Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry

Excess focus on claims of forced labor
This article has next to no information on the Xinjiang cotton industry, and it devotes an inordinate amount of space towards accusations of forced labor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not even a day old... If it needs more information then add it! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think an attempt has been made to write a neutral article. Creating a stub with a big "Controversy"-like section and little other information is just bad practice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * People are simply pulling what already exists on wikipedia into the article, complaining about a lack of other information but doing almost nothing to add other information while adding a large amount of the information you say is already present in inordinate quantities is just bad practice. If you don’t think an attempt has been made to write a neutral article thats a self burn, I’m certainly making such an attempt as is Thriley. Won’t you join us? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree there has not been attempts to write a neutral article. Even the wording before said "using large scale forced labor" rather than "accused of using large scale forced labor". In addition to this, what makes me think that this excessively focuses on the allegations of forced labor rather than the industry itself is that it is covered by WP:HR, which has things to do with the allegations of forced labor but nothing to do with the cotton industry itself. Clearly needs large fix. User3749 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this focus on more of the accusations and suspicion of forced labor rather than the cotton industry itself. If the content stays this way then this page may require moving. User3749 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
Why does this article exist? If it is about the history of the cotton industry in Xinjiang then it probably shouldn't exist as no other country or region has their own article about their cotton industry, and relevant information should be in this article(or a new article broadly on the history of Cotton in China, though I feel that article would be unwarranted): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Cotton_Association

If it is about allegations of forced labour by Uyghurs in the Xinjiang cotton industry, it should be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps#Forced_labor

