Correct me if I am wrong, but based on what you have been saying, I take it that you support lead #2. is this right? Flaughtin (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have just voted for #2 above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I asked for clarification on what you were thinking, and I am engaging in open discussion on an ambiguous and complicated point in lead structuring. Assume good faith and don’t make accusations please. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Participants to this RfC should first familiarize themselves with what is in the Lead Revert section of this article as this RfC is a product of that exchange. Flaughtin (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2019 (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.

References

NYT Leak content

Significant content with a solid RS (NYT) has been released https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html Should be good to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @MarkH21: your revert here [2] of the IP address editor looks without basis. There is no evidence that CCP is different from Chinese govt and NYT is clearly an WP:RS here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the edit summary. I didn’t say that the NYT isn’t RS. The source is already in the article, I said that source should be in the article, and I said that material from the source should be used to expand the article. The lead has to explain the notability of the subject, which is being concentration/internment camps per MOS:FIRST. The IP edit disrupted that completely. Plus, there is a difference between the party and the government, even if the party runs the government. There are programs from the party (e.g. Communist Youth League of China) and there are programs from the government (e.g. this one). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no distinction between party and government at mid and upper levels of government in China and the NYT source accurately explains that in relation to Xinjiang. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There’s a formal distinction between the two. The party runs the government but they’re still formally distinct entities even if they’re effectively the same. It’s a very subtle point with little practical difference, but it’s a technicality that exists. The NYT does not contradict the formal distinction; the article describes the leaders, their stances, and their leaked documents as belonging to the party while the programs are effected by the government (e.g. The government sends Xinjiang’s brightest young Uighurs to...).

To further see the distinction, the government is structured into state organs of the central government (i.e. what carries out actions) which adhere to the policies and authority of the CCP (China’s state organs have different responsibilities, they all adhere to the line, principles and policies of the party). The programs are run by the government, whose officials belong to the CCP and may make decisions within the CCP affecting the direction of the program. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This NYT source is about Xi and the party and its relationship in Xinjiang. Everyone mentioned in the NYT source is a party member, in most cases notable. Nothing in NYT about civil service or bureaucratic level organs and it specifically goes into detail of the consequences of party member's failure to fall in line. This NYT source was not a source, for example, that discussed rank and file PSB (police) morale. Policemen in China are part of a state organ and the leaders in Xinjiang are party members, its not very nuanced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are party members. Are we still talking about the same thing, i.e. whether the lead should say that the camps are run by the government? The re-education camps are formally run by the Chinese government. The government is run by people in the party. The NYT article talks about people running the government, who are in the party, and their activities in relation to Xinjiang. There’s no contradiction to what I wrote earlier. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I responded to your objection to the revert of an edit that left the lead saying:

The Xinjiang re-education camps, officially called Vocational Education and Training Centers by the Communist Party of China, under General Secretary Xi Jinping’s administration.

That does not say what the camps are and is not even a grammatical sentence. I responded to your claim that There is no evidence that CCP is different from Chinese govt by explaining the structure of the Chinese government, which is formally distinct from the party at all levels. It’s not clear what you are now disputing. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mark, now I see my confusion and I agree with you. Thank you for clarification! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"re-education camps" is the common name, not "concentration camps"

Whilst obviously euphemistic, "re-education camps" is the common name for these camps and is the name that should be used here per WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence for this can be see in:

- Google News search results, which presently return 213 results for "Xinjiang re-education camps" compared to 24 results for "Xinjiang concentration camps"

Using Google News search results as a indicator of whether these camps are 're-education' or 'concentration' camps is beyond ridiculous. This argument holds absolutely no water what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnsceneBoos (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

- Scholarly opinion, e.g., Adrian Zenz says he believes the term "concentration camps" to be not entirely inaccurate but basically unhelpful, and that the terms "re-education camps" is more accurate ("calling these facilities “concentration camps” is technically correct but conceptually not particularly illuminating. Calling them “re-education camps” has the significant advantage of denoting their ultimate purpose").

