Process to evaluate contested closes of discussions
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?
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
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:
- [Closer] no siguió el espíritu y la intención de WP:RMCI porque [explica el fundamento aquí] al cerrar esta discusión sobre el movimiento solicitado.
- [Cerca] no estaba al tanto de información adicional importante que no se discutió en la discusión sobre el cambio de página: [identifique la información aquí] y la discusión debe reabrirse y volver a publicarse.
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
- ^ Aquellos que implican cambios de nombre ( Plantilla: Cfr ), para todos los demás tipos de CFD, utilice la revisión de eliminación .
- ^ 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.
2024 agosto
2024 julio
- 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 ]
- Respaldar (no involucrado). Esta revisión de movimiento no es del todo oportuna. Entiendo que la gente tiene vida, pero casi tres semanas después del cierre de RM se está volviendo un poco largo. Aparte de eso, el consenso no está determinado por un recuento ciego y el más cercano articula claramente por qué se debía encontrar consenso con la opción 3, dados los análisis detallados de las fuentes que se proporcionaron en apoyo de la opción 3. Tar nis hed Path talk 13:02, 22 Julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Comentario : 3E1I5S8B9RF7 , ¿discutió sus inquietudes con el cerrador antes de abrir esta revisión de movimiento? El enlace que proporcionó va al cierre del RfC, no a ninguna discusión que haya tenido con ellos sobre su cierre. --Pinchme123 ( discusión ) 04:33, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- No lo hicieron. Pero otro uso generó el mismo malentendido sobre los recuentos en User talk:Joe Roe#Genocide close . En resumen, no se puede simplemente sumar el número de apoyos para 1 y 2 porque muchas personas apoyaron más de una opción. Si se cuenta el número de participantes que apoyaron la opción 3 con el número de participantes que no la apoyaron, hay una mayoría a favor de la opción 3. – Joe ( discusión ) 06:28, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Yo no lo hice, pero otros usuarios sí. Hubo discusiones y discusiones, pero siempre era el mismo resultado: los que querían un recuento/reconsideración del nombre del título y los que rechazaron otra revisión porque pensaban que era un consenso establecido.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( charla ) 16:28, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Actualmente es un consenso establecido, sujeto a esta revisión de movimiento. Selfstudier ( charla ) 16:32, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- @Pinchme123, hubo una discusión aquí . Alaexis ¿pregunta? 08:54, 25 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Volcar (no involucrado). Según mi propio recuento, 29 editores prefirieron la opción 1 o 2 (o ambas),
25 y 28 prefirieron la opción 3 [cifra corregida después de otro recuento] . Teniendo en cuenta que la mitad estaban claramente relacionados (y la mayoría de los editores lo vieron), este resultado numérico indica que "uno de ellos" probablemente habría sido el resultado más apropiado. Al menos el vendedor debería haber explicado por qué vio un consenso para la Opción 3 a pesar de que sólo estaba respaldada por una minoría de editores, pero no lo hizo. El cerrador también se mostró sesgado al restar importancia a los argumentos de "no hay genocidio en Gaza" como "no basado en políticas", mientras que aparentemente aceptó argumentos de "sí, es un genocidio y debería llamarse así" (ampliamente formulado por aquellos a favor de la Opción 3) como sesgado hacia las políticas. Gawaon ( discusión ) 07:00, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]- Mi recuento fue 32 para la opción 3 frente a 27 para la opción 1 o 2: una mayoría. Es normal que diferentes editores lleguen a recuentos que difieren en uno o dos puntos (a veces se pierde un voto en un hilo, etc.), pero no sé cómo explicar una discrepancia tan grande. – Joe ( discusión ) 07:17, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Bien, también conté un poco mal; parece que pasé por alto algunos votos de la Opción 3. Intentemos de nuevo.
- Contando solo a aquellos que votaron bajo Discusión: Genocidio de Gaza/Archivo 2 § Tres opciones , cuento para la Opción 1 o 2: Alaexis, Alalch E., AndyBloch, Animal lover 666, BilledMammal, Bondegezou, Cdjp1, CoffeeCrumbs, Cremastra, Crossroads, Czello , Eladkarmel, FortunateSons, HaOfa, Hogo-2020, Howardcorn33, Kowal2701, Let'srun, Me Da Wikipedian, Metropolitan90, Mis mejores deseos, NoonIcarus, Oleg Y., Paul Vaurie, Some1, TimeEngineer, Vegan416, xDanielx (opción 3 opuesta) , que puede considerarse apoyo implícito a 1 o 2) , Zanahary – total: 29 editores.
