Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This seems to be a poorly rehashed version of Xinjiang conflict, Xinjiang re-education camps, China Cables, and Xinjiang papers with an introduction from ethnocide. Most of this content is copied from or already contained in the other articles but with some unclear writing, formatting, and tone. Cleanup needed here, but it's such a massive article created by NPAs that draftification may be necessary. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• UN - Formal Support - Disagreement Infographic.png
• Uyghur Aid.png
• Xinjiang Victims Database.png
• Xinjiang-map.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Significant aspects of the content of the article have been removed by a single user, without any relevant moving of the content to another page on Wikipedia. There were a number of edits that removed information regarding the alleged cover-up of the internals of the internment camps, including the most detailed and thorough analysis of internal documents available on Wikipedia. I am a bit shocked at the level of gutting that has occurred to this article, and I think that we ought to revert the page and more narrowly target our edits than removing chunks wholesale. Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Referenced external analysis of the China Cables and Xinjiang papers from reliable sources belong on those articles, not here. Any analysis not from external reliable sources are against the Wikipedia original research policy. You'll see a whole series of edit summaries explaining each edit, which is not removing chunks wholesale. The article needs to be focused on the actual topic, referenced to reliable sources, not contain original research or synthesis, and maintain a neutral point of view. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This article relates to the totality of Chinese government policy towards the Uighur minority. Multiple reliable sources discuss the existence of a policy of "Cultural genocide" towards the Uighur people. See, for example, the following news sources:

1) "‘Cultural genocide’: China separating thousands of Muslim children from parents for ‘thought education’" - The Independent, 5 July 2019

2) "‘Cultural genocide’ for repressed minority of Uighurs" - The Times 17 December 2019

3) "China's Oppression of the Uighurs 'The Equivalent of Cultural Genocide'" - 28 November 2019

4) "Fear and oppression in Xinjiang: China’s war on Uighur culture" - Financial Times 12 September 2019

Additionally consider the following scholarly articles:

5) "The Uyghur Minority in China: A Case Study of Cultural Genocide, Minority Rights and the Insufficiency of the International Legal Framework in Preventing State-Imposed Extinction" November 2019

6) "China's crime against Uyghurs is a form of genocide" - Summer 2019

7) "Cultural Genocide in International Law: An Assessment" - 2019 (includes a chapter on Xinjiang and the Uighurs).

