Talk:Id Kah Mosque

message: The claim that there are no working mosques in Kashgar is an extraordinary claim. Kashgar is a large city (with approximately 700,000 inhabitants) with a majority Muslim population, which has until recently had thousands of mosques. The claim that not a single mosque is in operation - which means that none of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in Kashgar attend a mosque to pray - is inherently extraordinary. This claim appears to be sourced to a single article in The Independent. Unless there is much stronger sourcing, this claim should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If they’re the only ones who have reported that it should be either attributed or removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I think I’d prefer attribution to full removal. Lets include it with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No working mosques in Kashgar? 

message: :I am at least not certain that the language in those sources justifies the current lead wording describing it as a . What does that mean, precisely?  To me it implies to me a degree of formality, like it has been officially deconsecrated or whatever the term is, which isn't what the sources say - even if it has become a tourist attraction and few people are able to worship there, it remains a mosque. eg. the Globe and Mail says   That's not the same thing as it ceasing to be a mosque - to use that exact wording, I'd want to see either a source saying it was deconsecrated, or a source specifically describing it as a former mosque rather than just one people are prevented from using. More broadly I feel like this is tiptoeing around the crux of the issue - we should summarize what the Chinese government has done (and what different sources say about it) specifically in the lead, rather than vaguely saying that it has become a tourist attraction and ceased to be a Mosque without saying why. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope you don’t mind me breaking this out. I agree that we need to do a better job with the lead, currently we make it sound like it closed one day as a mosque and opened the next as a tourist attraction which I’m just not seeing in the reporting, it seems to be inordinately clear that for most of its modern history the mosque has been *both* a tourist attraction and a place or worship (as many grand mosques are). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least we can accurately say that it is a , so we should have a sentence saying that much - I don't think that part is controversial; a quick search shows extensive tourist guides mentioning it, plus sources like eg. . However, that leaves half the dispute unsettled, since we probably still need an additional sentence or so summarizing what the Chinese government has done.  I would avoid combining the two topics - it seems to have been a tourist attraction for a long time.  There are some sources, eg.  - which sadly only mentions Id Kah Mosque in passing - that discuss the implications of religious structures becoming tourist attractions, but it's not generally treated the same as or as part of the government crackdown; my reading is that Independent, at least, mentions that it is a popular tourist attraction just for the stark profane-vs-sacred contrast resulting from people no longer worshiping there. I also think that it might help to spend some time searching for additional sources unrelated to recent controversies - that isn't to say that we can omit it, but there is a lot more to say; adding more about the mosque in general will make it less undue to mention the closure (or however we describe and source it.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Aquillion and Horse Eye's Back, the phrase  has been repeatedly added by User:MalakiTT, but I have not seen any source stating that it's true. Western sources state there are still worshippers who use the mosque for prayer, and the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media. -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media.” they implied it but I don’t think they explicitly said it, from the reporting they don’t seem to be aware of the allegations at all. Personally I don’t think something built as a religious building ever really stops being that so I object to the phrasing of former mosque. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, here (or here, same article) is a recent source (published just yesterday) that might help - note that it's from the Associated Press.  It says:    That is plainly enough for us to mention Mamat Juma's opinion (attributed to him, since the AP does so), but it also makes it clear that he does acknowledge that there has been a sharp decline in the number of worshipers over the past decade, though he doesn't agree that it's to the point where the mosque is totally or almost-totally unused, as some other sources have stated. At the same time it also says  and places the whole story in a broader context that might be worth discussing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should include Memet Jume's (I wish the sources would use a consistent Romanization) statements to the AP, with attribution, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, I knew it was only a matter of time before we had a reliable souce for his statement! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything this goes to show the Xinhua source was honest about the testimony this entire time, which I hope is taken into account the next time a discussion starts about its usage. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: It is clear that several active editors of this article object against these additions, either per WP:synth or for going into excessive detail.  should be aware that they are violating the WP:3 revert rule, and risking a block. Despite warnings on their talk page, they haven't replied to other editors. This is their final opportunity to attempt to reach a consensus. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated additions of synthesized material by MalakiTT 

message: Opinions voiced by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) need sufficient in-text attribution. As the UHRP was founded using funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the US government, and continues to be funded by them, "sufficient" attribution in this case means that the connection of the UHRP to the US government has to be mentioned. Describing an organization founded and funded by an arm of the US government as "US-based" obscures this connection. It is a "US government-funded" organization, not merely a "US-based" organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be the same as Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry#Uyghur Human Rights Project description please do not duplicate discussions across talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly a duplication if both articles are failing to use proper in-text attribution of the same source. Would it be a duplication if two discussions were made about two pages having issues with syntax or grammatical constructs? Paragon Deku (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If we'd like to have the discussion in two places at once, I would point towards how WP:RS typically attribute UHRP statements. I've laid out a long list of these sources at Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry#Uyghur Human Rights Project description, and I would encourage you to read them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a clear requirement to present issues neutrally. When we quote an organization founded and funded by the US government, we have to note this affiliation. I don't see how any Wikipedian who wants to uphold WP:NPOV could object to this. The only possible reason for leaving out such an attribution would be to obfuscate the connection of the organization in question to the US government, and I'm sure that's something that none of us here wants to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to attribute the source just as reliable sources do is to ensure that we reflect coverage of the article's topic in line with how coverage is provided by reliable sources. This is what WP:NPOV and calls us to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOV is not "a clear requirement to present issues neutrally” its a requirement that we write from a neutral point of view. In the context of wikipedia this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Unless you can show WP:RS which attribute UHRP in the way you wish to then there isn’t an NPOV argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to attribute biased sources. The RS policy you've cited above does not say anything about leaving out in-text attribution for biased sources. I don't see why you'd want to cite an organization that's closely connected with the US government without noting this connection in-text. Can you explain why you think that concealing this connection advances NPOV? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We already attribute it, nobody here is arguing against attribution. You appear to want to go above and beyond how we normally attribute sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient attribution for the "Uyghur Human Rights Project" 