Either way, there is no reason for this article to exist, it's information should be contained in one of the above articles. The scope of this issue is too narrow to warrant more than a paragraph or two on a broader article. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An article about one of the largest cotton producing areas of the world is certainly warranted. The are numerous articles to look to like Wisconsin dairy industry and California wine. This article was created around four hours ago, so please feel free to help improve it. Thriley (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe that the article should exist, feel free to nominate it for deletion. I think the industry itself is notable (it produces like 20% of the world's cotton and there's a lot of coverage associated with the industry). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Widespread and in-depth coverage in WP:RS says its warranted. Nothing beyond WP:GNG is needed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not it is warranted (I admit I may have been a bit harsh in my initial assessment), this article does have an identity issue it would be better to solve now rather than later. Is it about the industry as a whole, or about alleged forced labour? Currently the title suggests the former but the content of the article suggests the latter. If it is about the allegations the title should be changed to reflect that, if it is about the history of the cotton industy in Xinjiang, then the articles focus needs to be shifted to that. Currently every source is about forced labour. BSMRD (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not true, check the sources again. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I amend my statement, all but one source is about forced labour.BSMRD (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the larger question we follow WP:RS, if they emphasize certain topics in their coverage of an issue so do we. Human rights seems to be emphasized in most of the reporting on the issue. This is also a very new page, it will no doubt evolve as more editors lay eyes on it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - this article looks like a WP:POVFORK. Creating stubs that consist almost entirely of "Controversy"-like sections is bad practice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there is enough due weight behind the topic of this article to justify its existence as a separate article. Chinese Wikipedia has an extensive article about the 2021 Xinjiang cotton controversy, while CCP-controlled Baidu Baike has an article about Xinjiang cotton in general that links to sources that are unreliable vis-à-vis the political issues but could still be used for apolitical information about the significance of Xinjiang cotton. DaysonZhang (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of forced labor
The section now titled "Forced labor" should be titled "Allegations of forced labor", in order to conform with NPOV. Controversial allegations - especially serious allegations of this nature - should not be put in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, especially as the section contains the subheading "Reactions", which is about reactions to the allegations.BSMRD (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the notion that these should not be put in wikivoice. The coercive labor program in Xinjiang is well reported, both in news reports (Axios Associated Press (via NBC News)  BBC News The Economist NY Times SupChina The Telegraph The Irish Times) and in academic sources (J. Pol. Risk, Human Rights Review, Georgetown J. Intl. Aff., Sustainability, J. Creative Behavior Intl. Sociology Rev.). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just opened up one of your sources at random, the BBC article, and it attributes the claims of forced labor to Adrian Zenz and the US government think tank, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I've complained to you several times now about misrepresenting reporting on third-party claims as factual statements. The BBC itself uses hedging language to describe the claims, such as, appear to raise a high risk of coercion (emphasis added). The BBC article also notes that rural labor transfer programs are common in China, and that they are used as part of the country's national poverty alleviation campaign: China has long used the mass relocation of its rural poor - with the stated aim of improving their employment prospects - as part of a national anti-poverty campaign. The BBC article discusses the possibility that there is coercion, but that possibility remains speculative, and the extent of possible coercion is unclear. News reports discussing claims are not the same as news reports making factual statements in their own voice. Please stop mixing up the two. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For context, BBC News has itself commissioned research by Zenz on Xinjiang's camps, so I'm not sure that it's appropriate to separate the two on this sort of stuff. Additionally, if you'd like me to provide quotes from other sources on this that I've listed in there, I'd be happy to do so, though I'm wondering why you chose to only respond to one of the sources rather than looking at them as a whole.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I've complained to you before about misrepresenting sources. The BBC article was the first link I clicked on, and contrary to your claim, it does not state as a fact that forced labor is used or widespread in cotton production in Xinjiang. It describes allegations and speculation that there might be forced labor, but also describes alternative explanations (i.e., it points out that rural labor transfer programs are common in China and are used as part of China's poverty alleviation program). If you're going to present lists of sources, then at least make sure they say what you claim they're saying.