You may note that these are all relatively recent articles. This is because there appears to have been a shift starting in mid-2019 in the way events in Xinjiang are being discussed, from merely seeing the policies as being part of the Xinjiang conflict to being a phenomenon separate to it but over-lapping with it. This is particularly because of the coverage in reliable sources of the demolition of mosques and graveyards, and the mass imprisonment of more than a million Uighurs without trial in "re-education camps".
I agree that there are page-quality issues with this page but disagree that this article is a WP:SYNTH piece as the sources themselves discuss the camps, the destruction of cultural artefacts etc. as linked phenomena. I think this article may well have the wrong title, however, as "cultural genocide" appears more common in the sources than "ethnocide". To take one very blunt measure of prevalence, a GScholar search for "Uyghur" and "Cultural genocide" returns 159 results, whilst a GScholar search for "Uyghur" and "ethnocide" returns 74 results. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Minor point about the organ harvesting subsection addition: I see Uyghurs mentioned but I don't see the re-education camps mentioned in either reference for the last sentence? — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re very right, its probably verifiable but I don’t have the desire to do that. Does "In the 2010s worries about organ harvesting resurfaced” or “Allegations of organ harvesting from Uyghurs continuing into the 21st century have been made” work for you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that should be fine for now. The second one might be a bit ambiguous because it can imply that the allegations came from the Uyghurs or (less likely but grammatically plausible) that the harvesting was done by the Uyghurs. For the first option, I suppose the "worries" should be attributed to someone though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good addition. That claim does appear in RS cited on the page [1] with relation to Uyghurs, and it is significant. Therefore, it should stay. But the included text does not say anything specifically about Xinjiang re-education camps, and it should not (this is not in the sources). My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I may add some of Chinese government's claims and Chinese official sources may be used to confirm claim. But should Chinese claim be given equal weight as the accusions, and should Chinese official sources be used in the article? (Personally, it excludes guancha.cn since its nationalism tone and may not represent offcial view. It includes Global Times, Qiushi, People's Daily and other state-run media) Another question is that should we treat "western media"'s report as "claim" rather than "fact"? (This does not mean to view Chinese claim as fact)Mariogoods (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We apply WP:RS without discrimination based on national origin. If a Mainland Chinese source passes WP:RS and WP:verify it can be used, the catch-22 is that none has yet due to a pervasive lack of editorial independence and press freedom. The best Mainland sources are semi-reliable and can be used to source Chinese government opinion but not facts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: It’s RS in certain contexts. The article should certainly present the Chinese government‘s / Chinese media’s stance and clearly label it as such. Those sources certainly would be reliable sources for saying what the Chinese government stance is. They’re not reliable sources for making other statements in WP voice. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I think such state-sponsored sources on hot political subjects within the country should be generally avoided. Same would apply to RT, Sputnik, etc. BTW, sorry for accidently removing AfD notice, but I think MarkH21 unilaterally removed huge amount of valid and well referenced text. A lot of that should be restored after closing of the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the cleanup edits on January 27 and 28, then discuss why you want to restore specific parts (i.e. reference specific edits) rather than blanket reverting 56 edits that have careful edit summaries explaining each and every action. Some of it was basic re-organization, some of it was basic copy-editing, and some of it was removing poorly synthesized content / unreferenced content / original research. The edit summaries of each edit will tell you why each edit was made. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Thank you for your answer and other people's answers. Personally, I'd like to cite non-state run sources, but they are good to confirm their views. (Chinese government has also released white papers about "Xinjiang matter" in 2019 and you can find it in both English and Chinese Wikisource since they are official document)Mariogoods (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• No Mainland-China-based/controlled media is likely to be able to exercise editorial independence on this subject. This means that Mainland-China-based/controlled media should only be used to confirm statements of the Chinese government. In terms of what can said based on other sources, this has to be addressed case-by-case. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: In your continued separation of TIP claiming responsibility and being blamed for the attacks, you removed the quote from the Washington Post: Tensions erupted in 2009... Attacks by Uighur separatists intensified in the years that followed, with one of the groups that carried them out — the Turkistan Islamic Party — also being credited with having thousands of jihadist fighters in Syria. If you want even more sources, there are plenty more (e.g. The Diplomat: according to Kyrgyzstan state security, the attack was ordered by Uyghur militants active in Syria and carried out by a member of ETIM.). But you cannot just delete quotes from the sources and pretend they don't exist.

The Chinese government has blamed the TIP for some of the attacks, the TIP has claimed responsibility for some of the attacks, and reliable sources literally say that the TIP carried out some of the attacks. You also continue to remove the UN-referenced designation of them being a terrorist organization, replacing it with just A Pakistan-based organization. There is nothing NPOV about removing the UN designation or deleting quotes from the sources attributing the attacks to the TIP.

The attacks and TIP activity in the region are crucial points in the background of these events, as the counter-terrorism efforts are part of the pretext for the re-education camps & other elements discussed in the article. This is both the public justification by the Chinese government as well as what human rights groups and NGOs (e.g. Human Rights Watch, Council for Foreign Relations) present as the pretext used to suppress Uyghur culture. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Providing long quotations in footnotes is generally discouraged (there was even an arbitration case about it), there is no other reason for this removal of quotation in footnote. Unfortunately, the source is not freely available online, so and I can not check it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you have such an impression, but see the content guideline on citing sources, which literally says:

A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.

If it’s a source that other readers cannot check, then it’s especially encouraged to provide a quote. This also isn’t even a long quote.

It should be perfectly fine based on the Diplomat & WP sources to state that TIP/ETIM carried some of the attacks out (perhaps not several), since both sources literally say that. If you want it to be more detailed on the responsibilities of each individual attack, that would be probably a bit too out-of-focus in this article and more appropriate for Xinjiang conflict (where there already are such details). I'd propose either

1. Some of the attacks were orchestrated by the UN-designated terrorist organization Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkistan Islamic Movement).
2. The attacks were conducted by Uyghur separatists, including the UN-designated terrorist organization Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkistan Islamic Movement).