At the same time I think it might be useful to have a section on the page regarding the page and to mention the "concentration camps" name in the lede. This is because there are actually many different names for these things, most fairly obfuscatory and designed to disguise what they really are, but also names like "concentration camps" that others have given to them which aren't totally inaccurate but ultimately aren't the best way of descirbing them. As there is no "re-education camp" Infobox template, I recommend using the concentration-camp one as it is the closest to what we are describing. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The term "re-education" is in this case appropriate. It has to be remembered that the ancestors of the present day population were forced into the muslim religion on the pain of death and total destruction. The present day population has not had a proper education, and so it is correct to give them a re-education. People undergoing reeducation are not killed, as would the ancestors of these people had they turned down the offer to convert to the religion. Indeed, the truth and genuine history of religions have to be calmly reevaluated with cool heads by objective people and scholars, and not be left to people such as mullahs and priests, who simple pass on fake history. 86.137.73.187 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

As can be seen in the recent London Bridge terror attack, western countries such as the UK also have their own re-education programmes. Unfortunately, some of these programmes forgot that their "clients" could be very dangerous, and forgot to provide security for their staff. When China run these programmes, and provide the security, she comes up for criticism from people and media in the west; and by the way, it is perfectly good for the UK police to shoot dead such a bad person, but should China carry out such actions, she is demonised. What hypocrisy!!!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7744689/London-Bridge-terrorist-Usman-Khan-radicalised-teenager-seen-laughing-9-11-videos.html

2A00:23C5:C105:7B00:795C:67C8:54E1:C76A (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

WAPO Edit war

@CaradhasAiguo, Horse Eye Jack, Wuerzele, and HaeB: Please discuss the now-protracted edit war stemming from this original edit. CaradhasAiguo, please use descriptive edit summaries and stop re-deleting the content until consensus is reached. The back-and-forth reverting is becoming disruptive.

Without going any further on editor conduct, please discuss the content. In particular, please articulate why you think the material does not belong here, CaradhasAiguo. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE I have full-protected the article for 2 days to stop the edit warring. You all are established editors and know better. Discuss here what to include and what not to include, and provide evidence and/or Wikipedia policy to support your opinions. When the full protection expires I hope you will have achieved an understanding. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I’m not sure full-protection is actually necessary. There are two different things happening simultaneously.

There are IPs who have been changing all instances of “re-education” to “concentration” and piping wikilinks to Winnie the Pooh in persistent disruptive editing against consensus and vandalism respectively. These have been regularly and correctly reverted by various editors, and would benefit from semi-protection.

Then there is the issue mentioned in this section about the 6-revert edit war solely involving the editors that I pinged above. It doesn’t seem that full protection is needed for their issue yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There definitely was some edit warring going on, and discussion here seems minimal up to now. But now that I look closer I see that it was mostly User:CaradhrasAiguo against everybody else. I will warn CaradhrasAiguo, and I will convert the full protection to semi-protection which is clearly needed. I trust your ping here will encourage them all to come here and talk it over. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm re-pinging User:CaradhrasAiguo since you misspelled their name. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

HaeB has selectively invoked WP:NPOV without mentioning the WP:FALSEBALANCE item therein: publishing a known Iraq War supporter, Anne Applebaum, is tantamount to falsely assigning equally-weighted POV to a Flat-Earther, 9/11 "inside job"-ers, etc. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Im genuinely unsure how using a 2019 piece by a pulitzer prize winning historian and current London School of Economics professor who argued in favor of the Iraq war in a 2002 editorial "is tantamount to falsely assigning equally-weighted POV to a Flat-Earther, 9/11 "inside job"-ers, etc.” That doesnt work on a common sense, academic, or wikipedia policy level. I note that you have not backed up the other assertion you made in your edit summary [3] which seems to be a pretty straight up violation of WP:BLP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The appeal to the fluff Prize (how many were undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance) and tenureship is a straight up argumentum ad authorit. Hussein's possession of WMDs was known at the time by multiple intelligence agencies, not to mention numerous wiser politicians, to be a falsehood. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are your personal opinions and I respect them as such (you are however incorrect that Applebaum is tenured even if that may be your opinion). What bearing do these personal opinions have on wikipedia policy though? Also note that your now deleted argument that BLP only applies to articles is false, per WP:BLPTALK “BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No, those are the facts regarding Hussein, and are not up for contention following numerous inquests into the matter some of them costing millions of pounds. Engaging in falsehoods and conspiracy theories (an extraordinary claim), as Applebaum is well-documented as having done, absolutely is an essential matter to WP:FALSEBALANCE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that is not the claim I was contending was your personal opinion, you cant just dismiss the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction as a fluff prize (which she won for her book Gulag: A History, a books whose topic is closely related to the topic of this page). Its one thing to peddle falsehoods before they are proven to be false, its an entirely different thing to peddle them after. Are you genuinely arguing that not a single academic or journalist who supported the Iraq war or believed that Saddam possessed WMDs can *ever* be used on Wikipedia? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