 * As for Adrian Zenz, if we report any of his claims, we should attribute them in-text. He works for a US government think tank devoted to convincing Americans of the evils of socialism. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation itself says on its "About" page,
 * We have to make an effort to present this subject neutrally, and not to put the most extreme claims we can find into Wikivoice. Most reliable sources use cautious/hedging language to describe those claims, and so should we. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adrian Zenz is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on the issues going on in Xinjiang. Zenz, who has a Ph.D. in social anthropology from Cambridge University, and When his work is published in peer-reviewed journals, it demands considerable weight, owing both to his status as an expert and the peer-review processes in journals. When organizations like BBC News explicitly commission his research, it shows further that generally reliable sources consider him to be reliable in his investigative work. We do not need to use in-text attribution for his work that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, especially for work that has been repeatedly used by other scholars. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely questionable assertion. Before fairly recently, I don't think he even wrote about Xinjiang, and there's no indication he speaks the Uyghur language, has spent any significant (or any) time in Xinjiang, or has conducted any other in-depth study of the region. His claims have been widely reported on in various Western media outlets, but whether that in itself makes him an expert is doubtful. His claims can certainly be mentioned when they have received significant press, but they require attribution. For Wikipedia's purposes, it is clear that his employment by a US government think tank devoted to attacking Communism has to be mentioned in-text, because it has clear relevance to his potential biases with regards to China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, there appears to be a consensus among reliable sources that Zenz is an expert source and one of the leading researchers on the area. I don't think there's much opposition to this in reliable sources, whatsoever, and the repeated questions of Adrian Zenz's reliability don't seem to be based in Wikipedia policy. Much of his work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, while his work that has not been published in these sorts of journals has been cited in similar sorts of journals and/or commissioned by BBC News itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, there appears to be a consensus among reliable sources that Zenz is an expert source and one of the leading researchers on the area. I don't think there's much opposition to this in reliable sources, whatsoever, and the repeated questions of Adrian Zenz's reliability don't seem to be based in Wikipedia policy. Much of his work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, while his work that has not been published in these sorts of journals has been cited in similar sorts of journals and/or commissioned by BBC News itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Putting unsubstantiated allegations of "large-scale forced labor" into Wikivoice is POV. Edit-warring to keep the Wikivoice statement in the article, after it has been challenged on the talk page (as it has been above) is also troubling. , please stop trying to force through this language and actually seek consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd also ask you to self-revert here:. The Uyghur Human Rights Project was founded using funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the US government. When quoting an organization that is closely connected to an interested party (such as the US government, which has a tense geopolitical relationship with China and which has been making accusations of forced labor and genocide in Xinjiang), this must be noted in the text. Simply referring to UHRP as "US-based", when they are in fact funded by the US government, is not sufficient. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See the below section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, articles like this are seemingly being used as POV pushing grounds, and my ability to assume good faith for certain editors is growing very thin as this worrying trend continues. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, those are certainly allegations and I do not see any evidence that this was something that truly happened. User3749 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur Human Rights Project description
The page has recently seen an editor boldly add an in-text attribution to describe the Uyghur Human Rights Project as U.S.-funded group. I don't believe that this matches how the group is generally described in coverage of related events by reliable sources, which at the end of the day this page should reflect. None of these sources appear to mention U.S. funding when using quotes from the source. I believe that we should reflect the use of the source in ways that reliable sources do, which appears to generally either be by listing the name of project while noting that it is a rights/advocacy group and/or by saying that it is based in the United States/the District of Columbia. I am reverting the in-text description of the group along these lines, and I am starting a discussion here per WP:BRD.


