Talk:Yarkand Massacre

Draft issues
I still do not see any independent secondary reliable sources calling the event the "Yarkand Massacre". The currently provided references are from the World Uyghur Congress (twice), Uyghur Human Rights Project, Turkistan Times, Tibet Press, and New Tang Dynasty Television, which are not really independent RSes for controversial events regarding the Chinese government.There are also still significant unreferenced portions, like Finally, the Apple Daily article does not call it a massacre in their own voice, but says that it was called a massacre by some people close to military intelligence. That mis-attribution needs to be fixed. — MarkH21talk 04:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I think it's probably notable, but I'm concerned with the sources you mention above and undue weight. That being said, I don't think there is a both-sides situation here and that pro-China sources should be added, but that outside sources closer to the RFI and DW sources listed would help the cast for accepting this article IMO. Bkissin (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rescue, a year later
thank you for rescuing this article which was censored by 50 Cent Army who manipulated wikipedia "policies"! it is indeed "an example of how drafts serve to stifle otherwise good content", as you said.--RZuo (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @RZuo My pleasure. By the way, I am very interested in any evidence that this was indeed manipulated by the 50 cent army. If you are afraid to discuss specifics on Wiki, by all means, do email me. And thank you for starting this article on a very important topic! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and removal of content
Regarding this, ping User:MarkH21. Can you tell us what makes those sources unreliable, and why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with citation needed? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First let me say that I appreciate you having revived this article with RSes. It's certainly in a much better shape than it was before.Regarding the sources in that particular edit:
 * If there is already a high-quality RS like Deutsche Welle or the Los Angeles Times, then there is no need to have a lower-quality source.
 * For New Tang Dynasty Television: see WP:EPOCHTIMES, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_294, and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376.
 * For Tibet Press, Uighur Times, and Turkistan Times: ignoring the fact that some of these certainly don't look like a typical reliable source (Tibet Press has bank information posted on its website!), they report exclusively in the controversial area that this event is part of, have no evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:REPUTABLE), and don't appear to be used by other established RSes (WP:USEBYOTHERS). It would be the same if there was a small website called "China Press" that exclusively publishes pro-CCP reports on Tibet & Xinjiang, for which there is no evidence of clear independent editorial oversight and use by major newspapers. They are not, for instance, standard well-established news organizations which are usually considered RSes. A small article-publishing website is not considered reliable in the absence of evidence towards WP:REPUTABLE.
 * For the World Uyghur Congress article (hosted on UNPO), this is a specific advocacy group in a conflict area regarding Chinese geopolitics. This is a primary source and also wouldn't be classified as independent: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective; it would only be an RS for WP:ABOUTSELF-type statement (which is indeed what the two remaining citations to this source are - I did not remove these).
 * RS determination is usually a judgement call though and of course such judgements can change, e.g. if an editor disagrees and wants to provide evidence that one of the sources having a reputation for fact-checking, independence, editorial oversight, etc. then that's fine (unlike the unsupported NPA by another editor on this talk page).
 * Regarding why you also removed some content (instead of tagging it with citation needed?: The main reasons are that 1) the article was live, 2) I could not find RSes supporting those particular claims, and 3) this is a controversial topic (regardless of whether it's about the Chinese government or an archaeologist talking about race-based classification). Based on these, I removed those claims without RS support under WP:BURDEN. These factors are different from for example, when I tagged using citation needed instead.
 * I hope that explains the thought-process behind that edit! — MarkH21talk 09:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC); minor copyediting 11:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @MarkH21 I agree with you on most points (thank you for explaining in detail), but I am not convinced WUC can be described as unreliabe in this context. As long as it is attributed, I think we can mention what they say. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * no problem. Yes, that's why I left the two mentions of the World Uyghur Congress's opinions in the article. The citations to their own articles are reliable for their own opinions as WP:ABOUTSELF, but not as secondary sources for statements of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. I think that the second instance is borderline for WP:WEIGHT, but I didn't remove it. — MarkH21talk 11:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)