stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia: Mover revisión


La revisión de movimientos es un proceso para discutir y evaluar formalmente un cierre impugnado de las discusiones de movimiento de una página de Wikipedia, incluidos los movimientos solicitados (RM), las categorías para las discusiones de discusión (CfD) y las redirecciones para las discusiones de discusión (RfD), para determinar si el cierre fue razonable. , o si era incompatible con el espíritu y la intención de las prácticas, políticas o directrices comunes de Wikipedia.

Antes de enviar una revisión del cierre de un movimiento de página, intente resolver cualquier problema en la página de discusión del cerrador. Vea el paso uno a continuación.

Mientras se revisa el cierre de la página, cualquier editor involucrado es libre de revertir cualquier movimiento no discutido de una página nominada sin que esas acciones se consideren una violación de Wikipedia: No wheel warring .

¿Qué no es este proceso?

Atajo
  • WP: MRNNO

Este proceso de revisión debe centrarse en la discusión de la mudanza y los resultados posteriores de la discusión de la mudanza, no en la persona que cerró la discusión. Si tiene dudas sobre un cerrador, consulte con él o publíquelo en Wikipedia: Tablón de anuncios de administradores/Incidentes . Las solicitudes de revisión de traslado que difamen o ataquen de otro modo a otros editores pueden cerrarse rápidamente.

No solicite una revisión de movimiento si alguien ha movido una página con audacia y usted no está de acuerdo. En su lugar, intente discutirlo con el editor y, si el asunto continúa sin resolverse, inicie una discusión formal de WP:RM en la página de discusión del artículo.

No solicite una revisión de movimiento simplemente porque no está de acuerdo con el resultado de una discusión sobre movimiento de página. Si bien los comentarios en la discusión de la movida pueden discutirse para evaluar el consenso aproximado de un cierre, este no es un foro para volver a discutir una discusión cerrada.

Los desacuerdos con Wikipedia: movimientos solicitados/instrucciones de cierre (WP:RMCI), WP: títulos de artículos , el Manual de estilo , una convención de nomenclatura o la norma de consenso de la comunidad deben plantearse en la página de discusión correspondiente.

Los CFD [1] y los RfD solo pueden revisarse aquí si la discusión relevante se limitó en alcance al cambio de nombre; Los CfD o RfD [2] que implican eliminación deben revisarse en Wikipedia: revisión de eliminación .

Instrucciones

Iniciar revisiones de movimientos

Atajo
  • WP: IMR

Los editores que deseen iniciar una revisión de movimiento deben seguir los pasos que se enumeran a continuación. En el parámetro de motivo, los editores deben limitar sus solicitudes a uno o ambos de los siguientes motivos:

Los editores que inicien una discusión sobre revisión de movimientos deben estar familiarizados con las instrucciones de cierre proporcionadas en WP:RMCI .

Pasos para publicar una nueva solicitud de revisión

Comentar en una revisión de movimiento

En general, los comentaristas deben anteponer a sus comentarios Respaldar o Anular (indicando opcionalmente un cierre alternativo) seguido de su razonamiento. En general, la justificación debe ser un análisis de si el cerrador siguió correctamente Wikipedia: movimientos solicitados/instrucciones de cierre , si estuvo dentro de la discreción del cerrador y si interpretó razonablemente el consenso en la discusión, teniendo en cuenta el espíritu de la política, el precedente y el objetivo del proyecto de Wikipedia. . Los comentaristas deben estar familiarizados con WP:RMCI , que establece normas comunitarias para cerrar las discusiones sobre el movimiento de páginas.

Si el cierre se considera prematuro debido a una discusión en curso o si no se consideró información importante y relevante durante la discusión, los comentaristas deben sugerir Relist seguido de su justificación.

Los comentaristas deben identificar si estuvieron o no involucrados en la discusión sobre RM que se está revisando.

El cerrador del movimiento de página en discusión debería sentirse libre de proporcionar una justificación adicional de por qué cerraron el RM de la manera en que lo hicieron y por qué creen que el cierre siguió el espíritu y la intención del WP:RMCI .

