User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Not sure if you remember...

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Several years ago, I edited here under the username Brambleberry of RiverClan, and we worked on some baseball articles together. Long story short, in the past 7 years, I dropped out of editing because my life got busy, I grew up (quite literally, as two years ago I had a mysterious growth spurt), moved back to Philly for college, finally got an ADHD diagnosis, adopted a cat, got bored in quarantine, decided to get back into editing, had no way of recovering the old account because there wasn't an email tied to it, and decided to start fresh.

Most of my GAs so far have been music or TV-oriented, and I've also been focusing on the Flyers (my other favorite team, I'm cheating on the Phils a bit), but I'm also hoping to get back into baseball articles! Tyler Skaggs just got promoted, and I've been doing some pecking around J. T. Realmuto – something something catcher bias on my end. I was finally unbanned from getting his jersey, as I have a curse where any Phillie I get merch for ends up getting traded or retiring. No way we were risking that one while he was a free agent! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, Kncny11. Of course I remember working together under your former account! I just got back to Wikipedia after a ~5 year break myself ... which was also mostly just due to real life having other things going on. On behalf of Phillies fans everywhere, thanks for restraining yourself from getting a Realmuto jersey ... as the proud owner of Hunter Pence, Cliff Lee, and Shane Victorino shirts, I can relate lol. I have a sneaking good feeling about this season, which is uncharacteristic of both me and of Philadelphia sports fans, I suppose. Anyway, hope to work together a bit more. I'm thinking of turning to Andrew Knapp as my next project, so perhaps we'll soon have the catching department well sorted! Go Phightins! 10:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond

Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia

Obituary: Yoninah

From the editor: What else can we say?

Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Go Phightins.. About a month ago, you granted me autopatrolled rights upon my request. But it was pulled off temporarily for few weeks by another admin when I applied for NPP rights. The reason was my lack of experience at AFC.[1]. So I participated more in AFC reviewing and was granted the NPP right by the same admin yesterday. You can see that the admin also told me that I can apply for getting the autopatrolled rights back after getting experience at AFC . But I had totally forgot that my autopatrolled rights has been temporarily pulled off. Now the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election is just a few days and lot of politicians will become notable by virtue WP:NPOL when they become a member of legislative body for the first time, if they win. So I am currently planning to create articles for them. My earlier request for this right took almost a month to get a response from someone. That time also,I came to you directly and you reviewed it. I hope for a positive response from you. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Any thoughts / objections here? Go Phightins! 17:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I get a link to my previous application so that Rosguill, as well as you can have an idea of how I was eligible back then? Is there any archives? Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No objections at this point, as I think that Kichu has demonstrated that they know what they're doing at AfC. Now that they have NPP rights, they can also mark their AfC requests as unreviewed if they want a second opinion on them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Done Go Phightins! 18:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. I will do my best for this project. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Zach Eflin

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zach Eflin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Zach Eflin was once traded twice in the course of 24 hours? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zach Eflin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zach Eflin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A pitcher who can hit?!

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Okay. I'm sure that I'm late to the party, but I'm officially sold on Zack Wheeler. (He's also making a pretty good case for why the National League shouldn't adopt the designated hitter rule!) I'm chipping away at Realmuto right now, and then he might be my next target. I worked a bit on Alec Bohm, but was having trouble finding some information on his minor-league career. Or maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 21:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that cool? Tied for the team lead in RBIs! Let's see if he can't finish this one out himself. I worked on Andrew Knapp earlier today and went ahead and put it up for GA. Still feels to me like it's missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on what that might be. I'll have a look around on Bohm if I think of it sometime this week. I'm thinking about digging into Rhys Hoskins next. We'll see. Enjoy the game tomorrow! Go Phightins! 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: Looked like a gorgeous day at the ballpark. I have to say, I'm feeling pretty good about this season (not to mention having chosen Eflin and Knapp as the first two articles to spruce up at its start!). Happy Easter! Go Phightins! 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy Easter! It was fantastic out there (and I'm glad I got to see JT in the last few innings, since this is the first game I've attended since repping his jersey). I hoped to get at least one picture of the signs that said to mask up, but I'll be back in a month for a family commencement outing. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Knapp factoid

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Yo! I recently bought Todd Zolecki's Roy Halladay biography (I think Doc might be my first FA bid, eventually), and while I was scouring for info, I found this article, about how Knapp was originally assigned No. 34 and switched back to No. 15 after Halladay died. I haven't really dug through to see if I can pinpoint that "something missing" that you mentioned, but if you want to throw that tidbit in, be my guest! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a great book. Read it over the summer. And that's a nice tidbit. Very DYK-able when the time comes. I'll add later or feel free if you like. Go Phightins! 20:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: Remember the days of "four aces"? I'm not saying we have four aces, but I'm not not saying it either. Matt Moore looks great so far. Go Phightins! 23:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Two great innings, at least, though! Go Phightins! 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew Knapp

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew Knapp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy hell!!