message: The Beijing Review is operated by the CCP's China International Publishing Group, so its use on this article is questionable. Although it is not a perennial source, I think that the nature of the source as a state media outlet means that the same problems affecting Xinhua, CGTN, and China Daily also affect the Beijing Review. It might be good to swap it out for another source. --DaysonZhang (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably take www.topchinatravel.com out as well. We also seem to have a Frommers from 2003 being used to make a statement in the present tense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beijing Review may be an unreliable source 

message: Are we giving undue weight by including this claim? There's no reason to believe given the video footage RFA provides that this is a forced mock celebration rather than a genuine one. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As Polygraph.info points out, a French journalist working for Le Monde documented video evidence that the celebration was staged. The journalist later wrote a story in the French newspaper, where the journalist notes that there was a mock celebration the day before Eid (during Ramadan). In short, Radio Free Asia's reporting seems to be supported by reporting by a reputable and independent WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is… shaky evidence at best. There’s no evidence this isn’t just a practice session for a community event. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, upon reading the linked sources I would argue including the claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the articles do nothing but incestuously refer to each other and the entire claim is rooted in vague posturing by the WUC rather than any evidence of it being coerced. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it would be that devout Musliims would be practicing ceremonial dancing in the daytime during the month Ramadan, I agree. But, the sourcing's there; Le Monde is unquestionably a French newspaper of record. When combined with another reliable source in the topic area, I don't see a reason that such a statement is improperly sourced. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There’s video footage of Uighurs dancing during Ramadan in the 70s, don’t be cheeky. The claim that these celebrations are suddenly forced is based on nothing more than the statement from WUC and the claim is extraordinary. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a random tweet... Not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just above Mikehawk also linked a “random tweet.” Nevertheless the video is clearly from an NHK documentary. If you cannot put two and two together and come to the logical conclusion that these celebrations are normal in the region and that the idea that they are suddenly coerced is extraordinary, I can go dig up the documentary for you. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't link a "random tweet" alone; I linked a tweet that was related to the story. I used the story in my analysis above when I wrote that , not the tweet.  — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The tweet itself doesn't even say that the video is from Ramadan... it's a celebration of Eid, which takes place after Ramadan ends. Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't support the statement that . — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The claimed coerced celebrations are also Eid celebrations… the only reason I claimed “during Ramadan” is because you were the first to snarkily remark that this behavior would somehow be unusual despite the source you cited mentioning Eid specifically. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The video evidence captured by a reporter of Le Monde is of people dancing the day before Eid, don't they? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim and original topic here is about the dancing during Eid. How does some cooreography and direction to a few dancers a day before somehow proof of coercion? At the very least this claim needs to be attributed Paragon Deku (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already attributed, perhaps even overly so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   as it currently stands pretty much puts the claim in wiki voice. I amended this (as well as it being grammatically incorrect), but my edit was reverted. I don’t even think it belongs in the article in the first place still. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly does not put the claim in wikivoice. Would you prefer that the sentence start with the attribution rather than having it in the middle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ”As reported by” does not dodge putting it in wikivoice. It simply asserts that it is a fact while listing the sources within the article. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sorry, I thought you were arguing that it was "pretty much” a wikivoice claim... Are you now arguing that it actually is a wikivoice claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sorry, I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia… are we actually supposed to be incredibly pedantic? Paragon Deku (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m asking you to clarify your position in the face of contradictory statements, thats very reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

text: A phrase in the format of "X news agency reported that Y happened" absolutely constitutes attribution of the claim. If it's an RS in the topic area (and there's a community consensus that it is), this seems to be fine, especially since other news agencies have reported similarly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it’s clearly not in the format or “X news agency reported that Y happened.” It’s in the format “Y happened (as told by X news agency.” The average user would interpret this as wikivoice. When I changed it to a proper attribution it was edited out. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that Eid celebrations are forced 

message: It is strange that this is being debated, so here is an additional source: a photograph I took in March 2018. You can find the original Facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/gene.bunin/posts/2129132367318611, or the archived version here: https://archive.ph/2VydU. It should be pretty clear from this photo that the crescent moons are gone (they were removed around December 2017 and were returned around the summer of 2018, in what people believe was a reply to international pressure and foreign tourists). The sign above the entrance is also missing (it was still there back in November 2017).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeuDRenais (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of mosque defacing