Recuerde que la revisión de movimiento no es una oportunidad para repetir, ampliar u ofrecer primero su opinión sobre el título adecuado de la página en cuestión; la revisión de movimiento no es una repetición de la discusión de WP:RM , sino que es una oportunidad para corregir errores en el proceso de cierre (en ausencia de nueva información significativa). Por lo tanto, la acción especificada debe ser el análisis del editor sobre si el cierre de la discusión fue razonable o no razonable según el debate y las políticas y pautas aplicables. Proporcionar evidencia como páginas vistas, ghits, ngrams, cuestionar las convenciones de abastecimiento y nomenclatura, etc. para defender una elección de título específica no está dentro del alcance de una revisión de movimiento. La evidencia debe limitarse a demostrar que el cerrador de RM siguió o no el espíritu y la intención del WP:RMCI al cerrar la discusión sobre el movimiento de página.

Revisiones finales

Una página nominada debe permanecer en revisión durante al menos siete días. Después de siete días, un editor no involucrado determinará si existe consenso para respaldar el cierre o revocarlo. Si ese consenso es revertir el cierre , el cerrador de MRV debe tomar las acciones apropiadas para revertir cualquier cambio de título resultante del cierre de RM. Si el consenso fue volver a incluir la página en la lista , la página debería volver a aparecer en Wikipedia:Movimientos solicitados , Wikipedia:Categorías para discusión o Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión . Si el consenso es Respaldar Cerrar , no se requiere ninguna acción adicional en el título del artículo. Si el cerrador de MRV descubre que no hay consenso en la revisión del movimiento, en la mayoría de los casos esto tiene el mismo efecto que Respaldar el cierre y no se requiere ninguna acción en el título del artículo. Sin embargo, en algunos casos, puede ser más apropiado tratar una conclusión de "falta de consenso" como equivalente a una "nueva lista"; Los cerradores de MRV pueden usar su discreción para determinar qué resultado es más apropiado.

Utilice {{ subst:move review top }} y {{ subst:move review bottom }} para cerrar dichas discusiones.

Además, agregue un resultado a la plantilla en la página de discusión donde tuvo lugar la discusión original, por ejemplo .{{move review talk}}{{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}

Opciones típicas de decisión de revisión de mudanzas

El siguiente conjunto de opciones representa los resultados típicos de una decisión de revisión de movimiento, aunque las discusiones complejas sobre el movimiento de páginas que involucran múltiples cambios de título pueden requerir una combinación de estas opciones basadas en los detalles específicos de las discusiones de RM y MRV.

 

Notas

  1. ^ Aquellos que implican cambios de nombre ( Plantilla: Cfr ), para todos los demás tipos de CFD, utilice la revisión de eliminación .
  2. ^ Generalmente para aquellos que no implican ninguna eliminación propuesta o sugerida, donde solo se discute el objetivo de la redirección o si la redirección debe ser una página de desambiguación, para otros (incluso aquellos que fueron reorientados donde se propuso o consideró la eliminación) use la eliminación revisar.

Discusiones activas

2024 agosto

Liverpool 1 (serie de televisión)(cerrado)


2024 julio

masacre de srebrenica(cerrado)

genocidio en gaza

Genocidio en Gaza ( charla |editar |historial |registros |enlaces| archivo |ver ) ( RM ) (Discusión con más cercano) y (Discusión posterior a la mudanza)