In the "New York Times and ICIJ leaks" the third paragraph, the sentence "...including his release of 7000 inmates detainees." is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to "...including his release of 7000 detainees." [REMOVED "DUPLICATED" WORD] 192.197.205.213 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality must be maintained in the lead

The lead is extremely biased and it must be rewritten in compliance with the WP:NPOV policy. STSC (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which parts you feel aren't in compliance with NPOV? Its an awfully long lede.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for the time being, since it's unclear what the nature of the NPOV dispute is. Feel free to put it back if you can add some more detail here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

For a start, the infobox is in the wrong format - "concentration camp"? I'd fix this and other NPOV problems when I have time. STSC (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term "concentration camps"

The first adjective to describe the facilities is the term "concentration camp" which I believe is inadequate. Not only does that term imply that people are sent there even if not convicted of a crime, but it also suggests that there is no set release date. Evidence suggests that both of the previous statements are actually true about the camps. It has been asserted by the PRC that only those convicted of terrorist related or separatist crimes are sent to the centers, and so far there is no actual evidence other than speculation that this is false. As well as that, it has always been known that those sent to the reeducation centers are released often in less than a year. Although I do not believe the term should be omitted from the article entirely, Using it as the main descriptor of these facilities seems like biased disinformation. Especially because it is only cited from US biased sources that have no real evidence other than guesswork and assumptions. Madmoons (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well when you consider head veils and beards are criminal offenses in Western China (seemingly arbitrary and targeted), or the lack of known trials for the million or so estimated in these "facilities". It certainly quacks like a concentration camp or internment camp. The term Concentration Camp on wikipedia redirects you to Internment Camp, which describes it as "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges,[2] and thus no trial......Interned persons may be held in prisons or in facilities known as internment camps, also known as concentration camps." I guess the burden of proof is on you to prove that the million or so people in these "facilities" are there for breaking a law and have been tried and convicted of such crimes. 174.30.61.202 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Really? According to you beard and head coverings are banned in China. After doing my own research I've found nothing to prove that, and frankly i'm curious where you're sourcing you info from. So is the burden of proof really on me? Madmoons (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Madmoons, could you show me some sources which demonstrate that 1) only convicted criminals are sent into the camps and 2) that people who are sent there have release dates? The New York Times (which is the US's Newspaper of record) demonstrates that the people in the camps are detained without formal conviction due to Thoughtcrime. This article in particular provides a decent overview of the situation through an investigative reporting structure. Another quote in particular seems to strike me as evidence against the two factors above. It's from a similar report by the NYT. 'Residents said people have been sent to the camps for visiting relatives abroad; for possessing books about religion and Uighur culture; and even for wearing a T-shirt with a Muslim crescent. Women are sometimes detained because of transgressions by their husbands or sons.One official directive warns people to look for 75 signs of “religious extremism,” including behavior that would be considered unremarkable in other countries: growing a beard as a young man, praying in public places outside mosques or even abruptly trying to give up smoking or drinking.[...]Now the beards and hijabs are gone, and posters warn against them. Mosques appear poorly attended; people must register to enter and worship under the watch of surveillance cameras. Thank you for your comment on this talk page. Recently, more information has popped up on Reddit, such as this clarity link and this Business Insider report. While you might be acting in good faith, your claim that such sources are biased due to misinformation is incorrect. The NYT is especially credible in many senses - and the investigative reports depicted earlier demonstrate a first-hand understanding of the situation. If you wish to see the reality of the camps, I suggest you watch this (NSFW) video which gives fair credence to the views above. Thanks! Kobentori (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Madmoons comments appear to be OR and WP:NOTFORUM applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you have a go at France or Holland or Denmark then. Western countries have also banned the veil. 2A00:23C5:C105:7B00:795C:67C8:54E1:C76A (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

These are clearly not "concentration camps"; and to call them such is an insult to the Jews who were put in Nazi concentration camps and exterminated. It is not clear that they are re-education camps either, since the Uighurs are probably not being re-educated, as they really do lack education in the first place. The simple term of education camp may be the most accurate. It must be remembered that the genetic ancestors of these people had the muslim religion forced upon them in the first place on pain of death and total destruction. The religion is also such that these people cannot leave, because any muslim leaving the religion incur the penalty of being killed by other muslims. The world and the UN should make it a priority that any muslim should be free to leave this religion without the fear of being killed by other muslims, and to protect this right. At least the Chinese are doing something to set these people free, what is the rest of the world doing to help these backward people? 86.137.73.187 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"to call them such is an insult to the Jews," followed by calling the Uyghurs "these backward people." Perhaps calling genocide genocide not only isn't disrespectful to past victims of genocide but it actually the way to honor their legacy by not letting it happen again. That's my two scents 08:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"as they really do lack education in the first place.” Yes I’m sure the teachers and university lecturers locked up in these camps lack education... Referring to a people as backwards is bigotry plain and simple. Also note that when it comes to the Holocaust the distinction between an extermination camp and a concentration camp it a key one, please get it right if you're so worried about being respectful to the victims of the Holocaust. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Map of supporting and opposing countries needs to be updated