 * In Turkey, the process of obtaining long-term residency papers is arbitrary, dependent on the whims of the civil servant on duty on any given day. It’s “bureaucratic and messy,” Omer Kanat, the director of the Uyghur Human Rights Project, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., told me.
 * According to a report published last month by the US-based Uyghur Human Rights Project, China has produced at least 22 videos in which individuals are allegedly forced to make scripted statements, often denouncing their family members as liars or thieves.
 * Rights groups such as the Uyghur Human Rights Project have also been pushing American lawmakers to enact sweeping legislation that would block imports from Xinjiang, unless companies can prove that their supply chains are free of forced labor.
 * But for some human rights groups that have been fighting for justice for the Uighur community, the Trump administration’s actions on Thursday was a long-awaited breakthrough. "A global response is long overdue," said Omer Kanat, the executive director of the Uyghur Human Rights Project. "This is the beginning of the end of impunity for the Chinese government."
 * Omer Kanat, the executive director of the Washington-based Uighur Human Rights Project, welcomed the bill, noting that Uighurs were “very hesitant” to apply through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
 * "The International Olympic Committee won't speak to you if you don’t want the games to happen. If you’re trying to boycott the games, broadcasters won’t speak to you, athletes won’t speak to you, sponsors won’t speak to you," said Pete Irwin, a program officer at the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
 * Much of Kashgar’s old city has been razed in what the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) called China’s "campaign to stamp out tangible aspects of Uyghur culture." UHRP describes the city as on the "front lines of the most aggressive, high-tech surveillance campaign of the 21st century" and "the target of a vast and totalizing anti-historical 'modernizing' reconstruction project” that the group says seeks to eradicate Kashgar’s "immense cultural and historical significance."
 * In a press release, the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) said the US determination to call the situation a genocide "has substantial implications for future bilateral relationships between China and other governments".
 * "China has worked for years to strong-arm governments into returning Uyghurs from abroad, often using economic or other incentives to force their partners to capitulate," explained Peter Irwin of the Washington D.C.-based Uyghur Human Rights Project.
 * A 2018 report by Uygur Human Rights Project said XPCC effectively colonised the region through large-scale Han migration, demolition of Uygur homes and suppression of religious minorities by closing mosques and religious schools.
 * The Chinese government says that Xinjiang Aid is voluntary. But rights advocates say that the program is a barbaric way of lowering labor costs while stamping out the Uyghur culture and language. "Why would they transfer the workers across the country?" said Peter Irwin, a senior program officer at the Uyghur Human Rights Project in Washington, D.C. "Part of it is cheap labor. Secondly it serves the purpose of assimilating people."


