Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China

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 29 December 2024

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]
That he holds a millenialist/dispensationalist sort of Protestant eschatology is not contested. But it's also entirely a non-sequitur here, and it's certainly not the thing for which he is best known, nor is it the thing that his academic work focuses on. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:46, 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]

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]