According to the article, Kuwait has only withdrawn former support. Yet in the map, it is colored green (opposing countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Reactions_to_Chinese_treatment_of_Uyghurs.svg The linked news article points out explicitly that Kuwait wants to remain neutral. Thus, it should be colored in the gray of the other neutral countries. 2003:F6:2711:6400:A51B:8737:4F70:C070 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of international reactions

Here's Lavrov's response from October: [4]. We've got to get all if these organized and laid out- all foreign ministries that have made a statement should be included. Perhaps a new subpage should be created. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say be bold to add it in the page but be catious to create a new page. We could create it when the sole page cannot contain international reactions without damaging readity.Mariogoods (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not all reactions are notable, in fact the vast majority aren't. I dont feel that a distinct page for the reactions of foreign ministries to a specific situation serves the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia *is not* meant to host all possible information about a topic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello all- I tried to add info about the Russian position on this issue- let me know if you see any problems. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Subsection on separated children

@Geographyinitiative: There are two problems with this.

1. It's placed in a section called "Camp detainees", but the children of the detained parents are not themselves detainees. This applies to the preceding sentence about Mandarin education as well.
2. Again, it's news that does not have to do with the actual camps. It's undue WP:PROMINENCE for a news report of a child of two detainees (first detained two years prior) dying while in the care of his grandparents. While it may have indirectly caused the death, it's speculative to relate the death with the detainment. Finally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS for even reliable sources, let alone Radio Free Asia.

I really don't think that this material belongs, and the preceding sentence should be moved to another section (perhaps a new one on the effects of the camps, since it doesn't really fit in the existing sections). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Okay, I see your points here. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Scanned form of letter from the 37 nations needed

We have a link to a scanned form of the letter from the 22 nations which are against Xinjiang re-education camps, but no scanned form of the letter from the 37 nations. The 37 nations aren't too vocal about Xinjiang on their respective foreign ministry websites. We don't really know what their specific opinions are- all we have is some reports and no statements from any officials. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Country Map Removal

I have removed the map of countries ([5]) from this page because countries outside the 24/37 of the letters are colored-in. Wikipedia needs specific citations for specific facts, and I just didn't see them anywhere on this page or that Wikimedia Commons page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can bring up issues about the map on the image's talk page. It's a useful visualization to show the contents of the table in the same section. Mapmaker345 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mapmaker345: The proof that those nations are "for" or "against" Xinjiang re-education camps needs to be very very clear, and we don't even have a scanned copy of the letter from the 37 nations at this point. The foreign ministry websites of those nations rarely have any mention of Xinjiang (except Russia). Who knows what the content of the letter from the 37 really is or how the nations that signed the letter want to be understood. That map is essentially a mix of truth, lies, confusions and silliness, and I think we should be better than that on Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2019

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: not moved. Most editors prefer Xinjiang re-education camps over the proposed titles, because the current title is the common name that is most widely used by reliable sources to refer to the article subject. Supporters of the proposed titles note that Xinjiang re-education camps is a non-neutral euphemism, but most editors in the discussion considered this aspect secondary to the widespread use of the term in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Xinjiang re-education camps → Сoncentration camps for Uyghurs in China → Сoncentration camps for muslims in China. We can't use Chineese propaganda cliches to name the articles. I propose a more accurate name that is used in many authoritative sources. --Devlet Geray (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Provide evidence that either of those is the common name used by reliable sources. For instance, we can see the term “Xinjiang re-education camp” being used by: Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, TIME/Bloomberg, BBC, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, The Japan Times, and a United Nations panel (discussed in the previous talk page section “United Nations position”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs)

  I can also easily find many sources where conscentration camps is used bbc, bloomberg, uhrp and so on --Devlet Geray (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  It also looks to me that the term is used more often in American, British, and some Middle Eastern news sources compared to in other countries. Although I did read a rule here for English Wiki saying that English sources have more weight than those of other languages. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also, the past discussions above at "re-education camps" is the common name, not "concentration camps" and Request for Comment on the ordering of the names at the beginning of the lead point to previous consensus being that “Xinjiang re-education camps” is the established common name.