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was splitting my attention between the Flyers and Phillies the past two days (caught the eighth inning blowout on Monday and wisely decided not to see the end yesterday). Today's game is the only thing on, and I'm already liking it much, much more. What was I saying earlier about pitchers who, if you get it in the right spot, you can just rip one out of the park? Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Rhys's swing is a thing of beauty. So is Bohm's. I made the mistake of staying up for last night's game. Oh well. Let's hope we can hang on to this one. Go Phightins! 21:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew Knapp

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Andrew Knapp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew Knapp for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick thing re: Move Discussion Close

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Go Phightins!

Thank you for closing the recent move discussion at the talk page of Uyghur genocide. Your lengthy closing comment was very thorough and I appreciate the time that you put into it. I'm writing to request a few quick tweaks and to seek clarification on one point as I try to condense the outcome of the close into the FAQ section. I realize some of the quick tweaks may come off as nitpick-y, though because the topic is highly controversial I wanted to ask you about them for posterity sake.

Quick tweaks/clarification questions:

I think there's a typo when you wrote ...but largely do not proffer evidence that a cultural genocide is. Was it supposed to say "offer" instead of "proffer"?
I think there's a mistaken reference in your writing that the conversation is somewhat bifurcated between consideration of WP:CONFIRMED and WP:CRITERIA. I don't think user permissions (WP:CONFIRMED) came up in the discussion. Did you mean to reference WP:COMMONNAME?
You stated that I find that there is an affirmative consensus against moving this page to “Uyghur cultural genocide” and an affirmative consensus, albeit a weaker one, that “Uyghur genocide” is the appropriate name. The top of the close says that the discussion concluded with No consensus to move. Weak affirmative consensus to keep where it is. Within the context of WP:THREEOUTCOMES, is this a close of no consensus or a close of consensus to not move? The "affirmative consensus" parts lead me to interpret your close as consensus not to move, but I just wanted to make sure before I note it atop the talk page.

Once again, thank you so much for your detailed close and for sifting through that extended discussion to find where consensus is. I know that it is a controversial topic and I appreciate your work to help the page move forward productively. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10: Thanks for this message. First, yes, that is an error where it should be WP:COMMONNAME not WP:CONFIRMED. Not sure how that got in my head, but I just corrected it. Proffer or offer would work ... I think they mean roughly the same thing. As for the last point, what I was trying to get across is two-fold: There is certainly no consensus to move to "Uyghur cultural genocide." To me, that did not seem like a close call. I also believe there is a consensus not to move to anything else at this time, but that did seem like a closer call, and I wanted to try to get that across too. In the context of THREEOUTCOMES, I think it is fair to say there was a consensus not to move in an FAQ section just for clarity/brevity's sake, but I figured those who commented deserved a little bit more explanation. Thanks for taking this on. Go Phightins! 15:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Go Phightins!: I have now learned that "proffer" is a word an not a typo. My apologies on that point. Thank you for a quick response; I will update the FAQ accordingly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your close made no attempt to address the fact that reliable sources do not say that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. This was amply demonstrated throughout the RfC, with various editors listing reliable sources, and showing that they consistently attribute the allegations of genocide to the specific parties making those allegations. The article's title and lede make a definitive statement, in Wikivoice, that a genocide is occurring, when reliable sources simply do not support this statement. This is an extremely serious accusation for Wikipedia to make (I would say that it's the most serious accusation Wikipedia can make), and it should only be made with very strong reliable sourcing. But as it stands, there's no reliable sourcing for the claim. Yet this claim is now locked in for a year.

Closes are supposed to take into account the strength of the arguments made, and in this case, supporters of the current name failed to make any case that reliable sources support the claim that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. You cited WP:COMMONNAME, yet supporters of the current name also failed to show any evidence (such as an analysis of numbers of news articles or search engine hits) that "Uyghur genocide" actually is the common name for human rights issues in Xinjiang. The arguments in favor of the name "Uyghur genocide" were largely assertions that it is the common name (without evidence to support this claim), assertions that reliable sources support the claim that there is a genocide (without providing any reliable sources that actually support it), and personal opinions about how one should interpret the Genocide Convention (personal opinions of editors on this subject being obviously irrelevant to determining weight).