- Para la opción 3: BluePenguin18, Brusquedandelion, Chaotic Enby, CNC, David A, Dreameditsbrooklyn, FunLater, Huldra, Iazyges, Iskandar323, Ïvana, kashmīrī, KetchupSalt, Kinsio, Levivich, MarkiPoli, M.Bitton, Nishidani, PBZE, Personisinsterest, Rainsage, SKAG123, Skitash, Smallangryplanet, Stephan Rostie, La gran mula de Eupatoria, Trilletrollet, Viceregente – total: 28 editores.
- Tres editores (blindlynx, Selfstudier, Vinegarymass911) votaron por la opción 1/2 o 3, sin expresar una preferencia clara por ninguna de las dos, por lo que no los incluí en ninguno de los dos recuentos.
- Ahora es casi un empate, pero todavía no hay mayoría para la Opción 3. Una decisión sin consenso podría haber sido más apropiada. En cualquier caso, la decisión final no tomó en consideración adecuadamente qué tan cerca estaba realmente el conteo de votos. Gawaon ( discusión ) 08:54, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- WP:NOTAVOTE , el abastecimiento jugó un papel importante en esto. Selfstudier ( charla ) 16:34, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Sin embargo, el motivo del cierre parecía basarse en gran medida en números. En particular, el vendedor no mencionó ningún argumento particular que le pareciera convincente sobre por qué (3) no sería un WP:POVTITLE , sino que simplemente dijo que no había consenso sobre el asunto. - xDanielx T / C \ R 17:55, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- No hay nada intrínsecamente malo en basar un cierre en números siempre que cada !voto haya sido argumentado adecuadamente en relación con la política de WP, notavote está destinado a distinguir cosas como "Wtf, de ninguna manera" y darles menos peso. Selfstudier ( charla ) 18:01, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Estoy de acuerdo, un hallazgo de consenso impulsado por números es generalmente razonable, pero no cuando los números son aproximadamente 50-50. - xDanielx T / C \ R 19:16, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Los más cercanos expresaron claramente por qué vieron consenso con la opción 3, siendo los análisis detallados de las fuentes que se proporcionaron en apoyo de esa opción, entre otras consideraciones. Tar nis hed Path talk 09:47, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Respaldar (no involucrado) La discusión duró aproximadamente dos meses, del 3 de mayo de 2024 al 2 de julio de 2024. Particularmente interesante en el tema del abastecimiento es que Levivich inicialmente defendió la Opción 1, pero después de mirar las fuentes, cambió a la Opción 3 . Los argumentos presentados en el RM para las Opciones 1/2 no proporcionan un número significativo de fuentes de estudiosos del genocidio que argumenten en contra de que se produzca un genocidio. El resumen final de Joe Roe proporciona con precisión un consenso aproximado basado en la política ( WP:RS ) en lugar del recuento de votos, y es justo al afirmar que el
argumento sobre el abastecimiento fue impugnado pero no refutado de manera convincente
. Boud ( discusión ) 00:22, 24 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ] - Comentario . No estoy seguro de estar de acuerdo con la afirmación del vendedor de que "los argumentos a favor de este título generalmente tenían una base más sólida en fuentes confiables", consulte el hilo que siguió al voto de FortunateSons en la discusión original en la que se presentaron muchas fuentes que no no apoya la opción elegida por el cerrador. Alaexis ¿pregunta? 09:22, 25 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
- Además, hemos recopilado opiniones de expertos relevantes en la siguiente plantilla. Se puede ver con el tiempo un cambio hacia fuentes con mayor peso y opiniones más detalladas que explican la evaluación del asalto como genocidio.
