Please see my other comment.

Just so we are on the same page here, which genocide are you referring to?

Please educate me.

A primary source is a source with first hand information (e.g. a witness) or a source that does not cite other sources as their source. Disregarding the credability of NBC, how does the article I linked not fit that description?

I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don’t think I will be able to walk again. /s

I won’t read the whole thing, I don’t have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).

Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.

I’m not Tabooki2, I’m only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with “the burden of proof is on you”.

When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).

So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about “the treatment of wighurs”. I appologise for the confusion on my part.

I just took one at random and read the first few lines to make sure it was actually on topic. I have no clue about NBC News credability, I only wanted to illustrate that there were a lot of resources linked in the Wikipedia article, since BrainInABox asked for them.

Why is my link not a primary source?

The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof should be on you since you claimed https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang as a source?

Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven’t read it).

I have not stake in this, but here you go: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-uyghur-uighur-turkey-oppression-rcna97238. I took one at random that was semi-recent and look somewhat relevant.

Just look at the date of the references on Wikipedia and you will find plenty.

I was thinking about the angel and length. Perherps it’s just the perspective?

The colour could be because of shadows.

Is it just me or is there something off with her right arm?