El 3 de mayo de 2024 se solicitó un cambio de "Acusaciones de genocidio en el ataque israelí a Gaza de 2023" y se trasladó a "genocidio de Gaza". Había tres opciones disponibles para votar por el nuevo título del artículo: "Cuestión de genocidio en Gaza", "Acusación de genocidio en Gaza" y "genocidio en Gaza". Mientras que la tercera opción tenía la pluralidad de votos, las opciones 1 y 2 tenían una mayoría combinada, y son básicamente lo mismo solo que en dos títulos diferentes. Quiero escuchar comentarios sobre si la medida se aplicó demasiado pronto y si hay un consenso claro para llamarlo genocidio en Gaza. Usuario: Selfstudier escribió "Si desea cuestionar el título del artículo actual, que tiene consenso, Move Review es el lugar donde observo que hasta la fecha nadie ha impugnado el movimiento reciente". [8] Por lo tanto, sigo su sugerencia de solicitar una revisión adicional.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( charla ) 12:22, 22 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with this list. First, it includes opinions of scholars who work in completely unrelated areas (Professor of linguistics, Professor of computer science, Professor of political science, Professor of information theory, etc.). The second problem is that I don't see any of the sources listed in u:FortunateSons's thread which makes me doubt that the list is in fact representative of the range of experts' opinion. Alaexis¿question? 09:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused then as to what list you refer, as this list was started by @FortunateSons: with an exact copy of their list, and none of their entries have been removed. As to specialisms, you assume that the individuals are not relevant based on the field they are located in, if you click through the links provided in the list you can see what their research focuses are and the work they've published, and you'll find they have relevance. This is not to say they should be considered with as much weight as others, just as how the small comments by some individuals in the popular press should not be considered with as much weight as the peer reviewed papers published in the Journal of Genocide Research. --Cdjp1 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the collapsed list under the "Scholarly and expert opinions" heading above. I think that non-experts' opinions should not be in the list at all as the opinion of a professor of linguistics on the matter has about as much weight as yours or mine.
Regarding the missing sources, I meant the mostly German-language ones u:FortunateSons added to the thread I linked. Alaexis¿question? 08:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list does (or at least should, I only spot-checked them) include the people I originally included. I must admit that I mostly disengaged from the list due to being incredibly busy, so at least the German part is mostly out of date, unless others have contributed those. There have been some discussions on scope and content in the past (see it’s talk page), and you (and everyone else) is very welcome to contribute.
While the journal is a generally reliable source, we should be mindful that it has certain slant, something one should probably be aware of.[1], (see also: it’s article on wiki) FortunateSons (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charny once again arguing that any comparative analysis of other genocides with the Holocaust is wrong and bad, unless it's Charny himself doing it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for introducing me to Charny. I've read his paper accusing the Journal of Genocide Research of Holocaust minimization. I then read a response to the paper.
Briefly summarizing what I agreed with in the response paper:
  • Incredibly flawed survey design (Could be used as a textbook example of what a survey should not do)
  • Misquoting and mischaracterizing scholarly works, even going so far as to re-order a quote's sentences to completely pervert the original message.
  • Attacks on fellow Israeli scholar Amos Goldberg for daring to suggest a hypothetical way for Palestinians and Israelis to achieve peace
  • Nakba denial where Charny demonstrates his work is one of political rhetoric than history
From my admittedly non-exhaustive survey, I do not think the journal has any slant. It is Charny that should be considered a deprecated source when it comes to Israel. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The query of the sources does not allow me to reach this conclusion. The table includes a lot of sources coming from experts not within the field of genocide study, international law, Israel-Palestine conflict, historians or the like. Among those scholars who are relevant, there are a lot (mostly of Jewish roots or origins, but a couple non-Jewish as well) who firmly state this is not a case of genocide or even that it is counter-genocidal, or alternatively that what they are doing is awful but there is no proof this is genocide (because proving genocide per the Genocide Convention is hell of a difficult task).
    • A very good source here is a Brookings poll that says A majority of Middle East scholars see Israeli motives in Gaza to be about forcing Palestinians out [57%]", "A third of scholars see Israel's military actions in Gaza as 'genocide' [34%]", 41% see it as "major war crimes akin to genocide". But 57% is not a wide majority, and war crimes are a lesser crime than genocide and require a lower standard of proof (though they are still heinous, and whether we call the crimes genocide or war crimes doesn't help suffering Palestinians).
    • To be clear, there are excellent sources here that assert that Israel commits genocide or is on the verge of doing it (e.g. UN special rapporteurs report from this month), but I don't see wide consensus that genocide is underway. "War crimes" is more likely to have wide consensus here than genocide, but that's not what was discussed here, so I can't force a change to this title. In other words, a legitimate debate is ongoing and Wikipedia should not take a side.
