RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Uighur genocide

Silver

 * 1) I support. The article, not the genocide.  00:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure thing. 01:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely silver. 01:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -Flandres (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 05:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Kevs  Ping!  11:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Goat
i feel like im always bitching bout something but this article has vexed me for sometime. china being china is very tight lipped about the whole thing. theres a media black out and all. as such there is little known for certain. we know there is a massive internment in reeducation camps. we know from some leaked documents and from satelite imagery. we know surveillance is insanely pervasive. we know there are prohibitions and restrictions and obstacles to dissuade uighurs from practising their religion or aspects of their cultural. what is known is worrying enough, and i understand what we know is enough for it to be categorised as a genocide.

but this is all we know. the rest is rumour and uncorraborated testimonials. this article regurgitates every rumour as if it was all proven fact, as if it were all uncontested eye witness accounts, and the significance and meanings of this claim or that claim as presented in the article is often not supported by its references or it is grossly misrepresented - so often i'd need to go through line by line to highlight it all, which i just not gonna right now., i just dont wanna. is not helped that its all a little scattershot in its presentation.

i realise some folk here have a tendency to accept every outrageous claim made about china without question just because its china, but as ive already said what is known for certain is worrying enough, and i understand what we know is enough for it to be categorised as genocide. i have no problem recording what rumours emerge from the news black out, or the testimonials even (many of which consist of 'i heard this' or 'i heard that' type accounts of torture - not first hand), but the article does a poor job and relating to the shortage of verified facts actually coming china. its pretty shoddy over all in documenting or recording. its a political tract. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)