  @Devlet Geray: You need to demonstrate that a a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources use your suggested term per the WP policy at WP:COMMONNAME, not that a few use it. The examples you gave either use “re-education camp” first or use “concentration camp” to quote a Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman. There are other examples that describe the camps as concentration camps, but the majority still primarily use “re-education camps” to refer to them.

  @Donkey Hot-day: Yes, the restriction to English-language sources is mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support for Сoncentration camps for Uyghurs in China: On the grounds on WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of reliable sources in English using those terms. Melmann 14:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Plenty of reliable sources is an obvious fallacy as that does not equate to clear "plurality usage" or "majority usage". And per WP:NC-ZH, as the re-education / detention centers are strictly in Xinjiang, Xinjiang must be in the article title. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not married to the particural proposed title. My fundamental issue is that the current title inherintly fails WP:NPOVNAME. They're not 're-education' camps, they're a form of political prisions, and English-language reliable sources have been unified in this conclusion. Calling them re-educational camps merely lends credence to the official Chinese cover that they're vocational education facilities, which they are not. Call them 'detention camps' if it makes you feel better. Melmann 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

English-language reliable sources have been unified in this conclusion — I do not know how that can be typed with a straight face given the body of "literature" linked to by both MarkH21 and myself disproving that unfounded bold claim. And, as you should know by now, Wikipedia is not the place for activism of any sort. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the name shouldn’t be changed (at least not yet), but cool it with the whole babe in the woods act when it comes to activism on Wikipedia... I respect many of your edits and the tenacity with which you argue your points but your POV is an extreme one. See Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan. Melmann has made some solid policy based points and it would behoove you to engage with them in good faith. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per MarkH21's post, and I have checked all the links he provided except for NYT and WSJ; in the entirety of eight articles, the word "concentration" is quoted only in passing mention by a reference to Turkey's Foreign Ministry, which is the focal point of 2 out of 3 links Devlet Geray provided. Three more mainstream media sources on the matter (NBC, The Guardian, CNN) published in the past month make no mention at all. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I too seem to have noticed that normally the "re-education" camps that is officially used by the PRC seems to be more prevalent. I think we have to continue to use the source that is more common. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I support a name change. In my opinion, using the term re-education is an ambiguous and inaccurate name for this article, and is therefore misleading despite the official narrative of the PRC. Concentration camp, internment camp, or even “detention centre” are more accurate descriptors. There certainly are many sources that describe these camps as concentration camps (e.g. The Independent, Business Insider, etc). Additionally, in common parlance these camps are not referred to as “re-education camps”, which may fall under WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVNAME. The Morphix (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. Regardless of the diversionary tactics being used here (such as insistently pointing out that a particural word is not found in reliable sources) the reality is that the English-speaking world has soundly condemned the camps and characterised them as tools of religious and political oppression. There's certainly space to debate whether 'concentration camps' is appropropriate, with the term evoking images of Nazi era extermination camps, but accepoting the official line that they're 're-education' facilities is clearly in disagreement with English-language reliable sources.Melmann 22:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  The debate is not whether they are concentration camps, as that is clearly the descriptor in the lead right now. It’s what the WP:COMMONNAME is. It seems that most reliable English-language sources refer to these camps as “re-education camps” (even if some of the same sources describe them as concentration camps), as partially demonstrated by the list of sources above in the first comment and the established consensus in prior discussions. There has been no demonstration so far that a majority of English-language reliable sources use “concentration camps” primarily to refer to the camps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  If the debate is about what most English-language sources refer to these camps as then the answer appears to be internment or detention camp. Its certainly not concentration camp, but by the same coin few sources refer to them as re-education camps without any modifying statement. Al Jazeera English’s highly respected program The Stream had this exact discussion about what to call the camps yesterday [6]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Of the many examples that I listed, only the articles from TIME, BBC, and The Guardian used quotation marks around “re-education camp”, and the rest use the term unqualified. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be true. The SCMP article also used quotation marks, the CNN piece starts "A series of leaked documents threatens to shine a spotlight on the Chinese government's Xinjiang detention centers, indicating what Beijing claims are voluntary training schools for Muslim-majority Uyghurs are in fact heavily policed re-education camps.” “heavily policed” being a significant modifier. Reuters calls them "political re-education camps for Muslim Uighurs” political being a signifiant modifier). Those are just the first three besides TIME, BBC, and The Guardian I decided to check. I’m sorry I didn't trust you, but its a good thing for all of us that I double checked. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  The SCMP article uses “Xinjiang re-education camps” directly in the title and the CNN article also uses “Xinjiang's massive re-education camps” directly in the title. The adjectives of “massive”, “political”, and “heavily policed” don’t change that “re-education camp” is part of the WP:COMMONNAME. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  I note that use in the article’s body carries more weight than use in the headline, if your argument is that no quotation marks in the headline trumps quotation marks in the body thats a nonstarter (its also not the argument you originally made when you claimed that SCMP did not in fact qualify re-education camps, you could have said they did both but you didn’t). Perhaps the ten articles listed above are a bad sample but they don't seem to make the point you are claiming they make as strongly as you think they do. As much as I love quibbling over random articles why don't we try the remedy suggested to us by WP:COMMONNAME and conduct a google search? How about we run re-education centers, re-education camps, "re-education camps” (honestly not super sure this one can be separated from the non-modified version), concentration camps, internment camps, and detention centers through as "Xinjiang ______ ______” (perhaps also "Uighur _______ ______") so that we can actually get a sense of the data? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean for the SCMP article, because it uses Xinjiang re-education camps in the title without quotation marks. My point was that all but three of that sample use re-education camps without quotation marks when introducing the camps in the article title or body, and that the adjectives in the body mentioned above are not significant modifiers with respect to what the common name is. I'll run a thorough search though, posted below. (I switched to {{tq}} here to avoid ambiguity with quotation marks.) — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose "re-eduction camp" is a common name to refer the camp. However, I suggest the name "Xinjiang concentration camps" to be a redirect page to the page since the term is used by some western media.Mariogoods (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mariogoods: It already is a redirect to here! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose also on the basis of undue weight. Non-US newspapers such as The Times of India, The Hindu, BBC, Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle (German media is careful regarding its own history I assume), The Straits Times, SCMP, The Irish Times Euronews, The Star, and probably others do not use 'concentration camps' unless it's attributed with quotes by other sources (mostly the US and Uighur activists so far). If the proposed name change is to 'internment' or 'detention camps', then I won't argue against it. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The point about the German sources is very important. Concentration camp on Wikipedia redirects to an article on "internment" generally, and the only articles with "concentration" as opposed to "internment" in their name refer to the German ones during World War 2. Our own article references this historian who notes that "concentration camp" as a term is extremely often confused with Nazi extermination camps. This "Chinazi" idea is a confusion that Washington-based Uyghur separatists want to promote.