 * The Uyghur Human Rights Project was founded using funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the US government. The US government is heavily involved in the controversy over Xinjiang, and obviously has a highly geopolitically tense relationship with China. For Wikipedia articles about geopolitically contentious subjects like Xinjiang, claims made by organizations connected with the US government need in-text attribution. Readers can make of that attribution what they want, but it is required in order to maintain a neutral point of view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources mention UHRP being funded by the NED, why should we? We can certainly note where its based and its advocacy status as WP:RS do but you seem to want to do more than that. I would also note that you appear to mean neutrality in the general sense not the wikipedia concept of NPOV in the last sentence. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have to mention it in order to maintain WP:NPOV, in the same way that we have to mention Xinhua's connection to the Chinese state or Radio Free Asia's connection to the US government in this subject area. Organizations connected with one or another government with strong political interests in this issue can't be cited without mentioning those government connections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. We need to abide by WP:NPOV, which means that if WP:RS don’t refer to UHRP in that way neither do we. Again you appear to mean neutrality in the general sense not the wikipedia concept of NPOV. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not our policy on citing biased sources. When we cite biased sources, we use in-text attribution. Why wouldn't we? Do you really think we should quote organizations closely connected with the US or Chinese governments without in-text attribution that mentions those connections? I don't understand how you think removing that attribution would improve the article, or be consistent with WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly what part of NPOV would it be inconsistent with? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
 * I think that the claim of a "cotton gulag" counts as a "seriously contested assertion", in which case it should be treated as an opinion and requires in-line attribution. NPOV doesn't specify anything regarding how these opinions should be attributed, only that they should, so we need to look elsewhere for that. Per WP:V I would define the UHRP as a "Questionable Source" with regards to this topic, as it's very nature gives it a conflict of interest and it's US government funding gives it questionable oversight. Because of that while attributing we should say why it is questionable, in this case it's funding by the US State Department, which has an obvious vested interest in making China look as bad as possible. The Xinhua line above gets proper attribution, the UHRP is US based and funded, and this should be made known. BSMRD (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t ask you, and we do attribute it. The question is about how extensive that attribution should be, Thucydides411 is proposing that our attribution should go above and beyond that practiced by WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to "Cotton production in Xinjiang"?
Thought I would open this up to the talk page instead of doing it unilaterally, this title is better IMO as it is in line with all the other articles on Cotton production by country. BSMRD (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% that the article is just about cotton production, but about the cotton industry (including textile mills and other non-farm entities that generally get lumped in). I could be wrong, though I think that we should build the article out a bit and see if it would be appropriate to shift it after we can flesh out where the most coverage is. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I still think the article should be merged into Cotton production in China with the forced labour section moved to one of the many articles on the Uyghur crisis (probably Xinjiang internment camps). But, if it is going to stay up, I think Cotton production is the better title as it fits with all the other articles on cotton by country (and is how all the articles in the template are named.) If the article is about non-cotton production related industries in Xinjiang it should probably be renamed to "Textile industry in Xinjiang" to match Textile industry in China and have it's scope expanded. BSMRD (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Make it Cotton industry in Xinjiang, it's the more usual style, like Textile industry in China or Cotton production in China. The article also needs additional content that you might find in other articles on industries, like acreage and areas of cultivation, the crop and practice, the associated textile production (what and where the production is), current economic worth and export (take bits out from the history section if you can't find current information), etc. It needs to be more like an article on an industry, rather than a page for airing grievances and controversy - over half of the article is on forced labor, and that is inappropriate. Those who argue that it is a POVFORK might have a point if it is not improved. Hzh (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "over half of the article is on forced labor, and that is inappropriate.” not if coverage in WP:RS has primarily been about forced labor in the industry. We cover what WP:RS choose to cover, we can’t independently decide what to cover and what not to cover about a topic. Its important to respect WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, relative level of coverage in RS is irrelevant in this case, because the subject is Xinjiang cotton industry, not Forced labor in Xinjiang (the claim of forced labor is not exclusive to the cotton industry). You need an article that actually discusses the industry itself, rather than one dominated by a sub-topic which is only partly related. When a sub-topic is excessive relative in size to the main topic, then the right thing to do is to split it. Create an article on forced labor if that is the intent, otherwise it's looking like whoever that started the article has no intention of writing anything about the industry itself, using it instead to publicise the forced labor issue. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Forced labor in the Xinjiang cotton industry is part of the topic "Xinjiang cotton industry” and we cover forced labor in that industry on this page. I don’t see a lot of information about the larger practice, we seem to keep it tight. Do you have specific suggestions for what you would like to see removed? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just know the difference between a main topic and its sub-topics. Forced labor should not be the main topic in an article on cotton industry. There should be plenty of literature on the cotton industry if you look into books, including Chinese ones. My interest is primarily to see that articles give some kind of coherent coverage of its subject matter, and I have already given some suggestion as to what to put in so that it would look more balanced. If the sub-topic gets too big, then just split it off. Ideally there should be a general article first on forced labor in Xinjiang rather than one focused on the cotton industry - I see sources that claim it is found in industries such as electronics and related technology such as solar panels, as well as footwear, automative  in addition to the cotton industry. There should be proper hierarchy on the subjects covered in articles. Hzh (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t like being lectured on what should be included by someone who hasn’t made a good faith effort to add the information they want included to the article . If you want to create a stand-alone section for forced labor in Xinjiang in general and/or a specific page for the global controversy over that labor in the cotton industry go for it, both would stand on their own. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I review articles to make sure that new articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, whether an article should stay or be deleted or merged, etc. which was what I did for this article. I checked the sources to make sure that what's written is correct, and made a few edits to change what appears to be small errors and added a bit more from the source -, are you arguing that those were bad faith edits? If you want to complain about me as an article reviewer, then take that to the administrators. It's not my job to add content to the articles I review, although sometimes I do, I'm simply adding my opinion here how the article could be improved to avoid it being seen as a POVFORK. Hzh (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think has put forward a good title. I don't think the issue itself is a POV fork, though we definitely need more content here regarding the history and the status of its current operations, given the article subject. I think the topic is distinct from Xinjiang internment camps on its face, and improving the article definitely doable if we put in the time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions about academic source
We had some back-and-forth edits earlier regarding the following paragraph. In particular, there was some confusion about sourcing. These edits are applicable to several different pages. We talked through it on my talk page and @Horse Eye's Back has asked for further context from the source. I figure it's better to put it here for posterity instead of adding to my talk page.