If we were transported back to late 2002 or early 2003, I'm convinced that Wikipedia editors would write an article with the title Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, beginning with the line, "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction are undeclared chemical, biological and nuclear weapons possessed by the Iraqi regime." This would be justified by pointing to copious reliable sources that report on allegations of Iraqi WMD. Editors who pointed out that these reliable sources were merely reporting on allegations would be ignored, or pointed towards WP:WEASEL and WP:COMMONNAME. That's precisely the situation we're in now, and reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thucydides411: Thanks for reaching out. The way I see it, this RfC asked a closer two questions:

Is there a consensus to move the article from Uyghur genocide to Uyghur cultural genocide?
If not, is there an affirmative consensus that Uyghur genocide is the correct name?

On the first question, I really fail to see how anyone could conclude from that discussion there was a consensus to call it a "cultural genocide" but not a "genocide." Of those who opposed the current name, only a few even made that case, and certainly their arguments per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA were no stronger (and I would suggest, in fact quite a bit weaker) than those supporting the current name. On the second question, whether there was an affirmative consensus that the current name is the correct name, I agree that this was a closer call. But to say that there was no presentation of reliable sources supporting this as the common name (i.e. the WP:COMMONNAME argument) or sources supporting the idea that there is, in fact, a genocide (i.e. the WP:CRITERIA argument) is just not true. Necessarily, for something like a genocide—a socially constructed phenomenon with sometimes competing definitions—conversation in reliable sources is going to focus on who has called it that and why. Accordingly, I could not discount the sources pointing to US government assessments, international experts' assessments, etc. that were reported as "declaring," "calling," "accusing," etc. this of being a genocide; governments/experts calling something a genocide is ultimately how we assess whether there is a genocide. Moreover, as several editors pointed out in the discussion, news outlets are also calling it a genocide and reporting on characteristics that would, indeed, constitute genocidal activity. It is possible, based on those sources, that someone could have put forth the case that "Uyghur demographic genocide" might be a more specific name that has quite a bit of use in reliable sources, but no one did and I can't create a consensus that isn't there ... that would be super voting. The final question, after all of this, was whether there is a consensus in a separate thread to have a moratorium, and my reading of that is that there is. Even editors who supported such a moratorium, though, left the door open to new evidence being dispositive sooner than a year from now. Ultimately, I can only proceed based on the strength and relative support o the arguments provided and to ensure that any close reflects Wikipedia's policies/processes in general. I think I did that here. You're welcome to take this close to a review if you like, though. Other administrators'/experienced editors' eyes are certainly welcome. All the best, Go Phightins! 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Accordingly, I could not discount the sources pointing to US government assessments, international experts' assessments, etc. that were reported as "declaring," "calling," "accusing," etc. this of being a genocide; governments/experts calling something a genocide is ultimately how we assess whether there is a genocide. This is so insanely wrongheaded, it's hard to know where to begin. You're arguing that if the US government accuses a geopolitical rival of crimes against humanity, that's enough to put the accusation in Wikivoice. If we were back in 2002-2003, your rationale would lead us to declare, in Wikivoice, that Iraq had a concealed Weapons of Mass Destruction program. It would have been trivial to assemble a mountain of reliable sources reporting on accusations made by the US government, DC think tanks, Iraqi exile groups in DC, etc. Making the leap from articles that describe accusations to declaring those accusations to be true is original research.

But to say that there was no presentation of reliable sources supporting this as the common name (i.e. the WP:COMMONNAME argument) or sources supporting the idea that there is, in fact, a genocide (i.e. the WP:CRITERIA argument) is just not true. Where was the analysis supporting the WP:COMMONNAME argument? I've gone through the responses, and I haven't seen any attempt at a systematic analysis (just to be clear: showing that one or another article quotes the term is not a systematic analysis). What are the reliable sources that state there is a genocide? I don't see any listed in the RfC responses. Much the opposite, reliable source after reliable source brought up in the RfC specifically attributes the accusations of "genocide" to the specific parties making those accusations.

