Talk:Sayragul Sauytbay

Camp

Why was every detail of what Sauytbay says she witnessed in the camp left out of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: she gave testimony before the German parliament in November 2020 and has a book coming out in 2021. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

2018 v 2021

In 2018 "She did not personally see violence" and there is big emphasis on emotional pain, but there is no mention of rape or sexual assault of any kind. Now this 2021 article says that she "described witnessing a harrowing public gang rape". This means that either: A. She somehow was in Xinjiang between the 2018 and 2021 articles (and if so, when? and how?) B. One of the statements isn't true.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many many more possible explanations than that... A whole alphabets worth. But its not our place to speculate. What do the WP:RS say? Specifically what does that BBC article could be a reason. I don’t really understand why you’re asking a question that is answered in one of the articles you cite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC article makes no explanation of drastic change in story. It's a perfectly reasonable question why she changed her testimony from 2018 to 2021.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is she the only one in that story to have changed her testimony over time? The BBC does not treat her testimony as suspect, they treat it in line with the other survivors. Do you have any WP:RS which treat her testimony as suspect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is BBC aware that her story changed over time? That's not exactly something you tell people when you're interviewed. They haven't come out and said "We know that her testimony is contradictory, but we still beleive her" they haven't addressed it yet. The fact that many others have changed their stories so radically isn't exactly a good sign either. I would hope that BBC would treat her testimony as suspect if/when they become aware of the contradictions, but considering the huge implications of such retractions (as has happened in the case of Shin Dong-hyuk), it is in the interests of institutions reporting 2021 testimony to not address such contradictions. Frankly your lack of worry for the blantant contradictions and dependance of content on unreliable witnesses is cause for concern. If you truly beleive the things she said in 2021 are happening in Xinjiang, pushing the claims of a bunch of self-contradicting witnesses as basis of your claims isn't helping your cause.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is my cause? If you have WP:RS which cast doubt on her claims then present them, I have not seen them. I would also ask you to revert the BLP violation on your statement, we can’t call witnesses to a genocide “unreliable” on the page of one such witness without a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

One way of dealing with this is to list in her bio the various statements she has made over time. These seem to be available in reliable sources. While we can’t state the contradictions ourselves, readers should be able to draw their own conclusions. Burrobert (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, we can't do that either. Imagine, for example, that in a politician's bio we were to list, without commentary, every statement they'd made about "Subject X" over the years, where some of them may be contradictory. That is effectively WP:SYNTH insinuating that some of the statements were lies. If we are to attempt to say that her statements are contradictory we need a reliable source commenting on the fact. The Chinese authorities' claim that she fabricated her statement is already in the article, that's all we need. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be synthesis if you placed the statements next to each other. What you do is to create a chronology and place the notable statements (as determined by appearance in reliable sources) in their appropriate chronological places. Presumably you would also do that with the mythical politician. Burrobert (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you're still synthesising because you're clearly trying to point out that there's an inconsistency without any context. Exactly as with the mythical politician, there may be reasons why Statement A appears to differ from Statement B. It's a BLP, you need a source making that assertion. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I havent pointed out anything about the mythical statements A and B. Let's turn the mythical politician into a real one. On the great Jeremy Corbyn's page we have two contradictory statements placed in their correct chronological and topical locations:

• statement A: "In 2018, Conservative MP Ben Bradley posted a tweet saying that Jeremy Corbyn had passed British secrets to a spy from communist Czechoslovakia. Corbyn threatened legal action against Bradley, which resulted in Bradley deleting the tweet, apologising for his comments which he accepted were "untrue and false", and agreeing to pay Corbyn's legal costs and to donate to a charity of Corbyn's choice".
• statement B: "[Corby] said he considered suing as a result of media treatment but was guided by advice from Tony Benn, who told him, "Libel is a rich man's game, and you're not a rich man [...] Go to a libel case – even if you win the case, you'll be destroyed financially in doing so" ".

Burrobert (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Searching "Sayragul Sauytbay" time limited to 2018, there is one mention of "no violence". That is the Globe and mail. Pretty odd... maybe she didn't say it herself, and instead the journalist who wrote this piece was engaging in some careless speculation? It's certainly a possibility. Jasper0333 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, I did not see your comment until now. I have doubts about that. If she told the globe and mail in 2018 that she witnessed a gang rape, there's no way they think that constitutes not personally witnessing violence and add that line. We have no reason to doubt that she said to the globe and mail what they said she said. We also have no reason to think the post-2020 publications are mincing her words. That leaves us in a predicament. In conclusion, we have reliable source indicating that she said she didn't personally witness violence in 2018. But then later sources show a drastic change in her story that reliable sources have not attempted to explain away via a rational explanation such as a later visit to Xinjiang. Ergo, we should neither pretend the 2018 article doesn't exist nor pretend the later ones don't exist nor choose sides with one version of her story over another, and note the statements from both articles to establish a timeline to provide readers with as much information as we can. It is not a BLP violation to establish timeline of statements. For perspective, for biographies of flying aces (my cup of tea), of which often nobody is certain of exact details of all stats, an entire subsection will be devoted to estimates of their tally complete with their statements that can seem contradictory (which often things like "I'm sure about at least five...but only saw two crash" and "historian so-and-so credits them with X number of shootdowns, while historians A and B indicate they think their tally is Y to Z shootdowns). Such formatting of information helps give the reader context and an additional understanding of the situation from a variety of perspectives, and helps avoid picking sides.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeating that you think this puts us in a predicament isn’t going to eventually make it true. You either need to provide sources which say we have a real contradiction here or drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Also just a note on "It is not a BLP violation to establish timeline of statements.” If establishing the timeline is meant to make a point that none of the sources for the individual statements make (for instance to highlight or emphasize a contradiction that isn’t covered by the sources as such) then thats a synthesis issue and would actually be a BLP violation as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why should we even assume that the 2018 statements are incorrect? "Drop the stick" is a mere demand for censorship of information from a reliable source. We have no good reason to decide to only cover 2020's statements. Why not just cover only 2010's claims? The fact that "approved" sources don't bring up the contraction yet doesn't suddenly make an RS that covers an original statement that contradicts current ones suddenly unreliable. I see a concerted effort to keep all information about the 2018 statements swept under the rug and avoid addressing the issue entirely.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You can’t sweep under the rug what doesn't exist, I’ve asked repeatedly for a WP:RS which supports your original research... Do you have any? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The article from the Globe and Mail exists. I linked to it already. There is no good reason to NOT mention it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What in particular do you want to mention? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Brief, very short, direct quotes from the two articles incorporated in a paragraph. No adjectives saying they are contradictory or anything like that. Something like "In 2018 she said [in an interview with the Globe and Mail?] that she did not personally see violence, but did see hunger and that there was no meat in the institution/camp/facility; subsequently, she said (yadayadayada short summarization of 2021 claims or whatever else she says in the future)"--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Read Black Kite’s explanation above, what you’re proposing is not within what we can do BLP/synthesis wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Very poorly sourced article

This article is incredibly poorly written and sourced. A true abuse of sources, all of which can be traced to her singular account of her experience as the only source for information.

Given that such sources are not typically accepted, and that there is no way to examine the veracity of her claims, I think the article should be re-written to either exempt the narrative entirely or to more accurately describe the narrative as not objective or documented, but her self reported story. Transvex (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)