Talk:Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act

Wiki Education assignment: Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2024 and 12 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rosieposie32 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Prof Whitney (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hu Xijin remarks from academic source

A response by Hu Xijin sourced to an academic text was removed from the Opposition. First, the grounds were "editorial" (if "editorial" remarks like this are significant enough to be sourced to an academic text, as this was, it is no obstacle). Second, the same editor removed it again, this time saying it was undue. This is does not make sense-- Hu is a major media figure in public discourses and the single sentence is due. Unlike some of those we cite, Hu is notable enough to rate his own Wikipedia article. Following its removal, we include no Chinese journalists at all. We do however cite several American newspapers, and we cite them directly (not even in a secondary source). The undue problem leans quite in another direction. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything in the Reaction heading is about serious and/or official statements. A hot take is not due here. Let's stick with serious reaction commentary. - Amigao (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The point we are addressing here is that these legislations are often an object of derision in the Chinese public sphere. It's not about whether we agree the the aptness of the metaphor -- even sarcasm can be a "serious reaction". I would have no issue with your position if it was cherry picked from Hu's article and cited to Hu's article. But we are discussing a reaction serious enough for inclusion in academic sources, despite its acerbic tenor. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If the cite has broader commentary or a contextual summary, that would be far more useful than dropping in a stand-alone hot take. - Amigao (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I'm only getting involved in this dispute because JArthur1984 made a direct reference to an edit I made to the article. Maybe we can agree to a compromise where we include his views, but as part of the government's response to the Act given his relationship (particularly as a party member) to the CPC? Crwd-ppu (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s good to have another voice to help avoid stalemates, so you are welcomed.

I’m agreeable to that approach. What do you think an appropriate wording would be along those lines? JArthur1984 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access the book that is being cited so I'm not in a position to make specific wording suggestions. I do have suggestions to address some of the issues in the stuff I can see. Since we do not quote the things other people have said, we shouldn't do it for him either. His views should go under the Chinese government paragraph, not cut out into a separate one and we should use another job descriptor apart from journalist for him given his membership in the party. However, these are just suggestions, so the more that we can hear from other people (particularly Amigao) on how to improve them, the better. Crwd-ppu (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Extra care should be taken with 'reaction' sections in geopolitically-contentious articles. Reactions from governments are almost certainly due. Reactions from relevant civil society organizations (via their leadership/spokespersons)...perhaps a case can be made for inclusion in some cases. However, reactions from individual commentators are questionable at best. - Amigao (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This goes to my point about a different standard applied to Chinese responses — we have a commentator elsewhere.

In this instance, you can take comfort in the significance of the view because (1) Hu is a wikilinked person (you and I have both edited that article, so it should be easy to agree he is generally encyclopedically significant), (2) as a result you are likely aware that he is a major figure in domestic political discourses, (3) the significance is validated by its inclusion in a good secondary source, an academic text.

so while I am strong it should be included, I am flexible on matters of wording. We could use a title like Commentator instead of journalist if preferred (I wouldn’t recommend something more generic like CPC member as that fails to capture the significance). We can also paraphrase more instead of quoting (although I recommend we continue to put “anti-China legislations” in quotation marks to ensure attribution is always clear). JArthur1984 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Following our discussion here, I've made what I believe are very minor changes to the text we've been discussing. I've changed his job description from social media commentator to state media commentator as I think the former doesn't adequately capture his close relationship to the party (which we all agree is a matter of fact). I've also done a minor paraphrase of his views on the law, which included taking out the quotations as it seemed to me to look more like scare quotes than anything. I can see from the revision history that there has been a long-standing dispute over whether to include this material at all in the first place, so hopefully with my edit, we have finally brought it to a close. Crwd-ppu (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It's often good to have a third editor contribute, as you have here, when two others have strong opinions. I'm fine with your language. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

