User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2022/February

NPA
Hi TFD, I interpret "If anyone wants to know what you think, they can just pick up a free copy of Epoch Times." as a personal attack and I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind cutting out that patently offensive part of your comment? Oh, you also forgot to sign your comment. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Anyone coming to vote here would have to wade through walls of text explaining your views. If anyone wants to know what you think, they can just pick up a free copy of Epoch Times." and "Anyone coming to vote here would have to wade through walls of text explaining your views. It's not as if these views are unfamiliar to editors familiar with the topic. Lots of sources such as the Epoch Times give them extensive coverage." aren't substantially different, thats still a personal attack (its actually more personal than the first version). Its especially worrying because as I believe you are aware I've contributed extensively to the FG space and editors familiar with those contributions will recognize that there isn't much in common between my views and FG. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I don't see it as an NPA, but have changed the phrasing. My point is that you are arguing whether or not there is a genocide, instead of whether or not the article can state that as a fact.

Mainstream reliable sources say something like: "China has been accused of committing crimes against humanity and possibly genocide against the Uyghur population," (BBC 21 June 2021)

Partisan news sources such as the Epoch times are more likely to state as a fact that it is a genocide. Your opinion is that the Wikipedia article should follow the usage in these types of sources, rather than mainstream media.

You imply that anyone who thinks the article should follow mainstream media denies the Uyhur genocide, which is a clear reference to Holocaust denial. In fact you don't know what these editors think, unless they tell you. The issue is not what editors think, but that they ensure statements are reliably sourced.

Your argument about the meaning of genocide is tendentious. When ordinary people see or use the term, they think it means mass killings, which actually happens in most genocides. If a term can easily be misunderstood, WP:JARGON requires us to explain what it means. But we don't need a guideline for that. Common sense tells us that articles should not leave readers with misleading information.

It is not helpful to post extended arguments in the survey section. That's what the discussion section is for. Extensive discussion in the survey makes it more difficult for outside editors to respond, when the purpose of an RfC is to attract outside editors.

TFD (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Epoch Times isn't just partisan, they're a fringe deprecated source which publishes conspiracy theories. Thats why the comparison is offensive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you point to any reliable sources that routinely refer to it as a genocide, instead of phrasing it the way the BBC does? I realize you are in disagreement with the Epoch Times over some issues. TFD (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)