Ultimately, I can only proceed based on the strength and relative support o the arguments provided: Indeed, but as I've pointed out, the participants in the RfC established convincingly that reliable sources do not claim that there is a "Uyghur genocide", and no attempt was made in the RfC to actually back up the claim that "Uyghur genocide" is a WP:COMMONNAME. The article puts an extremely serious allegation in Wikivoice, and this shouldn't be done so lightly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I don't think anyone is taking it lightly. Based on your argument, though, I am not sure a) what evidence you would take as sufficient to establish a genocide (as it would actually be original research for us to do anything more than assess what governments, NGOs, researchers, etc. have said) or b) how your line of reasoning would also get us to call it a "cultural genocide," which is what this requested move suggested. As I said, take it to AN or a move review if you like, but relitigating this conversation here is not doing either of us any good. Go Phightins! 14:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of me personally being convinced that there is or is not a genocide. It's a matter of what reliable sources say, and as was amply demonstrated in the RfC, reliable sources do not say that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. Reliable sources have reported on allegations made by the US government and various think tanks. Reliable sources have also reported on the fact that the US State Department's legal advisors determined that the evidence does not support the charge of "genocide", and that 64 UN member states have rejected the accusations made by the US. We can cover the accusations, the counter-claims, etc., but we can't put something in Wikivoice that reliable sources do not treat as a fact. To your point (b), a reasonable close would have made the following points:

The current title is not supported by reliable sources, and is an extreme violation of NPOV. There has also been no evidence put forward that it is the COMMONNAME.
No strong case has been made for "Uyghur cultural genocide" either.
This RfC should be closed with no consensus, but a neutral name should be found for the article. Some editors have put forward alternatives, such as "Human rights in Xinjiang".

Instead, the close locks in an extreme viewpoint that's simply unsupported by reliable sources. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I think Wikipedia should take WP:V and WP:NPOV into account before accusing countries of committing genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, The close doesn't "lock in" anything. It says that the current consensus it is what it is and that, should new information come to light, it can be revisited. I get that you disagree both with what a preponderance of editors said in the discussion and with how I read and weighed the various competing arguments. That's fine. For the third time, I'll note that you're welcome to start a discussion in the appropriate venues to review my decision; if others see it your way, I have no objection to overturning the close. But having re-read the discussion with fresh eyes a second time today, I would have closed it the same way on the three questions presented. Go Phightins! 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain where in the RfC it was shown that reliable sources generally state that there is a genocide, and where in the RfC it was demonstrated that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name for human rights issues in Xinjiang? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Analysis from, among others, Mikehawk10 points to "Uyghur genocide" as being the most common name in present coverage. Jancarcu, Oranjelo100, and Morgengave also provided arguments in that direction. In addition to sources in the thread, chief among them the think tank report signed by something like 50 international law experts who stated that it was a genocide, Politico, for example, called it the Uyghur genocide earlier this week as have the Washington Post editorial board. All of that led me to conclude that there is at least a straight-faced argument that "Uyghur genocide" is the common name.

From there, as I have stated, the discussion also rests on our general naming criteria, which also was a matter of significant discussion in the thread. For example, Harland1, who originally made an argument about COMMONNAME, suggested that a recent piece in The New Yorker tipped the balance such that even if it was not the common name, it was the appropriate name per WP:CRITERIA. The five criteria there are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency, and in the discussion, I saw no arguments that undermined "Uyghur genocide" on any of those grounds.

Obviously, there has been extensive discussion on that talk page for a long time on this issue. Obviously, many editors have different views. My reading of the consensus in the discussion—followed by cross-checking that with the relevant content policies to ensure that nothing compelled me to close with a super vote—led me where it did. I do not think it is very productive to continue this discussion here. If you want to challenge the close, please do. If you want to vent at me, that's fine too. But I am not sure what else I can say ... clearly we have different views on what transpired in this requested move discussion. That's okay. If there's another administrator or editor who was uninvolved you would like to encourage to weigh in outside of the formal review processes, that's fine too. I appreciate that this was a messy conversation and that some arguments in it were spurious. I did the best I could to assess the relative strength of the arguments in conjunction with the relative policies, and this is where I landed. Go Phightins! 22:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 points to "Uyghur genocide" as being the most common name in present coverage: Where did they show that? They searched for (and found) articles that describe accusations of "genocide", but that does not in any way establish that this is the common name. Where is the comparison of "Uyghur genocide" with alternative terms, such as "Human rights" and "Xinjiang"? There are many different terms used to describe what's going on in Xinjiang: a recent CNN headline describes it as "alleged abuse of Uyghurs in Xinjiang", for example. Simply citing articles that discuss the US government's allegations does not demonstrate that "Uyghur genocide" is the term commonly used to refer to human rights issues in Xinjiang. The analysis you're saying was done in the RfC was simply never carried out. It is common in such discussions of WP:COMMONNAME to show search results for various terms - for example, using LexisNexis. Nobody did anything like that. They simply typed "Uyghur genocide" into a search engine and showed that there are articles that discuss the US government's allegations.