There are plenty of reliable sources already given that directly support both statements and plenty more that I haven't listed already that support them as well. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: If you meant this 2008 arbitration case about BLPs, it doesn't discourage quotes whatsoever and says that the usage of them is a content issue in the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes. Since that time, the consensus on the citation guideline encourages quotes in general and especially for not easily accessible sources, i.e. the case here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I would just like to point our that your edit summary "the reason we needed the multiple sources here is that there are claims for several attacks, whereas that source is for a single one so another editor interprets the statement as not being supported by the lone source” is admitting that the passage is WP:SYNTH as you are claiming the full assertion is unsupported by any single citation... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Routine calculations don’t count as original research synthesis (WP:CALC), and “ SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se”. If a source says X did Y in 2005, another source says X did Y in 2006, and another source says X did Y in 2010, you can write that X did Y multiple times from 2005 to 2010 and cite those three references without it constituting original research.

Several reliable sources say that the TIP/ETIM claimed some of the attacks, several reliable sources say that the TIP/ETIM were blamed for some of the attacks by the Chinese government (some overlapping with the claims), and several reliable sources just say that TIP/ETIM carried some of the attacks out. It’s reasonable to just say that they carried some of the attacks out. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. If you add a date range in there I have no problem with it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously, there is such Pakistan-based jihadist organization. Yes, they commit terror in Syria, China and a lot of other countries. Yes, they include Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Chinese and whoever else wants to join them. China is using that as a ridiculous excuse to justify their ethnocide of millions of Uyghurs who have absolutely nothing to do with this terrorist organization. Yes, all of that should be very briefly mentioned on the page (much shorter than right now). However, I think the current version of this section creates false impression that Uyghurs population (in general) are terrorists, and therefore the actions by China are at least partially justified. That must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, it's the entire pretext for China's actions that constitute the entire subject of this article, so it should absolutely be mentioned in a little more detail than "very briefly". To describe the pretext does not in any sense lend legitimacy or acceptance for anything after the "Background" section. I don't think it implies that Uyghurs in general are terrorists or anything like that. The article always uses the word "Uyghur separatists" or "terrorist organization" where appropriate and does not make any blanket statements about Uyghurs. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree that Xinjiang conflict and July 2009 Ürümqi riots should be noted. Turkistan Islamic Party? Yes, it should also be noted, but only as a false excuse by Chinese authorities, and we should clearly say it is false (per sources). All obvious falsehoods must be clearly stated as falsehoods, just as in the case of Antisemitic canards, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual actions of the TIP are not false, which are separate from the Chinese government's justification of detention and sinicization. I do think that we should merge in Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism as a section after "Background" and describe how the Chinese government uses counter-terrorism as its justification for some of these policies/actions. Nevertheless, the historical fact about the TIP perpetrating some of these attacks itself is separate and widely reported by reliable sources.

At the very least, we can agree on one of the two proposed sentences above for the Xinjiang conflict section? A section on the Chinese government's campaign and claimed justification can follow. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is easier to fix than explain. See my last edit. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

By removing factual historical RS-reported information about who died, changing Uyghur terrorists killed dozens of Han Chinese in coordinated attacks from 2009 to 2016. to The riots were followed by a number of violent incidents and adding Chinese authorities used these terrorism incident as a justification of the cultural genocide of all Uyghurs. which the cited sources do not say? No, that's removing well-referenced information and POV-whitewashing. You clearly have a strong stance on these events, to the point of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You may disagree with what the Chinese government did afterwards, but what happened in those attacks is widely RS-reported. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Tone it down MarkH21, you also clearly have a strong stance on these events. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I only edit to represent what has happened per reliable sources, not to "reveal" what is "obvious". If X happened, and then Y uses X as an false excuse to do some terrible thing Z, one should still report that X happened. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the sources do not tell this is ethnic conflict Uyghurs versus Han Chinese. They say this is political repression by Chinese government. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, since the source says: In the years that followed, Uighur terrorists killed dozens of Han Chinese in brutal, coordinated attacks at train stations and government offices. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So, it is indeed to some degree an inter-ethnic conflict, as described in some RS [2]. OK. But I still believe this page was recently heavily re-edited to favor the Chinese government position. "Critics of China's treatment of Uyghurs have accused...". "Various Chinese dynasties have historically exerted control over parts of what is modern-day Xinjiang...", and so on. That should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It was re-edited to restore WP:NPOV by describing and attributing the points of view, not to assert a Chinese government POV. All claims and allegations needs to be precisely attributed, whether to the Chinese government, critics, dissenters, or anyone else rather than stated in WP voice as was previously done.

