Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnocide of Uyghurs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Though perhaps under a different name, but it's up to editors to agree on it.  Sandstein  18:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ethnocide of Uyghurs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

i believed it does not meet WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as it suggests Chinese government's "crime" Mariogoods (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: One major issue is that the article doesn’t discuss the labeling of these events as ethnocide anywhere, except the very first sentence. In some sense, the article is an editor synthesis of describing all of these separate aspects collectively as ethnocide in the rest of the article. A lot of the content either duplicates content in other articles (e.g. Xinjiang conflict, Xinjiang re-education camps, Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism) or is better suited to be in those articles. — MarkH21talk 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - BLP does not apply as this is neither a biography nor a pseudo-biography. WP:NPOV is not a WP:DELREASON. However I think there may well be a potential WP:POVFORK going on here with Xinjiang re-education camps (though actually this refers to the wider phenomenon, not just the camps, so potentially this is not a fork). Anyway I'm not sure "ethnocide" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this phenomenon ("Cultural genocide" appears to be, though "ethnocide" may actually be more WP:NPOV).
 * For the avoidance of doubt, the horrific and terrible policies of the Chinese Communist Party towards the Uighur ethnic minority, including mass imprisonment of more than a million people indefinitely without trial, the demolition of mosques and graveyards, and other such phenomena are well-documented in reliable sources. I can see that an over-arching article dealing with all of them may well be justified if supported by sourcing, and I am not sure that there is any other such article on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per the comments above, there could well be a case for merger of this article with another, but mergers have a different process. Someone should propose a merger in the articles to be merged as per WP:MERGE. The question at AfD is whether the content should be deleted. This one meets WP:GNG by some margin, so it is a keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge is a normal possible outcome for AfD, which determines whether an article is kept, deleted, merged, redirected, draftified, or userfied. It isn’t sufficient to think an article shouldn’t be deleted to propose keeping it. — MarkH21talk 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or change name to "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs” as that appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME term (example ). If the Chinese government doesn't want their crimes against humanity covered on wikipedia the easy solution would be to not commit crimes against humanity. I’m not sure BLP applies here at all, can you perhaps state your reasoning for using it as the core of your deletion argument? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because Xi Jinping and Chen Quanguo is living. Mariogoods (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This page does not tell that Xi Jinping was personally responsible for the ethnocide. Hence there are no BLP problems. However if he was responsible, and that can be sourced to multiple secondary RS, such info must be included per [our BLP policy. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the accusion. Mariogoods (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well thats The Wall Street Journal so yeah I think your question is answered. We include it in some form. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of them are public figures, per WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPPUBLIC) "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” (emphasis added). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we must have several secondary RS which claim the involvement on these specific people. Was it their order? What was the "chain of command", exactly? No one doubts, but we must have RS telling this and make in-line referencing to them. This page has no "Responsiblity" section. It should. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was replying to mariogoods, I agree with your assertion that simply implicating the Chinese Government or CCP is not a de-facto BLP concern vis-a-vis its leadership (per WP:BLPGROUP as cited by Jancarcu). As for personal responsibility if its reliably sourced yeah we should include it, but I don’t think the need for that is terribly urgent as this is the sort of thing that works better in hindsight. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep although the body is currently somewhat WP:SYNTH, some of the RS sources cited in the article do explicitly use "ethnocide" or "cultural genocide", which makes the article subject. in principle, legitimate. WP:BLP is not really a relevant reason to delete this article because the Chinese Government is too big to be covered under WP:BLPGROUP's provisions for smaller groups. Jancarcu (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This deletion attempt appears to be an attempt to cover up a horrific crime of cultural extermination, for which ethnocide is the proper term.IceFishing (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and move back to Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China. This is the actual subject of the page. The subject must be specific. