Former good article nomineePersecution of Uyghurs in China was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2020Articles for deletionKept
February 11, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 2, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

The date for source #27 is from 1944-1946, not 1944-1949. the war ended before that. it was reabsorbed into China after 2600:8807:2882:4200:E1BC:1024:3B65:DCE7 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you may be talking about could be #52, since that one (and its related text) are the only mentions of 1944 I can see. "1944-1949" is part of the title of the work reffed, therefore not something we can change.
According to the linked article, Second East Turkestan Republic, the reabsorbtion took place in 1949/50, so I'm not sure what you think the error here is (though this is far from being my speciality). Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically true that Xinjiang was reabsorbed into the People's Republic of China in 1949, but that is because Communist China was fighting a war with the Kuomintang which controlled Xinjiang at the time. However, the sentence is misleading since Second East Turkestan Republic was absorbed into Xinjiang Province by the Kuomintang in 1946.
In 1944, the Ili Rebellion led to the establishment of the Second East Turkestan Republic, which was dependent on the Soviet Union. In 1946, it was legally absorbed into Xinjiang Province by the Kuomintang, although the Ili National Army continued to operate autonomously until being absorbed into the PLA in 1949. 155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

The estimated number of victims detained in this Wikipedia article currently reads: "est. ≥1 million detained". I am proposing that we remove this estimate, and replace it with the actual number of Uyghurs which we know are detained.

The methodology for coming to this "1 million detained" number is extremely faulty, and I do not believe it lives up to Wikipedia's standards to warrant it being used as the official Wikipedia estimate.

This "1 million detained" calculation from the BBC had the following methodology, from their original article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

"Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults."

To illustrate how faulty this methodology is, let's apply this methodology to the United States, I could say, "well 10% of the black population in one county (i.e.: the south side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) is currently imprisoned. If applied to the United States as a whole, the figures would mean the imprisonment of more than 4.2 million black Americans."

This estimate would be off by a factor of 10x. You cannot simply take one county, which likely has a much higher black incarceration rate in this example, and state that the entire United States has this incarceration rate.

Similarly, we do not know if that one particular county that the BBC cited has a much higher Uyghur incarceration rate than the rest of Xinjiang.

I am proposing that we remove this "est. ≥1 million detained" figure, and replace it with the actual number of Uyghurs which we know to be imprisoned, such as "almost 23,000".

Thank you for reading this edit request. Classicace (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. The source says, "if applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults." It doesn't actually claim this is an estimate. I suggest we remove the field. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could support the removal of the field and covering the 'numbers' issue in text as the source does ("if applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean …). I think Classicace's suggestion of using the 'known' figure (almost 23,000), would be wholly the wrong approach. To use his own analogy, this would be like presenting the 'South Side' black Americans as being the only US blacks incarcerated. Pincrete (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Requested edits are for uncontroversial changes. Also, Classicace, you may find it helpful to read Wikipedia's guidance on original thought. We base article content on what is said in reliable sources, not our own analysis of those sources. Jr8825Talk 14:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide

Why doesn’t this article refer to the Uyghur Genocide as a Genocide? Seems pretty sus to me. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because, per policy, articles cannot make statements of fact unless there is consensus in reliable sources. We had the same discussion for Gaza. TFD (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re saying that the Uyghur Genocide isn’t happening? Are you Chinese? 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Uyghur genocide isn't real. Anyone can just walk around Xinjiang and see that there's Uyghurs everywhere and they're just fine. No one who goes to Xinjiang comes back thinking that there's a Uyghur genocide. It's entirely a western propaganda invention for the low-IQ diabetic fox news watchers.
The Gaza genocide, on the other hand, is real (albeit incomplete). If you walk around Gaza (note you'll need to be an aid worker to get in), you'll see dead bodies and starving children everywhere. You'll see lots of destroyed buildings and people with horrible injuries from the mass bombing campaign. 2600:4041:4234:C600:CC48:17F9:254E:527D (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they claim that tere isn't a consensus on the subject, but checking all the other language Wikipedia pages on the subject shows that most them call it a genocide. Languages that seem to not describe it as a genocide such as Hebrew, Korean and German are clearly in the minority here.
Also many sources on this very article descibe it as such. As you said there is clearly something suspicious going on in here. Chelk (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is a conventional genocide is a debate that is ongoing, but that is a separate matter from the article title. We document the genocide terminology in the body, and the subject is the persecution of Uyghurs in any case, culminating in what some have described as a genocide. The article is more than just the terminology. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion that resulted in this article's title being changed to the current title. JasonMacker (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of that discussion summarises the title issue well: "if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". It was demonstrated with evidence that although some independent reliable sources use the term genocide, many others describe the matter … without ever using that word. As such, the use of genocide here isn't yet generally accepted, and the alternative of persecution, which I think all agree has fewer POV implications, is what the guideline instructs us to do. That Uyghurs have been/are being persecuted is fairly universally agreed, whether that persecution is properly characterised as a 'genocide' is not. Nothing in the article itself diminishes what is/has been happening to the Uyghurs but it isn't part of our task to adopt condemnatory language before most of the world has done so.Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is that the persecution of Uyghurs does meet some definitions of genocide (notably the Raphael Lemkin definition) but many international bodies do not prefer those definitions as they are quite broad and would likely lead to the actions of many other major states (like Canada) being described as genocide too. This has led to an unclear situation in the literature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.