Talk:Xinjiang internment camps

No evidence and no research

There has been given little evidence to these made up places. The only evidence comes from adrian zenz who only asked 8 people if 1 million people were detaines in these made up places. How do you get 1 million from only 8 people. The Chinese government white paper also never said 1 million people were detained. And those satellite images are also very vague. You show a satellite image of a building and automatically call it a camp? Some of those satellite images labeled a children's kindergarten and a apartment complex as a concentration camp. Why do they talk about boarding schools as if they only exist in Xinjiang? Do they not know millions of migrant workers children in East China also have to go to boarding schools because they are left unattended at whome when there patents go to work in the city? And do they only think that the vocational schools only exist in Xinjiang too? Chinese from every part of the country have to go to these schools if they can not pass the Gaokao exam or they can not attend higher education. And those vocational schools also have gates and dormitories and they also have to stay there for months so they can learn skills and work in skilled jobs. 97.124.206.4 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind providing sources to back up your claims? This sounds like denialism to me. X-Editor (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not Zenz but "Chinese Human Right Defenders" did use only 8 people to estimate a number of detainees:

The following table presents the data we have compiled based on interviews with eight ethnic Uyghurs. Their families reside in eight different villages in counties in the Kashgar Prefecture. According to the interviewees, each village has a population of between roughly 1,500 and 3,000, and the number of individuals taken into re-education detention camps from each village ranged from approximately 200 to 500 between mid-2017 to mid-2018.

AAAAA143222 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This site goes into detail into the flimsy "evidence" the press is using to treat these "concentration camps" as facts:

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

There's also this reddit thread, where the user has compiled a number of inconsistencies:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/hzphui/every_uyghur_allegation_debunked_as_of_2020_july/

I find it fairly upsetting that both this, and the "Uyghur genocide" pages read as if both things are facts beyond any reasonable doubt - when you apply some scrutiny, that is clearly not the case 2804:14C:CA25:8625:8C01:DC72:730D:3049 (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Gray Zone is not considered a reliable source per WP:RSP, and any web forum like reddit is not considered reliable. /r/sino, especially, is no where close to being reliable. At this rate you may as well have linked /r/genzedong for how inaccurate/biased the information from there is. — Czello 09:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Every single piece of evidence regarding the alleged genocides and concentration camps come from, as far as I can tell, the Adrian Zenz study. Do you not think strange that what I just posted, which uses logic, common sense and empirical evidence, is not considered reliable, but a study by a far-right academic who has stated that "God has equipped me and used me to discover and expose these atrocities" is considered reliable? ( https://www.premierchristianity.com/interviews/meet-the-christian-investigator-equipped-by-god-to-expose-chinas-uyghur-genocide/5442.article ) 2804:14C:CA25:8625:EDF1:A366:41F1:4DC4 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're trying to promote reddit (especially /r/sino) as reliable, while accusing Zenz as being "far-right", then there's not much more to be done here. — Czello 21:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, reliable sources are published independent sources that have a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, and that articles should be based on them. Then I want to ask: if a reliable source said 1+1=3 and an unreliable source said 1+1=2, which one would you trust ? (Of course, this is exaggerated to make the point clearer.) The one that you think makes sense, of course. So please look at the content first and see if it makes sense (By logic). If you don't know if it makes sense or not because it is not well proven, or it doesn't make sense at all, then you can bother about if it is reliable or not. Another example: A painting "Xyz" was painted in the 1700s and everybody knows that. In 2023, some reliable person A says that a painting he found is the original "Xyz" and not a modified/copied one, then some random person B says that it is a fake one, because there is a car in the painting A had and cars weren't there in the 1700s. Who would you trust?