Are you claiming that Xinjiang was never controlled by Chinese dynasties in the past? The cited source describes at length the extent of control in Xinjiang by the Han dynasty, by the Tang dynasty, by the Yuan dynasty, and by the Qing dynasty for which there are plenty of other reliable sources. Or are you contesting that it’s necessary background to describe the Xinjiang conflict? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "are you contesting that...". No, I do not contest any facts. I am saying these facts are probably irrelevant on this page, and more importantly, this is a propaganda presentation. Consider something like War in Donbass. Would it be good to start from "According to enemies of Russia..." (this page stars from "Critics of China's treatment of Uyghurs have accused...") or emphasize that in ancient times Ukraine belonged to Russia or that Russia belonged to Kiev. Of course not. Same for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The entire basis of the Xinjiang conflict is the history of various periods of Chinese control and 20th century short-lived breakaway republics. It’s relevant background

The labeling as “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” are recent and have come from individual critics of the Chinese government; it isn’t a term that has been applied by any nation or major international organizations and so should be properly attributed to maintain NPOV and per WP:OPINION. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Xinjiang conflict background

To put it simply, do you have multiple RS which connect directly the subject of this page (Ethnocide of Uyghurs) and the Han dynasty? If not, any mentioning of Han dynasty must be removed from this page, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Err it's completely unnecessary to have a direct connection for content in the background section of any article. It's a background section. There's also no policy requiring a "direct connection" between the content in an article and the subject. Plus, half of this article would be gone because almost none of the sources say "ethnocide" or "cultural genocide". For instance, there are no RSes which connect directly Germany's response to the Xinjiang re-education camps and "ethnocide" and "cultural genocide".

There are RSes that discuss the former imperial Chinese control over Xinjiang and the Xinjiang conflict, and RSes that discuss the Xinjiang conflict and ethnocide / cultural genocide. That's sufficient relation for background.

But hey, for good measure your unusual requirement is fulfilled anyways. Here's an article from the Australian, an academic journal article, an article from Le Monde Diplomatique, a University of Gothenburg thesis, an article from The Geopolitics, and UNPO speeches that all discuss the history of Xinjiang dating back to (and including) the Han dynasty and its relation to a modern "ethnocide", "cultural ethnocide", "genocide", or "cultural genocide" (all using one of those phrases). — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, we absolutely must have connection in RS, or more generally, we only say what RS say. Otherwise, this is going to be WP:OR. Indeed, almost all sources above (only 1st is not available online) start their "background" section somewhere from 1955. So should we. Only one of them say: "It is worth noting that the Uighur territory came under the rule of the Qing dynasty in the eighteenth century; the Qing turned it later into a province and applied Chinese political systems to its management." OK, this is 18th century, not Han dynasty. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with we only say what RS say and that’s precisely what the Background section does here. I never said anything to the contrary, but I was saying that background sections can use an RS to describe an event A that another RS says is relevant to event B. That’s not even the case here though because all of the sources above mention the sinicization / control of Xinjiang dating back to the Han dynasty, in addition to later dynasties. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes, this page is Ethnocide of Uyghurs not History of Xinjiang. Per WP:VNOTSUFF just because something is verifiable doesn't mean its automatically necessary to include on every mildly related page on wikipedia. Also I’ve only checked the The Geopolitics article and but it failed verification, the article does mention the Han dynasty but its in the context of Chinese history not Xinjiang’s history "In fact, the history of China shows that this process of Sinicization has been actively pursued since the Han Dynasty in the second century BC.” Like My very best wishes says is most common this article starts in the Qing for Xinjiang history "It is worth noting that the Uighur territory came under the rule of the Qing dynasty in the eighteenth century; the Qing turned it later into a province and applied Chinese political systems to its management. Clearly, tensions and conflicts between Chinese rulers and Uighurs are not new. They date back to the Qing dynasty." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

