Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


Ideas on Uyghur persecution

[edit]

"Brainwashing" as a form of attack seems a bit ridiculous, and there should most definitely be an addition to this article about skepticism of the Uyghur persecution FrogOnGrog (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subsection on brainwashing under the human rights abuses section. It has plenty of content, and sources are cited. Will see if that section needs to be expanded even more. I do not think it is for Wikipedia to decide whether this is ridiculous. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Brainwashing" should indeed be re-assessed. If meant literally, it is akin to arguing the earth is flat. "Brainwashing" is non-scientific, asserting "brainwashing" in some literal sense would raise the WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. However, in most instances, someone saying "brainwashing" means indoctrination. We should avoid colloquial or metaphorical language and simply say indoctrination.
Feel free to bring forward more sources on your broader point. Editors on this talk page will read them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that 'brainwashing' is a) a loaded word and b) un-encyclopaedic. Blitterbug 22:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

[edit]

There has been extensive discussion in the talk page and archive as to whether Adrian Zenz should be considered a reliable source or not. Generally, the consensus seems to be that he is at least not fit for direct citation. I would then suggest that these citations to Zenz be changed to citation needed, or removed if there is not a more reliable source to support the claim being made. This would bring the article in line with the reliable sources rule. 2600:100F:B122:7CA5:982E:6537:6A9B:BDB5 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per my understanding, it is a pretty blatant mischaracterization to say there is consensus among editors here that Zenz is unreliable. (Cards on the table, as someone who hasn't participated in those discussions to date, I do not think he is a reliable source.) Remsense ‥  23:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zenz was most notable for his book about the end times when Jesus would return and burn most of the Jews. His writings about Uyghurs are not rs and should only be included to the extent they are discussed in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...What? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before The Tribulation by Adrian Zenz Phd and Marlon L. Silas (WestBow press 2012). TFD (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From an unreliability perspective, it’s the way these eschatological writings intersect with geopolitical stances which is troubling. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ...What? was more with respect to Zenz was most notable for his book about the end times when Jesus would return and burn most of the Jews. That... just isn't true, more or less at any point in Zenz's life. And his work is extremely well respected in academic circles; for example, his October 2018 journal article "‘Thoroughly reforming them towards a healthy heart attitude’: China’s political re-education campaign in Xinjiang" has been cited just under 300 times in 5 years. That he's been subjected to a wide disinformation campaign from the Chinese State doesn't make him any less reliable here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bizarre text he and his father-in-law wrote is not disinformation. They wrote the thing. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Original research from me! I reflexively avoid these discussions onwiki because our necessary policies can't help but reflect a fractured discourse. If there were any appetite on "either side" to cross-pollinate, our wiki's coverage of China could be so much more—instead for all the reasons you can think of, we're stuck relying on figures like Zenz when we would never need to in a healthy geopolitical and intellectual climate. Maybe that sounds weirdly flowery given the pathos involved in this particular topic, but I dunno—we're able to write articles about the persecution of Muslims in France, Myanmar, or the United States without the constant tinge of it being a proxy conflict in our clash of civilizations in that way. Remsense ‥  04:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a circular journalism problem with Zenz, where his factual claims became repeated by other political actors and in western media. It would be good to reduce this.
From a reliability perspective, more troubling than his eschatological writing already mentioned in this section is his flawed IUD study. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]