- -- 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]
- Endorse (involved). Nothing out of ordinary here, since this is how consensus is normally established on Wikipedia. Consensus is not unanimity. When a group of editors presents good, policy-based arguments and another group makes weaker arguments, then it's routinely determined that there's a consensus for the stronger option. Which happened here, too. — kashmīrī TALK 16:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved). The move relies on the notion that non-neutral titles may be used if the specific formulation is widely used by reliable sources and so readers will more likely recognise it through this title. But there are three problems with it.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- Endorse (involved). Some comments here appear to be an attempt to rerun the discussion, which already ran for an extended period of time. Closer identified superior sourcing in support of the title (that also included sourcing suggesting there was a consensus on the matter among relevant experts).Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (uninvolved), I had drafted a close at [9]. It recommended moving to option 1 per WP:ACD, then having another rfc, as editors provided reliable sources that an International Court of Justice case is ongoing, and WP should wait for the ICJ to decide, rather than editors. If there was an ongoing court case about whether Gerry was murdered or manslaughtered by Idris, and WP had two articles, one on the case 'State vs Idris' and one on the topic of 'Gerry murder', it would damage WP's reputation. Are there negative consequences to WP's reputation of no qualification of genocide, ahead of the verdict or does it just describe a topic without taking sides? Potentially a better way to deal with this would be to keep the move and start another RFC if editors feel the current unqualified title is damaging WP's reputation for neutrality, Tom B (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Genocide" does not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention." Most genocides (almost all) have not been adjudicated as violations of the Convention, but are nevertheless considered genocides by genocide studies scholars. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's partly because the 1951 convention didn't exist at the time of many genocides e.g. Libyan genocide in the 1920s. Even since 1951 there has often been no prospect of a court case. Here we have an ongoing court case where living people are being accused of not just war crimes or crimes against humanity, but genocide like the Holocaust. Why have a court, a legal system if we only need scholars? Tom B (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Genocide" does
- not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention," even after the Convention was created in 1951, up to today, because "genocide" has multiple, overlapping definitions, and the Convention's definition is just one of them. The consensus of genocide studies scholars decides (for WP:RS/WP:NPOV purposes) what is and what is not a "genocide." The ICJ decides what is and what is not a violation of the Genocide Convention.
Even since 1951 there has often been no prospect of a court case.
Exactly, and that's why genocode studies scholars do not depend on the ICJ to determine what is a genocide; they make their own determination. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we follow the scholarship, not the courts. Why have a court, a legal system if we only need scholars?
The purpose of a court is to prosecute criminals. The purpose of scholars is to study something. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize reliable secondary sources, such as genocide scholars' works, not to repeat what a court says. It's not like the ICJ is the only RS out there, nor does it trump scholars. A violation of the Genocide Convention isn't like a murder trial, but even still, Wikipedia will call something a murder even if courts have not convicted anyone of murder, when the RSes call it murder. Same with genocide: we refer to something as genocide when the RSes do, regardless of what the ICJ decides, and that is exactly because scholars call many things "genocide" that the ICJ never ruled upon. International law is not really similar to domestic law in this way--ICJ case isn't like any old murder trial. Levivich (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- thanks, "Wikipedia will call something a murder even if courts have not convicted anyone of murder", have you one example pls? My understanding was there wasn't clear consensus among sources that Israel's leaders have committed genocide, rather than crimes again humanity, and therefore it would be best for WP to wait for the court. But you're saying there's clear consensus those living people have committed genocide, so there's negligible risk to BLP or WP's reputation, Tom B (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Murder of Tupac Shakur.
But you're saying there's clear consensus those living people have committed genocide, so there's negligible risk to BLP or WP's reputation
I don't think I've ever said anything even close to that. I'm saying the fact that the ICJ hasn't convicted anyone of genocide yet is not a reason to overturn this close. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- A good example, but there's also a good reason: the murderer of the rapper is not covered by BLP as he was himself murdered (just like in Lee Harvey Oswald's case, we state that he was JFK's assassin even though no court said he was one, as no court is quick enough to convict anyone in two days). This is why we don't have the BLP limitation. Here all the alleged perpetrators are living people.