The edit is:

"Academics Zhun Xu and Fangfei Lin write that there is insufficient support for claims of forced labor in Xinjiang. They cite the historic significance of Uyghur agricultural workers as a long-standing labor force for manual cotton harvesting and staffing companies' widespread recruitment of Uyghur workers due to lower travel costs. In their view, '[T]he labor demand of Uyghur seasonal cotton pickers in south Xinjiang is largely decided by its relatively low degree of agricultural capitalization, not due to the 'special treatment' towards labor migrants of a certain ethnic minority.'."

The source is Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-Economic Policy. This is an academic peer reviewed text, first published in hardback for the European book market by a 300 year old publishing house, Brill Academic Publishing. It is part of of Brills' "Studies in Critical Social Sciences" book series. One editor was confused and thought this was self-published. It's not. Another editor questioned the source because my edition is published by a leftist publishing house, Haymarket books. Haymarket has merely republished the book in soft cover in the US market, as it is doing with all of Brill's "Studies in Critical Social Sciences" series.

Here is further detail on what the source says.

The source is talking about how US charges of human rights violations in Xinjiang fall into two categories: (1) an Uyghur genocide and (2) coercive or forced labor in Xinjiang. (pg. 313). It goes on to discuss the reports of forced labor and how the US acted on those reports to pass sanctions related to the Xinjiang cotton industry (pg. 313-314) (for wiki article context, notice that the reports and sanctions are discussed in these articles already).

Next, the source goes on to discuss historic significance of Uyghur agricultural workers for manual cotton harvesting, and the systemic economic factors why Uyghur's doing this work is result of those economic factors, and not a result of government policies singling out Uyghurs. Those factors include lower travel costs for staffing companies and cotton plantations hiring Uyghur migrants (labor costs are the same) and the lack of agricultural capitalization in the area which requires a high degree of manual agricultural labor. (this discussions extends from pg. 314-316 where it concludes)

Here is part of the discussion on pg. 314. Any typos will be mine:

"Rumors of 'forced Uyghur labor' are inconsistent with the history and current situation of the cotton industry and current situation of the cotton industry in Xinjiang. Around 2000, Xinjiang has become China's largest cotton-producing region. Yet, Xinjiang's cotton cultivation at that time was incompatible with the operational requirement of cotton harvesting machines, and a large amount of manpower was urgently demanded during the cotton harvest period. Hundreds of thousands of migrants, thereupon, have moved seasonally from central and eastern provinces into Xinjiang's cotton fields. It should also be noted that the occurrence of Uyghur cotton pickers, as labor migrants in Xinjiang's cotton fields, is not a newly emerging phenomenon. Some news reports suggest that, around 2003, or even earlier, many Uyghur farmers from Hotan or Kashgar have embarked on their migrant journey of working as seasonal cotton pickers in Aksu (Xu et al. 2005). Their motives for seasonal migration varied little from that of Han seasonal cotton pickers from inner provinces, unrelated to forced labor but largely derived from the desire for increasing cash income to maintain or improve their livelihood that has been greatly affected by commodification of subsistence during the process of China's capitalist agrarian changes after 1978. Since the number and scale of Uyghur cotton pickers was much small than those who migrated from inner provinces, they did not receive widespread media coverage and attention. However, it is undeniable that the group of Uyghur cotton pickers has been a key and longstanding labor force for manual cotton harvesting."

Then there are statistics about low rates of agricultural capitalization, including lack of machine harvesting, and persistent demand for manual labor as a result, and getting us into the author's field observations. That goes from pg. 314 and takes us to pg. 315 which was some material worth quoting at length:

"[B oth XPCC's companies and private cotton planters in Aksu had widely recruited Uyghur migrants through private relations or Uyghur labor agents. Cotton planters prefer hiring Uyghur migrants, merely because they can reduce the cost of travel expenses that are paid for Uyghur migrants, though the salary of Uyghur migrants is basically the same as that of Han migrants. In this sense, hiring Uyghur migrants in Xinjiang's cotton fields definitely is market-driven employment, unrelated to 'forced labor.'

These facts debunk the accusation appearing in Zenz (2020b) that the Chinese government has deliberately impeded the development of machine-based cotton harvesting in order to compel the Uyghurs to conduct heavy cotton picking work. The varying degree of mechanization among Xinjiang's cotton production probably is closely related to the unbalanced developmental status of agrarian capitalization in Xinjiang-- this exact problem is worth discussing further yet but will not be thoroughly analyzed in this article. In short, the labor demand of Uyghur seasonal cotton pickers in south Xinjiang is largely decided by its relatively low degree of agricultural capitalization, not due to the 'special treatment' towards labor migrants of a certain ethnic minority."

It then goes on discuss how the US has therefore not provided sufficient factual basis for its allegations of forced labor or (or compulsory birth control, but that is unrelated to my edit) before ending the section. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also I see that an editor has now found the Brill citation so that will help avoid any confusion in the future about sourcing. Thank you! JArthur1984 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)