Jump to content

Talk:UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Mandarax (talk23:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible due to bold ITN appearance.

Created by Red-tailed hawk (talk) and Thriley (talk). Nominated by Red-tailed hawk (talk) at 13:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hook is too weak and contradicts actual content of the article:

"The report concluded that human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang are serious and widespread."

What does "may have" mean? How does that compare to conclusions of similar reports for other parts of the world? The content of the article definitively refers to "serious" oppression. DYK would make more sense with a definitive verb (after four years of investigation!), not some vague implication that later it will be declared actual human rights abuses. Martindo (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. For what it’s worth, it wasn’t bolded on the main page at the time that I nominated this, though I agree that the subsequent developments render this not eligible for DYK. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved to UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang. See below consensus that the current title is not acceptable; however, see no consensus for the highest and best title for this article. So under WP:OTHEROPTIONS the closer chooses from among:

There were some good arguments made in the discussion about using the year to dab the title, using the OHCHR's initialism, and other good ideas, so this might not be the last word on the subject. Crucial to this kind of closure are the words from OTHEROPTIONS: [...] the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


UN Human Rights Office assessment of human rights concerns in XinjiangUnited Nations Xinjiang Report – I used this title for conceissness, but ultimately anything other than the current title which is shorter and is recognizable works. The mainstream media, contrasting from events like January 6 and 9/11, hasn't settled on a singular name, so we're gonna have to come up with one ourselves ultimately, but I think that Wikipedians will be able to come to a consensus on this. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on capitalisation of the word 'report'. There is no need to capitalise 'report'. There is a mix of 'report' vs 'Report' in the news headlines and articles.
Looking at news searches, UN Xinjiang report can be considered and should be concise enough. – robertsky (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Current events, WikiProject China, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject International relations have been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 08:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support UN Xinjiang report 2022 UN Xinjiang report as it is the most WP:CONCISE, workable title which is searchable and contains the right elements. We have no need to use any official names, which can simply be included as "AKA"s. (edited to reflect the need for precision and the fact that no other UN reports will likely be published this year) (15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ( ) 10:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This so far is the proposal I'm liking the most. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The new title would be more concise. Note that WP:PRECISION includes the following: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." While I understand the goal of avoiding OR (and POV) and hence the desire to use the full title, I don't see anything non-neutral about the proposed title and since it has been used by some media I don't think it's OR per se. In fact, WP:COMMONNAME specifically addresses cases such as this one: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[5] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." I think that's a pretty clear stance against using the full name in this situation. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "United Nations Xinjiang Report" is thrice as concise while being just as precise, which is nice!
On a different note, are there no other 'United Nations Xinjiang Report's that this one might be confused with? Might it make sense to add '2022 Report' or something like that into the title? Either way, it's not like the current title makes that distinction either, so that could be considered an entirely separate issue. Shortening the title is the right idea. Joe (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the UN hasn't released any formal reports on Xinjiang yet. Maybe add the year if another UN report comes out?
The only other major addition I see happening to the title is clarifying that this is the UN's HR office, so maybe UN HRO Xinjiang Report or whatever reflects this agency could work better?
Regardless, I like the rhyming ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reworked title as ambiguous. Support title like "UN report on human rights in Xinjiang". 71.198.89.109 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.