Apply this to our case here. Please read the /r/sino content. It is pure logical reasoning that is presented, as 2804:14C:CA25:8625:EDF1:A366:41F1:4DC4 says. Pure logical reasoning. And no, I don't think he's trying to promote reddit as reliable. He's trying to say that pure logical reasoning is reliable. Tryute (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you could prove that a reliable source said 1+1=3, and had done so many times in recent years, then you could take it to WP:RSN and dispute its reliability. Then, depending on the weight of the evidence, its reliability would be reassessed. Your personal opinions (including your own sense of what is logical) are simply WP:OR if you cannot back them up with reliable sources. Hypothetical musings are not the stuff of which an encyclopedia is made. Comments along such lines are just like rain on the dashboard for the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty easy to find and prove that a reliable source said 1+1=3, and we don't need to say that it has done that a lot of times in recent years. Why would we if we only talk about one thing? Also, I don't need to dispute it's reliability: WP:RS says that some sources may provide stronger or weaker support for a certain statement, and it is the editors who need to judge if a source, reliable or not, is usable or inappropriate to use to support a statement. Maybe they say 1+1=3 for only this statement. For the reliable source that said 1+1=3: I actually found one by just randomly scrolling trough the reference section: BBC News, source 147. And here is my ''logical reasoning'' (It is very simple, even a bit hilarious).

1. A composite image shows 2884 photographs of detainees. I see, when zooming in the minuscule 2884 pictures, that some wear fashion. I see that there are around 20 images of the same person, wearing different clothes and in different poses. I see that those clothes are reused in 20 images of another person. (My POV at this point:) Looks like BBC doesn't have much budget in making these fake news. And those people are smiling, except those who are in big images, where we can see them very well. Hmm. This is very natural and makes a lot of sense. This definitly happens in "internment camps". I should definitely trust the BBC.
2. The video on the page shows a BBC man showing to an old man what happened to his son. The old man then gives a paper to the BBC man, then the BBC man points at the paper and says something like ''...the database shows that your son is condemned with 15 years of prison...'' The old man then cries and mumbles something in maybe his language. You know what? Turns out, as I played the video in slow motion and read what was on the paper, it said ''citizen identity card'' in simplified chinese! I see nothing about 15 years of prison, and how would a man captured in a "concentration camp" still have an identity card? If I was Hitler and I captured someone, I would be smart enough to decide to destroy any evidence that the "someone" existed! Oh I can't believe it, BBC makes so much sense.
3. The images. Some show people in the "camp", and in the background, I saw some arabic-like words on the walls. I'm not sure because I'm no expert in arabic, but the characters looked like arabic. Hmm. If I was Hitler, in 1942 or whatever, I would definitly put hebrew and Jewish religion content on display in my camps, because I hate them so much that I must display their culture. It makes so much sense. Also, in the same image, the supposedly "internment camp for Uyghurs" "proof" photos shown have guards that look exactly like the same race and skin color than the prisoners. Hmm. Totally not an image of a normal prison. Other images show photographies of people in the "camps". Because the background of each photography is alike, I could say that they were took in the same place. In one of them, in the background, I could see a door. The typical house door: it was grey, with a little hole with lens in the middle of the door, to see who was outside when someone was knocking. Hmm. Photos totally took in "camps". Are these things normal to see in "internment camps"? Totally! It is definitly what we find in internment camps! BBC is so right about this subject! It is the best source ever!

If you still think the BBC article makes sense, I can write more arguments if you want. The things I mentioned up there are my common sense and my logic. I may have mental problems that distort my understanding of what is logical, but it is unlikely. I hope you understand my "sense of what is logical" and that you consider my reflections about not needing reliable sources for it. I agree with you that Wikipedia isn't made up of hypothetical musings, but it seems like (my opinion:) this rumor about internment camps is made up of hypothetical musings. Also, as WP:RS says, no source is completely reliable, as well as for vice versa. BBC may be reliable on weather news, but maybe not on economy news (Example). Tryute (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make up your own truth, the place for that is Reddit, or one of many other blogs. This discussion has no place here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see that I made up my own truth? Tryute (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And by that do you mean you think the BBC article makes sense? Nothing is wrong with it? Tryute (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you even read my text? Seems like you completely ignored it. Tryute (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I read all that you wrote and found it (from my pov) to completely misrepresent the contents of the ref on all three of your alleged points. Please specify one duplicate pair of images, or one case where the subject is smiling. Clearly you interpret the video in a way very different from my understanding of it. And similarly your observations on the incidental details do not match my reading of the article as a whole and all of its contextual background information... There are 454 other references that we could debate, but I'm not going to. Yadsalohcin (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