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but reform. Open to renaming as "Accusations of ..." (and whatever "ethnocide"/"cultural genocide"/etc people like). Too valuable (notable) a page to delete outright. However, encyclopedic tone could be enforced -- i.e. '"re-education"', with quotes, not "brainwashing". For example, Chinese gov't POVs should be represented (and labeled as such of course). "Incentives for Uyghur women to marry outside their race" -- just say "marry non-Uyghurs", less cringey in English. Cleanup not deletion. Also, the BLP argument is a bit much -- if we took this to its logical conclusion, we'd have no page for Abu Ghreib or any other war crime with living persons included in the accused party.--Calthinus (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now I agree that the article should not be deleted. However, the NPOV problem is still existed. Mariogoods (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * rename to something less POV. Ethnocide means the killing of an ethnic group.  I am not clear what the distinction between it an genocide is, but the meaning ought to be the same.  I do not want to imply that what is going on is not horrific; it certainly is, but it is mass re-education, not murder.  I would suggest Chinese repression of the Uyghars, 2010s-date would be more NPOV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not the definition of Ethnocide. From an NPOV standpoint cultural genocide is probably better however many ethnologists use the terms interchangeably. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not what ethnocide is but, nevertheless, while obviously ethnocide is not quite genocide it is still widely considered a deeply heinous criminal act by a state actor. Another term that is also of relevance is "ideological genocide" where an ideology is eradicated through trauma, coercion and selective systematic murder of high level adherents. --Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you disagree entirely with the definition of ethnocide that wikipedia uses it would appear you are here to WP:right great wrongs then, no? Please provide sources to support your argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Cultural genocide of Uyghurs might be a more precise title, but not sure, because this is not just brainwashing, indoctrination and destroying national culture. Things like illegal detention of millions, forced abortions, organ harvesting, and mass surveillance go beyond the cultural genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that Cultural genocide would be an acceptable term in this case as there is an element here of forcing people to abandon their traditions through often violent coercion; ideological genocide can be a goal that uses cultural genocide as a means, the latter is a tangible event that becomes a page topic. Widespread usage is of interest perhaps to the discussion of a name. Also agree that many use the terms interchangeably. Google News suggests that "cultural genocide" is more common than "ethnocide" in this case (Cultural genocide -- 925 hits in English specifically [], ethnocide only 39 []).The results for cultural genocide, I think, also help demonstrate this page's clear notability. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to "Allegations of" "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs": It seems that the WP:COMMONNAME indeed uses "cultural genocide" instead of "ethnocide". The other NPOV issues are more cleanup than reorganization than AfD issues. — MarkH21talk 05:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added "Allegations of" to rename target because the labeling as “cultural genocide” / “ethnocide” are so far only from individual critics, with no usage from nations, major international organizations (e.g. the UN), or other similarly prominent groups. — MarkH21talk 19:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename Both "Cultural Genocide" and "Ethnocide" appear to be terms used exclusively by anglophone governments in the global west. Other scholars have concluded that these events are more similar to "cultural re-education", a la cultural revolution or great leap forward (or perhaps the Canadian residential schools once used in Canada). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 22:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See Canadian residential schools, that was definitely cultural genocide. Its even the concluding sentence of the lead "The TRC report concluded that the school system amounted to cultural genocide." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ... What? In fact, the concept of forced cultural assimilation is very much in use in the ex-Soviet world, so plenty of non-Anglophone non-Westerners involved... --Calthinus (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that meant that those terms are used for this particular case in China by largely western sources.  — MarkH21talk 05:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless, here are thousands of results for "kulturel soykirim" Uygurlar -Wikipedia []. Not an "anglophone" POV by any means. Give or take Turkey as Western, it kinda straddles that boundary. --Calthinus (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep open a separate move discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion but find it hard to determine which name should we use, and the move template seems only work well with ccertain title. Mariogoods (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable public policy in China, and decently sourced article. If POV is the problem, that is not resolved with deletions. Dimadick (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Mariogoods' assessment. The current title does not meet WP:NPOV. Rename the page to Allegations of cultural ethnocide of Uyghurs. --Elnon (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic is notable, any NPOV issues aren't reason for deletion, and BLP is quite irrelevant here. Renaming may be appropriate though.--Staberinde (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Allegations of cultural ethnocide of Uyghurs - topic is notable, but move to neutral title per WP:NPOV. -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on procedure. A proposal to rename the page to Cultural genocide of Uyghurs has been already opened here. If anyone wants another renaming, please comment on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.