I think OP's idea that the term "re-education" promotes Chinese state propaganda is itself, extreme. Our article on re-education redirects to "brainwashing", and of course the state itself uses "vocational training" instead of "re-education" and "centers" instead of "camps". In other words, we are already describing these institutions in a pejorative way, denying their antiterrorism and social cohesion functions, and implying that the goal of these centers is political and repressive. The current title isn't great, but oppose a move to even worse bias. Câu lạc bộ (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. I want to comment on the debate and ask you to help me in working on Xinjiang pages. I am doing a clean-up and upgrade of Xinjiang minor geography pages (see Qira County, Yutian/Keriya County, Minfeng/Niya County, Ruoqiang/Qakilik County, etc.). Please join me if you are interested. Most of these pages had almost no content until I started working on them. My goal is to proceed from the citable sources to build a foundation of solid knowledge about Xinjiang, which English Wikipedia currently lacks. With nearly blank pages for places like Lop County (I plan to start work on that page today), nobody can be certain about anything. I don't want to get involved in this nomenclature dispute, but I would say that from what I have seen, 're-education camps' does seem to be describing what's going on on some level. For those interested in an American senator and presidential candidate's perspective, here's a recent quote from Bernie Sanders that I recently added to the Political positions of Bernie Sanders page: On December 6, 2019, Sanders spoke concerning the Xinjiang re-education camps, telling the DesMoines Register: "What we should be doing with China is understanding they are a superpower, they are a strong economy. We want to be working with them. We certainly don't want a Cold War. But we should be speaking out against human rights abuses. When you put into concentration camps, you know, or at least lock up, I don't know, a million Muslims there, somebody's got to speak out about that." Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC) (modified)