r/sino is one of the most biased threads ever, like china, posting anything deemed wrong there would get you banned.

Drone footages exist of the camps and several other evidence directly on youtube. Using r/sino as a source you might as well use chinese state media as a source. Rynoip (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

He's asking for evidence and you told him to provide evidence to support that there is no enough evidence? That's ridiculous 203.186.166.58 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Haven't he already answered? 240F:107:2038:1:C1FD:882E:243:A2CF (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

there are over 400 sources for evidence. Rynoip (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

• The IP address editor making unfounded claims and the AAA editor that appears to be making nearly all China focused edits, including removing Falun Gong content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

Camp detainees section:

"According to a Human Rights Watch report published in January 2021, the official figure of people put through this system is 1.3 million"

The Human Rights Watch source linked does not mention the 1.3 million figure, including in the China section. The Guardian article linked is actually citing a report by the Chinese government:

Beijing for the first time gave confirmation of the number of Uighur and other Turkic Muslims detained in Xinjiang, revealing that 1.3 million people had gone through what it termed “vocational training centres”.

A BBC article provides further clarification, stating that "1.3 million people had been through Xinjiang's 'vocational training' scheme annually for six years." Digging a bit further, SCMP cites a white paper called "Employment and Labour Rights in Xinjiang" which can be found here. I believe the specific section being referenced is this:

Every year from 2014 to 2019 Xinjiang provided training sessions to an average of 1.29 million urban and rural workers, of which 451,400 were in southern Xinjiang. The trainees mastered at least one skill with employment potential, and the vast majority of them obtained vocational qualifications, skill level certificates, or specialized skill certificates, allowing them to go on to find stable employment.

Given that the mentioned training scheme probably isn't literally all detainees, I think this sentence should either be deleted or rephrased and placed in the "Responses from China" section since it's based on a Chinese government report. Pasta Enjoyer (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Vocational education and training centers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vocational education and training centers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 1 § Vocational education and training centers until a consensus is reached. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add training centre (disambiguation) to the hatnote for the incoming redirect Vocational education and training centers

change

"Vocational education and training centers" redirects here. For the educational institutions, see Vocational school.

{{Redirects here|Vocational education and training centers|the educational institutions|Vocational school}}

to

"Vocational education and training centers" redirects here. For the educational institutions, see Vocational school. For centres for training, see training centre (disambiguation).

{{Redirects here|Vocational education and training centers|the educational institutions|Vocational school|centres for training|training centre (disambiguation)}}

65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The hatnote exists primarily for people searching for vocational institutions who may find themselves here. I think it highly unlikely someone searching for a training center would find themselves here by mistake. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Chinese reaction neutrality issues

The section makes anything denying or refuting the allegations as CCP connected or somehow under the control of the CCP. It seems to exclude any independent investigative journalism refuting these allegations. It basically want to re-emphsize the allegations rather than adopt arguments from all sides. There's plenty of videos refuting the allegations as well as articles. This whole article sees to be entirely censored. Persian Lad (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If there are specific revisions to the existing material you suggest, feel free to make the edits or propose them more specifically. As far as articles and video, remember that YouTube style videos are not good sources. But other editors will read sources if you want to bring them forward. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If the YouTube videos are published by reliable sources, then what is the problem? It's no different from written articles, provided again that the source is verifiable.--Persian Lad (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You're correct. Sorry, I shouldn't have made assumptions. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)