  2. The second problem stems from the principle that we should not state opinions, or seriously contested assertions, as fact. A statement that "Israel is committing genocide" may even be an assertion of fact, but it is seriously contested, as shown above. And even when you assume this, you can't just nebulously say "Israel", because it's specific people who execute its policy and would arguably be perpetrators of the crime (e.g. Netanyahu, Gallant, other senior IDF/govt officials). But WP:BLPCRIME would bar us calling them génocidaires without a court of law having secured a conviction. So far we have an ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant, but an arrest warrant is not a conviction (in the same vein, Putin and Lvova-Belova cannot be accused in Wikipedia voice of forcibly abducting Ukrainian children even when such government-sponsored cases are well documented and the ICC posts arrest warrants on their asses for that reason).
    • Any reasonable reader would imply from the title that Wikipedia says Israeli officials are committing genocide in Gaza, when no court has yet said it and, even if we allow an exception for cases when researchers almost unanimously say this is genocide, this is not it. It is also not necessarily how the war in Gaza, and Israel's actions towards Palestianian civilians, is widely known among readers. Such accusations are known, but widely known as fact? Nah-ah. Therefore, I will be not the least bit surprised if readers start to flock here to accuse us of presenting the pro-Palestinian rhetoric as fact.
  3. The third problem is that the policy of neutral point of view may not be annulled by consensus. Even if 90% of people had voted to move towards Gaza genocide, the first two points would prevent such a move. Here it's barely a majority, which makes the case for the move even weaker.
Joe Roe tried hard, and he deserves credit for trying, but I strongly disagree with his conclusions, given available evidence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the NPOV can't be dismissed by a local consensus, but there was no agreement here on what the NPOV title was. Those in favour of options 1 or 2 argued that "allegation" "question" or "accusation" was NPOV and "genocide" was POV (because not all sources say that there is a genocide). Those in favour of option 3 argued that "genocide" was NPOV and "allegation" "question" or "accusation" (per WP:ALLEGED). As a closer I don't think it's my place to decide which of two policy-based arguments are correct when there is no consensus amongst participants on that point. Instead, I looked for consensus in the other strands of the discussion, and found one on the question of usage in reliable sources/WP:COMMONNAME.
Your other two points seem to be criticisms of the reasoning and source analysis of the participants, rather than of the close? – Joe (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLEGED is clear that alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial, which is what we have in both ICJ and ICC right now. I think you should have pointed to this quote in the guideline. And even then guidelines cannot override a core policy. As for WP:COMMONNAME, I explained myself below.
To be clear, you did a hard job, and you are explaining yourself very reasonably, which I appreciate deeply. I believe you are doing a great job. It's that I would have made a different closure and I disagree with you, but that's no offense from me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if I'd tried to determine that this is a situation where "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" (i.e. subject to WP:ALLEGED), or more broadly decide which title is favoured by NPOV, it would have been a supervote not a close. But of course I take no offence that you disagree. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, thanks for all the work you do here. Option 1 was 'question' rather than 'allegation'? Tom B (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your comment on the list of sources, if you trim the list to just genocide scholars, firstly you'll find the majority support the assessment that this is in fact a case of genocide, secondly you'll find a chunk of those who state this is not genocide do so using the UN convention which is in contradiction to their own previous work where they use what they consider to be better frameworks to determining if something is genocide (this latter point you touch on yourself). So one must ask why is Gaza a special case for them to use a framework they consider deficient? There is then also the consideration of weight of where various scholars are publishing the opinions, as once again if we look at those that are being put through review to be published in academic articles, we find once again a majority appear in declaring this a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be that the researchers apply double standards or are hypocritical, but we should not be the ones calling the shots. You may provide scholarly commentary/papers of a similar level of proof that show those who oppose the genocide label are in fact inconsistent.
Now the purpose of POVNAMING is to say that when the choice comes between neutral but obscure title and widely used but possibly non-neutral title, we should use the latter. This is made, among other reasons, to make sure that readers may find titles under commonly recognised names. I don't see polls suggesting the term "Gaza genocide" or support for that notion is high enough to say that the first thing people will think when speaking of Gaza is "genocide". My assessment is that the sources presented do not demonstrate enough consensus to say that we can ignore the concern about article title neutrality (and when saying "we", speak for yourself - I explained why I don't believe the sourcing is good enough). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We" stands as it is a numeric assessment of the reality of the sources, you can choose to disregard it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing is sufficient, and it is, then that's enough. All the rest is equivocation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RM vote, not an MR vote. #1 and #2 are reasons why it should/should not be moved. As for #3, well, it's up to the RM voters to decide whether a title is or is not in line with WP:NPOVTITLE. Levivich (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I guess I know what I should assess in this discussion, and yes, I read correctly, it's MR nor RM.
#1 responds to the determination that "the arguments in favour of this title [Gaza genocide] generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources". I don't really see it. Yes, there are great sources that say it is, and many others suggesting a controversy about this naming still exists. What the closer did is dismissed the latter, and that was improper on the closer's part.