If we're judging reliable sources, and whether the US government's allegations about China can be put in Wikivoice, let me draw your attention to another famous Washington Post editorial, in an analogous situation:

Irrefutable: AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. -Washington Post editorial board, 6 February 2003

The Washington Post editorial board can be cited for its opinion. It would have been perfectly appropriate, in February 2003, to include in an article about the inspections in Iraq the Washington Post editorial board's opinion that Iraq certainly had WMD. We would have to attribute the Washington Post editorial board's opinion in-line, and avoid putting it in Wikivoice, and we would also have to prominently include conflicting opinions, including the denials by the Iraqi government. After all, the Iraqi government turned out to be telling the truth, and the Washington Post editorial board turned out to be just as wrong as they were confident.

I asked you what reliable sources justify putting the claim that there is a "Uyghur genocide" in Wikivoice, and where those sources were presented in the RfC. You've pointed me to several opinion pieces. The closest you've come to an RS is a single mention in a newsletter by Politico. In the RfC, a number of editors listed reliable sources, and those sources consistently treated the claim of a "Uyghur genocide" as an allegation. What are you seeing in those lists of reliable sources that I'm not seeing? Where in the RfC do you see the reliable sources that support putting the extreme claim of a "Uyghur genocide" in Wikivoice?

I'm pressing you on this because it's an extremely serious issue. Wikipedia is now alleging, in its own authoritative voice, that the world's largest country is carrying out a genocide. Your decision does not appear to be backed by reliable sources, and in fact puts an extremely politically charged (and internationally, heavily contested) accusation made by the US government into Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I pulled the few articles together that I sent you on the backs of searching articles from the last week that I found in a spot check after assessing the articles presented by Mikehawk10 in order to satisfy myself that there was sufficient use in reliable sources that the discussion's consensus that Uyghur cultural genocide was not the common name and that Uyghur genocide is closer was sufficiently legitimate that I didn't need to exercise a supervote in the close. The pieces I presented, to be clear, were in answer to your question about the common name, not, as you insinuate above, to establish the "actual presence" of a genocide.

As I have said, repeatedly, though, the COMMONNAME arguments were not dispositive on their own. The analysis that Mikehawk10 and others conducted to walk through how reliable sources are describing the specific actions and relating that to potential names for the article (as is the procedure of WP:CRITERIA) mattered too, and my assessment was that there were not sufficient refutations of that to do something else. The New Yorker article, the report by the think tank that rests on the authority not of that institution as much as the individual scholars who signed on, the conclusions of the United States government, the Foreign Affairs article MarkH21 linked to, and the UK report linked to by Orajelo100 report all provide evidence supporting using the term "genocide" to describe what is happening and were used as support for keeping the name as is.

Ultimately, I was not a participant in this discussion; that wasn't my job. My job was to assess the strength and weight of the arguments, make sure that they were sufficiently anchored in reality based on some cursory research of my own so as not to plainly violate policy and necessitate a supervote, and close the discussion with as clear a statement of how I read the consensus as I can. Had I been a participant in the discussion, I honestly can't say how I would have !voted, but that wasn't my role here. Go Phightins! 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the first thing to judge is whether or not a given name is the most commonly used name for a subject. Non-neutral names cannot be used unless they are unambiguously demonstrated to be the name that's overwhelmingly used for a subject ("Boston Massacre" is an example of a non-neutral name that falls into this exception). It was only shown in the RfC that some articles that describe allegations by the US government use the term. There was no analysis of the frequency of use of this term vs. other terms. In the absence of such an analysis, WP:POVTITLE precludes the use of a non-neutral title like "Uyghur genocide".

You further argue that the US and UK governments and two reports by obscure DC think tanks are sufficient reliable sources to claim, in Wikivoice, that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. First of all, Iraqi WMD once again applies. These two countries have a history of making false claims of this nature. Not only that, but as was discussed in the RfC, 64 UN member states have rejected the US government's allegations of genocide in Xinjiang. In the RfC, it was pointed out that the US State Department's own legal advisors determined that the evidence did not support the claim of genocide, but that the political leadership of the State Department went ahead and accused China of genocide anyways: [2]. In other words, we're putting an accusation in Wikivoice that even the US State Department's own lawyers have rejected.