background section - best to leave this out

In my opinion, this section is very much out of place in the article. It takes up half the page, but none of the sources used actually discusses the law and it only serves to divert attention from what we should be focused on, which is the law itself. On top of that, if we are going to discuss the historical aspect of the law, there is already a section which already appears to do that (legislative history). The background section did not exist until very recently so even if the information is relevant, it does look like most editors did not think it was relevant enough to be included in the article. The revision history indicates there has been some dispute over this material so I will wait for others to comment, but if nobody objects, then I will move to remove this section. Crwd-ppu (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The background section is useful but should be trimmed down, probably as a simple first-paragraph excerpt of Persecution of Uyghurs in China for brevity. - Amigao (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless the sources we use for the excerpt actually discusses this law, my issue is that it would simply reintroduce all the problems which currently exist with background section that I outlined in my opening post. What do you suggest we write for the excerpt? Crwd-ppu (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The background was substantially trimmed. It is well-sourced and quite relevant. - Amigao (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We should to be more objective in how we define what is relevant. If we start using sources which do not actually discuss what this article is about, we run the risk of turning it into a shoehorn for other content. I think it is worth repeating that this section was created only very recently so I do question how committed we should be in actually retaining it. It appears that we are not going to agree to our basic positions, so is there something that we can agree on? Can we at least agree that if a source does not include any reference to the law, then the article should not include any information which references that source? Crwd-ppu (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a much stricter standard than is applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's generally acceptable to have background sections with information from reliable sources on a general topic that do not explicitly mention the article title (so long as it is clearly about the general topic and avoids WP:SYNTH).

The background section here is now 4 sentences long. Is there a specific part of those 4 sentences you have a concern with? — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the focus of the material rather than a specific part that I have an issue with. The original write-up of the section was authored from a Western standpoint as it was fixated on the abuses of the Chinese government and the negative reactions to it, but it now seems like the bias has gone in the other direction. The focus given to terrorist attacks and rehabilitation of terrorist groups frames the background issues in a way that aligns with the Chinese government's view of the Uyghur-Xinjiang conflict. The section should be written in a neutral way, not boosting either the "abuse" or "terrorist" narrative of the conflict. To me, the proper response would have been to simply remove the original write-up and leave things at that. I am still hopeful that can be done, but if it can't then we should add information which corrects for the bias we have right now in the section. If we are going to start it off by focusing on terrorist attacks, then there also needs to be information which discusses the reasons that led to those attacks in the first place. However, what that information looks like I will leave for the moment for you all to decide. I am not an experienced editor and this is my first time encountering a disagreement of this sort, so it would be wise of me to let experienced editors such as yourselves take the reins on the issue while I use the discussion as a learning experience, watch from the sidelines and only contribute further to it when I have a better handle on how problems like this get resolved. Crwd-ppu (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

With just 4 sentences, 1 on Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, 2 on the camps, and 1 on other human rights abuses, it seems to reflect what's reported in reliable sources. This is similar to what is covered in the lead of Persecution of Uyghurs in China (excluding international reactions and post-2020 matters). Hence this background section seems of due weight to me.

Feel free to make more specific suggestions if you wish. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, we need more information which looks at the historical context of the conflict. I should stress that this isn't something I want to do as my position is that the section should go, but the community has said it should stay so I will abide by its decision. I will see what the sources say and add them in in due course. Crwd-ppu (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Further historical context is why wikilinks to Xinjiang conflict and Persecution of Uyghurs in China are hatnoted at the top of the section. - Amigao (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed Legislative Effects Section

I was wondering why an added section discussing legislative developments after the first bill was passed was removed. Information included the passing of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act which the article currently doesn't mention the passing of- "He also urged Congress to pass a second bill, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act." As well as the new proposed Uyghur Genocide Accountability and Sanctions Act. Would appreciate clarification. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieposie32 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons that the section added at the end of this edit is that it is entirely cited to primary sources (e.g. the text of the bills). The relevant policy against this is the primary sources section of the "No original research" policy. In particular:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

A second related issue is whether material on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and new proposed legislation are of due weight for the article on this specific act - this is generally determined by coverage in secondary (or tertiary) reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)