Where is this political propaganda masqureading as Undeniable Truth on Wikipedia?
For example, the headline picture is from a normal prison in Xinjiang that houses convicted criminals of various Chinese ethnicities, not a "Uyghur Concentration Camp". Yet it is misused as representation of "Uyghur Genocide"?
Nayirah level nonsense.
Not only that but anyone can review and contribute to the discussion, and submit edit requests. So if you're able to prove the inaccuracy of that picture, you can post about it and submit an edit request about it.
Compared with headline news it's a pretty amazing resource even for the most fiercely political issues.
I don't think that it's a fair assessment to say that it's a stage where propaganda can easily pass off as undeniable truth.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
- Joseph Goebbels (allegedly)
It is farcical propaganda, period. While there may be heavy-handed counterterrorism and anti-poverty policies circa 2017 in Xinjiang, there is no evidence of "genocide".
It is not Qanon-tier disinformation, which Wikipedia is resilient against.
It is Nayirah-tier disinformation: peddled by special interest groups in Washington, including the State Department, it gets signal-boosted by establishment media who are on good terms with those SIGs.
Wikipedia is extraordinarily vulnerable to this class of disinformation campaign.
And good luck challenging it in the talk page. Your edits will get instantly reverted by an army of pro-Washington trolls. How else could that extremely inaccurate header image stay up?
Why do people say “there is no evidence of X” to mean “the evidence that has been presented of X is not sufficient to make me believe that X is more likely than not to be true.”
I mean, I get that it sounds stronger to an audience that has no exposure whatsoever to the debate, but to otherwise it seems mostly to be credibility-killing.
But that's not the point. USG doesn't give a single F--- about distant Muslims, much less Chinese Muslims.
The propaganda effect is the point. And Wikipedia is an important tool for that.
Evidence has been provided specifically to the internationally accepted legal definition of genocide. [0] If that doesn't convince you, that's fine, but there is not “no evidence”.
[0] for which, see https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Please link this "evidence". The actual primary evidence.
https://eagle.bchigh.edu/features/2021/04/26/the-uyghur-geno...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/04/china/xinjiang-detective-tort...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071
https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Consent = manufactured
Have you tried?
And mods there will listen to well crafted arguments, and commonly do.