References

• 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.
— MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC); Updated with Broader international English-language sources 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork (your google fu is superior to mine), we do need to expand the search slightly though... At the least we need to include some regional (central, south, and east asian) english language news sources. To start I would suggest The Korea Herald, SCMP, Taipei Times, Taiwan Times, The Japan Times, The Diplomat, The Times of India, Dawn, ABC (Australia), DW News, AFP, Al Jazeera English, and Haaretz. This data is very illuminating, I think we can safely narrow our search to Xinjiang re-education camps, Xinjiang detention camps, and Xinjiang internment camps. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I did a few of the sources, taking care to remove some repeated results (e.g. RSS feeds that duplicate dozens of results). It's time-consuming so I didn't do all of them, but have updated the results with some of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, it appears that we have our answer. Can I ask why you chose to exclude both Taiwanese papers from the list of international sources? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Taipei Times has several dozens of redundant links due to their layout, and Taiwan Times’ website doesn’t seem to exist anymore. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose that particular name as there are not just Uyghurs in those camps but also significant numbers of ethnic Kazakhs. Amigao (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support technically I would oppose this change, but I feel like the comments supporting are not without merit. The article does not appear to present the camps as anything other than concentration camps, so I am not sure if changing the name to "concentration camps" would achieve very much. The problem is, when we say "re-education camp" in English, we usually mean detention camp, typically for inmates who are accused of some nebulous political or religious thoughtcrime that are exposed to cruel and unusual punishment. This describes a concentration camp without the nazi-gas-chamber association, which has monopolised the phrase. "Xinjiang concentration camps" would be my recommended title Tentonne (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the nominator and others have not convincingly substantiated the case for the proposed name, because--as shown in the sources provided by user MarkH21--it is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. --Cold Season (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As Mark and Donkey point out above, concentration camps is not supported in the sources. Also following Donkey's comments, I would support internment camps or something similar. Also big thanks for doing the legwork to get the counts in google, great! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia's mandate is to objectively describe things for what they are, not to provide a survey of internet commentary. A genocide has to be pretty horrific for dozens of countries condemn one of their largest trading partners for it, knowing China does not tolerate dissent. Further, I would argue that the "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" vs "Re-Education camps" survey is biased, as the world knows it more commonly as "Chinese Concentration Camps," while pro-Chinese sources are more likely refer to Xinjiang re-education, using both terms to make it seem less significant.
  • "Chinese concentration camps": 79,500 results

- Used by Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post

• "Chinese detention camps": 21,400 results

- The Guardian, Global News, New York Times (!), NBC, CNN(see here)

• "Chinese re-education camps": 11,100 results

- CBC, NY Post, The Independent, NY Times, etc.

I'm not married to any of the options, but it should be looked into (e.g. Chinese Concentration Camps (Xianjiang)). I also feel that whichever term objectively presents the situation as it is should be given more credence, as it would better provide people with the information necessary to create positive change. An encyclopedia provides knowledge—the purpose of which is to translate into practical benefit; in a situation of potential genocide that need is ever more pressing.

--Moonlight2001 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What "mandate" do you refer to? The English Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME says that it prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) for article titles, so we do reflect what reliable sources use. Your search queries are too broad as they allow:

1. Results on unrelated topics such as Laogai
2. Results from unreliable sources, blogs, etc.

See the more precise search results above that filter out large portions of results from unrelated topics and from unreliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Qatar

In what sense was Qatar's support withdrawn? It what sense was Qatar's support ever given? I suggest a clean-up of some kind on this article! Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

List of current permanent representatives to the United Nations problem

In the case of Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan and South Sudan, the names of the permanent representative to the UN that we have on English Wikipedia doesn't correspond to the name of the signatory to the letter in which 50 nations allegedly support the Xinjiang re-education camps. I have not looked into all the names in the list yet. Maybe some of Wikipedia's information is out of date, and maybe some ambassadors have moved on. But I think particularly in the case of Turkmenistan, they have had the same ambassador for a really long time- it is Aksoltan Ataýewa and is not Atageldi Haljanov. For this reason, I am adding a "better source needed" to the page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Solved-- these are the Geneva permanent reps, not the New York permanent reps Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2 statement from Bahrain Council of Representatives

At 3:30, [7] Pompeo mentions some kind of criticism of the camps by Bahrain. What's the source on this? Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Would like an Arabic source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ablajan Awut Ayup.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Satellite images