All of the linked sources mention the history dating back to the Han dynasty in relation to the Xinjiang conflict and sinicization of Uyghurs. You may want to reread the passage you just quoted; it is directly saying that the sinicization of Uyghurs in Xinjiang started in the Han dynasty, since this process of Sinicization refers to the preceding sentence: The Uighurs, meanwhile, seek to defend and preserve their cultural particularism and fight, by all means, to avoid being culturally digested by the Han ethnicity. It’s not talking about general Chinese history or general sinicization of non-Uyghurs.

I can add more quotes from those sources here (in talk) in a bit, but keep in mind that there’s literally only one sentence at the beginning of the section that just states that there was some historical Chinese imperial control over the region, there aren’t any lengthy details. A single sentence mention of the earlier history should be more than reasonable for a topic with complex historical origins. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood something. Han Chinese does not mean Han dynasty. These sources tell about Han Chinese as an ethnic group, not about the Dynasty dated 206 BC–220 AD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re the one misunderstanding here, because the only thing we have been talking about is the Han dynasty. Here’s some bolding to make it extra clear:

Their mission is to ensure that the principles of the Party are applied and to Sinicize the Uighurs so that they blend into the Chinese landscape to attain the elusive ‘harmony’. The Uighurs, meanwhile, seek to defend and preserve their cultural particularism and fight, by all means, to avoid being culturally digested by the Han ethnicity. In fact, the history of China shows that this process of Sinicization has been actively pursued since the Han Dynasty in the second century BC.

The source is clearly talking about the sinicization of Uyghurs by Han Chinese since the Han dynasty. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not even ambiguous, I’m not entirely sure how you’re misunderstanding this. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I don’t see anything that would suggest to My very best wishes that anyone here is confusing the ethnicity with the dynasty... — MarkH₂₁^talk

The article lacks substantial facts. Most of the article is a collection of assumptions and rumors repeated by newspapers without factual insight. No seems to mention that Uyghur population tripled in the past 50 years or that people don't need to know Chinese to have a decent life. --2001:16B8:31EC:1600:2D57:A54B:1E0:A6E (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Xinjiang-police-jobs.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Xinjiang-police-jobs.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No other article on genocide begins like this. It's not just "critics accuse", but widely reported, investigated and proven that China is undertaking mass internment and Sinofication that qualifies at least as cultural genocide, and more and more the consensus by impartial observers is that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. My proposed lead drops the whitewashed passive voice in favor of direct language that is in line with other articles about genocides and massacres:

China's treatment of Uyghurs, based on a policy of sinicization in Xinjiang in the 21st century, amounts to ethnocide or a cultural genocide of Uyghurs.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In particular, China's concentration of Uyghurs in state-sponsored re-education camps,[9][10] suppression of Uyghur religious practices[11][12] and human rights abuses including forced sterilization and contraception all indicate a pattern of cultural genocide of the Uyghurs.[13][9][14]

Shadybabs (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The wording "amounts to" is an awkward first sentence assertion. An alternative is to use a MOS:FIRST definition of a bolded term like the examples of Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, and Rohingya genocide, via a statement like "The ___ is an ongoing cultural genocide of the Uyghurs."
  Without a bolded term, an alternative could be "In the 21st century, the Chinese government has carried out a cultural genocide of Uyghurs." — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but it is an extremely serious allegation, and currently, there is very little evidence to back it up. This sort of allegation simply cannot be made in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, not to mention that international opinion is in favor of China and doesn't call it s genocide (in fact, one would be hard pressed to find a nation that does). This is unlike the Holocaust for example, which every nation terms a genocide. 11:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Honoredebalzac345 (talk)