Got a source for that?
Or this report [0] by more than 50 global experts in international law, genocide, and China?
[0] https://newlinesinstitute.org/uyghurs/the-uyghur-genocide-an...
That being said, I haven't fully read either the State Dept.'s report, nor the Newlines report, nor all the primary documents (of course), and importantly, I do believe the treatment of the Uyghurs to be unjust. I think Saddam Hussein was an unjust ruler in Iraq also, but there was widespread misinformation and numerous lies put forth in order to justify the Iraq War (both actually, but it is perhaps more complicated to justify for the first Gulf War). We're probably not in danger of a war with China in the next decade, but if we're going to have a Cold War 2, I'd like it to be based on less questionable sources.
They especially criticize situations like the following
有多次新疆劳务人员在组团干部的带领下，在接近到达目的地的火车上接到当地公安部门不允许下车的命令，结果导致很多令人尴尬、懊丧、失败的现象发生。有几次经过解说后被允许下了火车但又不允许出站台，出了站台又不允许进厂，进厂后却不允许上班工作，已经工作几天的甚至勒令必须立即回新疆老家，否则公安部门经常以各种理由到企业上门检查、询问、调查，致其根本无法正常上班干活，而企业不得不委屈地找各种理由解雇本已经适应工作岗位的工人。这些情况已经发生在几个省市区，当然有的省市区干脆压根儿就不允许任何新疆籍人员进入。所有这些，都是在冠冕堂皇的以地区安全稳定为由、为幌子下进行的。
Of course that's not the kind of unjust treatment that tends to be highlighted in Western sources (I found this report via an article that focused more on "通过劳务输出的方式，既减少了维族在新疆地区的人口密度，也是感化、融化、同化少数维族人员的重要方法") but it's definitely unjust treatment.
I randomly skim through the citations in the Newlines report. Most of them aren’t related to Adrian Zenz in anyway (random samples: [0][1][2][3][4]). How did you arrive at that this conclusion?
Also, Adrian Zenz has published in peer-reviewed journals about Xinjiang [5]. Can you point me to other peer-reviewed papers (as opposed to anonymous comments on Hacker News or random opinion pieces) that point out mistakes in his work?
And of course, you can watch victims’ testimonies yourself, so you don’t have to trust any other researcher https://shahit.biz/eng/
[0] https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/explainers/exploring-xinjiangs-dete...
[1] https://supchina.com/2019/08/07/uyghur-love-in-a-time-of-int...
[2] https://www.afp.com/en/inside-chinas-internment-camps-tear-g...
[3] https://bitterwinter.org/sexual-abuse-of-uyghur-women-by-ccp...
[4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/13/china-visiting-officials...
[5] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ALWIr18AAAAJ&hl=en
He then tried to cover it up by changing the revision date, an act which amounts to academic fraud.
The mistakes called out in the tweets look like typos that are not critical to the major conclusions of the paper.
For instance, if the paper is about how IUD insertion changes over time, and consistently mislabels “per 100000” as “per capita” in one of the graphs, then the percentage change is unaffected by this typo.
But if the curve in the graph were altered, then that would be a significant mistake (and a fraud). But it doesn’t appear to be the case in Zenz’s work.
If major conclusions are affected, the papers will eventually be retracted. But if those are only typos, the papers will survive. So we will know.
Can you tell me how major conclusions in his papers are affected by these changes?
And also how most citations in the Newlines report are affected by Zenz’s work? I fail to see the connection of those citations to Zenz, like those I pointed out above.
> He then tried to cover it up by changing the revision date, an act which amounts to academic fraud.
Changes due to typos like this are not considered an academic fraud, unless these changes affects the major conclusions of the papers significantly.
In the area I work with, I frequently see similar typos in research papers. No profession researcher bothers to call out such minor mistakes in tweets. And mistakes on revision dates after correcting typos are not considered fraud.
That’s why I asked for peer-reviewed criticism of his work, not random tweets that nitpick on minor issues.
If you are uncertain about minor/local and major/global mistakes, you can read Terry Tao’s post https://terrytao.wordpress.com/advice-on-writing-papers/on-l...
How not to get bogged down by minor mistakes in papers when reading them https://terrytao.wordpress.com/advice-on-writing-papers/on-c...
For example, check out the IUD section showing his sleight of hand here: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-...
I just take a random article from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-respo...
One paragraph is affected: “there were almost 1,000 new IUD implants per 100,000 people in Xinjiang in 2018, or 80% of China's total for that year”. The rest of the CNN article seems correct and unrelated to Zenz’s work.
This CNN article also says “Chinese officials have officially acknowledged birth rates in Xinjiang dropped by almost a third in 2018, compared to the previous year […]”
There is still no satisfactory explanation for such a sudden drop in birth rate, other than a forcible suppression of birth since 2017. And there are other sources that corroborate the birth suppression claim, such as this teacher [0] and numerous detainees [1][2][3][4][5].
Also, not every claim related to Zenz is in dispute. Consider this claim from a random APN News article: https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
> “Budget documents obtained by Zenz show that […] While sterilization rates plunged in the rest of the country, they surged seven-fold in Xinjiang from 2016 to 2018, to more than 60,000 procedures”
This claim is not refuted by the Grayzone article.
Zenz may have made “local mistakes”, but not global ones that severely impact the major conclusions of his works or in news reporting.
Further, so far I have only seen one website (Grayzone) criticizing Zenz’s work, but not peer-reviewed papers or criticism from the larger research community.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/muslim-minorit... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/uighur-muslim-... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071 [3] https://www.dw.com/en/china-uighur-women-reportedly-steriliz... [4] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Xinjiang-What-China-shows-w... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/abortions-...