Hello all- over the past two months, I have been working on minor geography in southern Xinjiang. I would like to ask if there is any way we could add satellite photography of re-education camps to this page. I can't think of a way to do it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is pretty easy, if you can find the camps on the map. There is plenty of satellite imagery on wikimedia commons - see c:Category:Satellite_pictures_of_China - which seems to be sourced from NASA. It looks like you might simply use their World Wind software with the right (public domain license) settings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.102.148.76 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 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: not moved. WP:SNOW applies. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Xinjiang re-education camps → Vocational Education and Training Centers – I have seen arguments in Chinese Wikipedia. Supporters of moving argued that the current title violates WP:NPOV which does not represent Chinese official usage, and Chinese government would taken actual actions against using, reading the current title. It is controversial, but it is considerable. Mariogoods (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposed title is propaganda and violates WP:Soap. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear propaganda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only a Chinese propaganda mostly intended for Western audience uses "Vocational Education and Training Centers." Legal documents use 教育转化, which may be translated as "conversion camps," "transformation through education camps," "educational conversion camps." "Re-education" camp takes away something from the Chinese expression but is not incorrect. NongJungJo (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose propaganda, disgusting Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is this supposed to be a joke? It isn't funny. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye Jack: It is not a joke. And it is in highly conflict in Chinese Wikipedia discussions board. The supporters' reason is enough to be considered. So I started the discussion in this. And if you have interest, you could use translator to know what they are arguing. Mariogoods (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - we follow WP:COMMONNAMEs, not official names. Although I agree with the other opposers above, their arguments are based more on personal opinions (or even emotions) than Wikipedia policies. -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SOAP is a policy! And that's what most are essentially citing. You don't have to link to a policy to be citing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Even in Chinese, it doesn’t seem to be the common name... The official name in this case is also a much less likely search term due to its general nondescript nature. I think WP:SNOW applies at this point. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shhhhwwww!!, Necrothesp, NongJungJo, Jtbobwaysf, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe and MarkH21. Speaking of Xinjiang, it may be also noted that two additional China-related POV-naming discussions are currently active at Talk:Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China#Requested move 22 January 2020 and Talk:Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China#Requested move 22 January 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is clearly WP:SOAP. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Here on Wiki we use the WP:COMMONNAME, not the official one (which in this case is also a terribly Orwellian mis-statement of the actual purpose of the camps). The common name is re-education camp. FOARP (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title needs to be changed to remove bias

The official name for the centers is "Vocational Education and Training Centers". Not only is this the official name, as used by the PRC government and the Xinjiang regional government, but it is also the journalistic standard in most of the world to provide the official name, even in articles where the centers are referred to as "camps". I understand that many people dislike the PRC. There's certainly a place in the article to discuss foreign perceptions, reflected in journalism and elsewhere in media and online, of the Xinjiang counter-terrorism policy. That would be the correct place to, say, note that some commentators have called the Vocational Education and Training Centers [insert phrase here]. The title of the article is not that place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.106.81 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Here on wiki we do not automatically use the official name. We use the common name. The common name for these camps is "Re-education camps". This has already been discussed, very recently, and should not be repeatedly hashed over FOARP (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Devlet Geray POV crusading

@Devlet Geray: There was a move request which was decided on the basis of WP:UCN against your conspiracy theory-like name. Article infoboxes are to either display the official name / translation (see China, Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, etc) or the most common name. These are not language infoboxes where every name flying under the sun can be listed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

we can and, moreover, we must mention all the popular names (and we shouldn't metion propagandistic clishees if it is not realted to country's official name) --Devlet Geray (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a wholly nonsensical non-argument that further demonstrates your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to right great "wrongs". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We do mention propaganda all the time and most of the China articles are filled with it. That is just the way it is. Learn the wikipedia process and take it easy. I have also left a note on your talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Devlet Geray:@CaradhrasAiguo:Both of you need to keep it WP:CIVIL and respect each other enough to talk through the issue without resorting to edit warring or name calling, you’re both experienced edits who should know better. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Asked the reporters to shoot his 68-year-old mother and 22-year-old wife

Quoting from the article:

• "In general, the subjects on the Karakax list all have relatives living abroad, a category that reportedly leads to "almost certain internment".
• In January 2018, Abdurahman Hasan, a Uyghur businessman from Kashgar, was interviewed by BBC News in Turkey and rhetorically asked the reporters to shoot his 68-year-old mother and 22-year-old wife after talking of the abuse conducted in one of the camps in Kashgar.[109]

Having a relative living abroad leads to "almost certain internment". This young man left his wife, children and mother to go to Turkey. Now his wife and mother are interned: an "almost certain" result of him going to Turkey. Now he wants them shot.

What does this add to our knowledge of the internmaint camps? Has he been to the internment camps? Why not just quote what he said about the camps?

Haberdole (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• The point is that the conditions are so bad, this guy thinks his family would be better off dead. I agree though it doesn't add much to what's already in the article, I'll try removing it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)