#2 states the policies that inevitably will be implicated once the article was renamed, and which the closer did not take into account. Even if no other person has raised the argument, the closer's job is not only to evaluate consensus but to avoid closures that will obviously clash with other clearly stated policies, and to discard arguments that violate or will lead to violation of other policies (which the closer is explicitly allowed, and, I dare to say, obliged to do).
As for #3, that's where I'll have to disagree. The whole point of setting NPOV as a core policy is to prevent RM voters, or any voters, to override the policy by consensus, which is what this closure effectively does, and I believe that the closer did not take this into account, either.
Responding to your comment that "genocide" does not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention".
First, the article structure still doesn't align with the title, and I don't know whether it's intentional, but, adopting your idea that editors are to decide what is NPOVTITLE (and NPOV content, by extension), you'd need a couple of things changed. First, the lead sentence "Israel has been accused by ... of carrying out a genocide" should be "Israel is committing genocide" (cf. The Holocaust - The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews...); then section titles should be "Alleged genocidal intent and genocidal rhetoric" and "Alleged genocidal actions". That's if you want to be consistent. I guess you'd also need to have this included into List of genocides. Good luck doing this all.
Second, genocide is a crime and anything crime-related should fall under WP:BLPCRIME, and you aren't arguing that Netanyahu or Gallant should be called a "leader of the Gaza genocide campaign" in Wikivoice, are you? A lot of genocides were not prosecuted by ICC/ICJ/ad hoc tribunals, including all those before WWII, but here we have a high-profile case that is under consideration in the International Criminal Court (arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant) and the International Court of Justice (South Africa v. Israel), and both apply the Genocide Convention. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) - per xDanielx and others. Jdcomix (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenters here should remember the advice at WP:MR: Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question.... Some of those suggesting overturn have leant on WP:POVTITLE, which is just that - a re-hash of old arguments - and they have all, so far, declined to answer the repeated follow on question on the comparison to other similar articles such as Rohingya genocide, Tamil genocide and East Timor genocide. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). As per xDanielx, as well as per that the primary reason given by the closer - vote count - is fallacious as it counted votes for options which are largely interchangeable independently. Even if the original discussion truly had anything approaching a consensus - which it didn't - the proposal should still at least be reviewed since one of the major reasons given by the closer was incorrect.
There is a good argument to be made that the secondary reason given by the closer - that arguments for option 3 had more grounding in Wikipedia policy - is also incorrect: it might have had more grounding in reliable sources, but WP:RS was a less relevant policy for the topic than WP:POVNAME; and in turn, arguments for options 1 and 2 had more grounding in WP:POVNAME. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'm pretty sure that indicates the arguments for options 1 and 2 had more grounding in Wikipedia policy. Rhosnes (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. I counted !votes for option 3 vs. options 1 or 2, and option 3 had the majority. This also wasn't the "primary" reason I cited for the close; that was the relative strength of arguments. – Joe (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion, which 60 editors participated in:
There wasn't majority support for the move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The count has already been discussed exhaustively above. You are the fourth editor to try and count the !votes and you've come up with the fourth different set of figures. In my experience this is normal because there will always be some !votes that are ambiguous and that is why I always qualify my figures as a "rough headcount" in my closes (as I did here). It doesn't matter what the exact figures are because if I'd based my close purely on a margin of a few !votes either way it would have rightly been thrown out immediately. But I didn't. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a full listing of who supported what, so that if there are any issues with my count you can identify them, and hopefully we can determine whether there is an actual majority. With that said, are there any individuals who you think I missed for option 3?
I consider this important because the headcount did play a role in your close, and that means determining whether you made an error is useful in assessing the appropriateness of your close. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So did Gawaon above, and he got 28–31 for option 3 and 29 for option 1 or 2. Again, it does not matter. Shuffle the numbers any way you like and I would have made the same close. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) It was a long and interesting discussion, and consensus and strength of argument moved to accepting the scholarly consensus among genocide scholars. Even in the absence of that merely using the common name for it without "allegations" in the title does not mean accepting it. The page contains the controversy. Close was justified. Lf8u2 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transbay Transit Center (closed)

Fairfield Metro station (closed)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (closed)

Project 2025 (closed)

Côte d'Ivoire (closed)

Genocide of indigenous peoples (closed)

Irish hunger strike (closed)

ABC News (United States) (closed)

Archivo

Ver también

La hora actual de Wikipedia es:
22:08, domingo 18 de agosto de 2024 ( UTC ).
Para actualizar la hora, ¡purgue el caché!