I agree that you shouldn't cast a supervote, but you should look through the RfC and evaluate the arguments. There was no analysis done to even attempt to show that "Uyghur genocide" is the most common name - all that was shown is that you can find the term if you search for it. And it was clearly demonstrated that reliable sources refer to "Uyghur genocide" as an allegation, rather than a fact.

I wouldn't care about an RfC close on a move decision if it were about something trivial. But this decision has put the most extreme accusation that one can possibly make into Wikivoice, and that gravely undermines the credibility of the project. We have a duty to be cautious here, and to strictly abide by policies like WP:POVTITLE and WP:V. The ease with which they've been brushed off in such an important case is really alarming. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, The original consensus for the current name was established here. There is further analysis of the COMMONNAME argument there, but again, it was not the only consideration. Broadly, I see no reason to conclude that discussion was deficient, nor that this one was.

This RfC asked whether we should change the name back to "cultural genocide." There was clearly a consensus not to do that, forged largely in a discussion about "cultural genocide" vs. "genocide." Had other editors pushed for alternate names, that could have been assessed too, but the only two that came up was Sinicization in Xinjiang, which was fairly roundly and immediately rejected, as well as "Alleged Uyghur genocide," which had almost no support.

The thread then further asked whether to impose a moratorium on further move requests given that there have been four in the last 12 months. I read there to be a consensus to do that too.

We're clearly talking in circles here. I understand your concerns. I share your concern that we ought not take lightly calling something a genocide. I simply disagree that, based on this thread, which I closed, in conjunction with the prior ones, which informed but did not materially alter the "four corners analysis" in this thread, did take it lightly. If you would like to start a move review, please do. Otherwise, I really don't know what else I can tell you or what you would like me to do. Go Phightins! 16:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm completely new to this issue but I came across the issue at WP:ITN/C, and I agree with Thucydides411 that cementing a problematic title by declaring a moratorium of one year is not the right way forward. Moratoria are useful when there's a clear consensus that the current title is the correct one, but you acknowledge that isn't the case - in fact, when considering policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, rather than a raw vote count, it would probably be correct to assess that there was consensus in the discussion that the current title is not correct. The argument being that calling it a genocide in Wikivoice simply doesn't match the prevailing nomenclature in reliable sources. I take the point that a suitable title was not proposed, but that means we should redouble our efforts to find one. Uses x proposed a title along the lines of "Persecution of...", which wasn't proposed in the RM and certainly seems to be worth exploring. Please could you lift the moratorium so that we can try to resolve this issue properly? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, Thanks for your message. Acknowledging that I have seen it and will respond today, hopefully soon, but am heading out at the moment and don't have time to respond as thoughtfully as I'd like. Go Phightins! 11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Go Phightins. No hurry, and wishing you a good day. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru: Ultimately, if the outcome of the moratorium discussion is in question, I think the best thing to do is probably to take it to WP:AN. As you can see above, I've shared how I assessed the discussion and don't really think there's much I can add. If the community sees it differently, of course I'm happy to defer. I think it is key to focus first on the merits/consensus around the moratorium issue rather than the name itself; it's when those two discussions have bled into each other that it has become harder to tease out consensus. All the best, Go Phightins! 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused by the above point. Did you impose a moratorium because you thought it was a good idea, or just because some of the participants said they supported one? There's an essay at WP:MORATORIUM which gives a vague outline of how it should work, and the key point there is that "administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed..." but that "moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia". Moratoria are not decided by consensus of the participants in the discussion, because then you just end up with a situation where everyone opposing the move will support a moratorium, just because they want to retain their favoured version. It should be imposed if and only if the closing admin feels ongoing discussion is fruitless. I contend that is not the case here, particularly given that we have an explicit new proposal that we could be debating. Bottom line is, if you yourself feel that a moratorium is warranted, then so be it. But if you're just basing it on what was said in the discussion, then that's incorrect. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru: I treated this section as a parallel RFC, which I saw as a presumptively valid discussion to have in the context of the requested move given the frequency of times with which that page has been moved. I am not aware of any policies that govern such moratoria other than our general procedures of using consensus. That essay suggests that "based on sentiments expressed" in the discussion, such a moratorium can be imposed. I think the best course to proceed here to revisit any aspect of the close is probably more eyes from uninvolved admins. I am agnostic on the merits of anything therein—I viewed my job merely as consensus reading/summarizing—so it strikes me that unilaterally undoing anything would breach that consensus unless the community concludes I wrongly assessed it in the first instance. Go Phightins! 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the explanation. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in February, specifically for your comments at the GAN. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball.
Message added 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)