Talk:UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang

Did you know nomination

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 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Ineligible due to bold ITN appearance.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in August 2022, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report finding that serious human rights abuses in Xinjiang may constitute crimes against humanity? Source: <https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/08/1125932>
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Sand

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

• 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)

• Oppose. The phrase "crimes against humanity" only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report, and has been carefully presented as a possibility by the UN, rather than a direct allegation. Given that the action has only been presented as a possibility, it seem to be too indefinite for DYK. Carter00000 (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Hey there, Red-tailed hawk! Unfortunately, the article is ineligible due to WP:DYK#gen1d, which prohibits ITN-boldlinked articles from appearing at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 3 September 2022

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:

• United Nations Xinjiang Report, proposed by InvadingInvader
• UN Xinjiang report, proposed by Robertsky
• OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang, proposed by Brandmeister
• OHCHR Report on Xinjiang, proposed by King keudo
• 2022 UN Xinjiang report, proposed by Shibbolethink
• UN HRO Xinjiang Report, proposed by InvadingInvader
• UN Xinjiang human rights report, proposed by PolarManne
• United Nations Xinjiang human rights report, proposed by Augend
• UN Human Rights report on Xinjiang, proposed by InvadingInvader
• 2022 UN Human rights report on Xinjiang, proposed by InvadingInvader
• UN report on human rights in Xinjiang, proposed by 71.198.89.109
• OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, proposed by Moscow Mule
• OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, proposed by Moscow Mule
• UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang, proposed by Vpab15

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)

---

UN Human Rights Office assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang → United 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)

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)

• Support as the move will make the title shorter and more concise. Carter00000 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Such shortening in the absence of common short name looks ORish. I would support OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang or something along those lines per official title, but no shorter than that until consistent shorthand emerges. Brandmeister^talk 07:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed on this as well. OHCHR though is part of UN, is not UN. – robertsky (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Mostly agree on this point - I would tentatively suggest something slightly more concise such as OHCHR Report on Xinjiang at the moment King keudo (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

This so far is the proposal I'm liking the most. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Comment: As noted above, the title should be clear in attributing the report to the OHCHR specifically, rather than more generally to the entire UN. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative title: "United Nations Xinjiang Report" is too concise as it doesn't really mention what the report is about. Something like UN Xinjiang human rights report sounds better in my opinion even if it's a bit more verbose. PolarManne (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support this change on the assumption that the formal title is United Nations Xinjiang human rights report. Augend (drop a line) 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support ibid above reasons. UN Human Rights report on Xinjiang could also work InvadingInvader (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: the proposed title is not precise and is also potentially ambiguous if there is or would be other reports about Xinjiang. --Onwa (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Onwa Would you be able to support maybe another title which is concise and gets the job done more concisely than the existing current one? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's a 2018 U.N. committee who released an important report on human rights in Xinjiang; the difference between that report and this one is that this article presents the findings of the OHCHR rather than the findings of a U.N. panel. The former report did get a lot of press coverage at the time and may well be notable (it seems to have had a lasting impact inasmuch as it kicked this whole thing off), so I think that the "UN Human Rights Office assessment" or some equivalent needs to remain in the lead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  With specific reference to WP:CRITERIA, the proposed title fails to be precise based on the existence of the widely reported 2018 U.N. report. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Would you support 2022 UN Human rights report on Xinjiang? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• I believe 2022 UN human rights report on Xinjiang would be the best option to be sufficiently concise and precise, based on previous ressoning. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It's the official name of the report and could cause confusion if there are other reports on the same topic. "United Nations Xinjiang Report" is best for a disambiguation page (if there's more than one similar report) or a redirect. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Could I ask if you've read WP:OFFICIALNAME? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. The name of this thing is OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China — which currently exists as a redirect. Perhaps it should be moved there, if anywhere. (A case could be argued for omitting the "People’s Republic of China" clarifier at the end, for brevity's sake.) As many redirects as we feel are necessary could be created, but it's been a week and the press, etc. doesn't appear to have coined a WP:COMMONNAME. And referring to an OHCHR report as a "UN report" is an oversimplification. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This report shouldn’t be described as a “UN” report. We must make sure the name does not confuse readers with past or future reports. Thriley (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd suggest UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang; a shorter title than the current one but more specific than the proposal. Vpab15 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  That works! I'd back that! InvadingInvader (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would support this title as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support this alternative.(Summoned by bot) I was going to suggest a middle-ground solution like this myself, and was already trying to puzzle one out when I read through the end here. This seems a pretty good balance of accurate summary of the subject and its actual formal title. Mind you, while I think the information in this article is important and deserves to be on Wikipedia, looking at the article, I'm not sure I think the appropriate way to include the information is in a stand-alone article about the report itself: most of sources supporting this article are concerned with the facts of the genocide itself, and the report is cited indirectly or as a source therein, and is not the focus of those secondary sources. That said, if the article is going to exist, it needs a functional name, and Vpab's suggestion seems to balance the factors of the relevant policies appropriately to my eye. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Relisted to allow for discussion the multiple alternate proposals floating around. However, the original suggestion seems not viable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• closer comment - I believe there is consensus to move, but I don't know that there is consensus on what the destination should be. Can we get some better indication please? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title mirrors the name used by the UN and is accurate and descriptive. There is definitely no need to move anywhere, and this should he closed without moving.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

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.