- Also, I have to concur with Tom B's point, because it's a logical extension of that argument, even if no one ever said it out loud. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you, nearly all sources agree Tupac was murdered. If nearly all sources agree there's no question a group of living Jews are guilty of genocide rather than war crimes, and WP editors are above the courts, then there's no risk to WP's reputation, Tom B (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're both still arguing the RM (what the title should be) instead of the MR (whether consensus was read correctly), and I'm not sure WP:BLPGROUP even applies to entire nations, militaries, or governments. Anyway, most participants agreed the title "Gaza genocide" doesn't accuse any specified person or group of committing genocide in violation of BLP. There is no "it must be X because of [ICJ/BLP]" rule that applies here. This RM did not have only one possible outcome, and I don't think arguing it did will convince anyone. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There were 3 possible outcomes: the lengthy status quo which no one agreed with, thank goodness that's gone; or acknowledge there is a question over whether genocide is happening, like Holodomor genocide question, or the outcome that happened: a concise title which suggests WP believes there is no question a genocide has been committed rather than war crimes, otherwise it would have put more words in the title, like it has with other articles. No one has argued there was only possible outcome, why do you think that? There is a sad irony on this move review page in that multiple courts found a genocide was committed in Srebrenica due to the intent behind the killings, but the move request for that article to genocide was denied with no rationale. Sad times, Tom B (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. < uninvolved > This closure was in line with the closing instructions per above comments. It was a very tough, good and reasonable outcome and so should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved): A tough close, but consensus was assessed appropriately. There doesn't have to be a near-unanimous decision — nothing would ever be closed if that was the case. It ran for two months. People had more than enough time to add their comments. There will always be objections to difficult closes, which is why I am happy some people are willing to consider them. C F A 💬 16:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved) That was a very well reasoned close on a contentious topic that was always going to wind up here. I don't really have anything else to add. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved). I agree with Kashmiri and Selfstudier, and as far as I have understood, the vast majority of both scholars with expertise in the area, international courts, reliable human rights and relief organisations, and the United Nations, all agree that this is a form of genocide. David A (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, from what I recall there were 60 editors in total who voted, with 32 votes for option 3. What may have caused confusion is that many editors, particularly those who supported options 1 and 2, voted for two options at the same time. There were also a few instances of apparent vote-farming from people who were vocally against the move to the current page title, by either pinging many editors who would be against the move or visiting pro-Israel wiki projects to inform them. Initially the consensus was far more onesided. David A (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I counted above, 28 editors voted for Option 3, 29 for Option 1 or 2 (or both), and 3 for both equally. Close call, but not a majority for 3. Gawaon (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think there was any WP:CANVASSING here. User:RodRabelo7 notified WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, not just "pro-Israel wiki projects". There were some other pings, one from User:Monopoly31121993(2) to everyone from a 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation discussion. It was discussed in a few places, and I think the consensus was that it wasn't a great practice but wasn't canvassing. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved). Nothing approaching a consensus was found, and the closer appealed to the number of 'votes' cast. The closer used the vote tallies to frame the justification for the move, and seemingly as evidence for the existence of a 'rough consensus'. WP:CON makes it extremely clear that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I'm not going to argue that there was no discussion (or the points of the discussion itself – I'd remimd others that this is not a suitable forum to relitigate such arguments), but it would seem that the closer's rationale for moving the page was overly influenced by 'vote counts' in a way that it should not have been. Domeditrix (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (involved) as it was a clear instance of WP:NOCONSENSUS, which
preserves the most recent stable title
. Joe counted 31-27 in favor of Gaza genocide (rather than the two similar alternatives). My own count is 29-28 in favor of Gaza genocide; Gawaon counted 29-28 against Gaza genocide. Either count indicates a lack of consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but the close did not really explain why either side had more convincing policy-based arguments. It mentioned arguments about the prevalence of "Gaza genocide" in sources, but most such arguments ignored the higher standard that WP:POVNAME imposes for non-neutral common names. Very few participants offered arguments for why Gaza genocide would not fail WP:POVNAME, and the closer did not mention any such arguments that he found convincing. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Endorse (didnt vote in the move, but involved in the topic) - I dont really get why this is treated as a POV issue, the topic here is "Gaza genocide" and the title is wide enough to cover views that support the contention that such a thing is ongoing and views that oppose that contention. Joe's explanation that the title does not imply that it is true is amply supported by other article titles, such as American exceptionalism, which also covers a view and also includes material criticizing the belief, or Race and intelligence, which flat out says the connection between the two is pseudoscience, or Acquired homosexuality, or a long list of other articles. I think the close is well grounded in our policies, and as such see no cause to overturn it. nableezy - 18:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's useful to draw comparisons to such dissimilar titles. American exceptionalism for example is the name of a viewpoint. A closer comparison would be to say Murder of Travis Alexander, a title which implies Alexander was murdered, or say Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which uses a qualified to avoid such an implication. See also Category:Allegations. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that this is a title for the overarching topic. It includes pro *and* con arguments. That is true of all the above. nableezy - 15:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). Agree with Boud, Kashmiri and others. There was a long discussion and debate over sourcing, and there ended up being a contested and close yet clear consensus on Option 3 after sources were reviewed, particularly the fact that the majority of genocide scholars, experts in the field, say a genocide is occurring. That should be leading in our usage as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved in this discussion, involved in the topic area) Agree with Szmenderowiecki and XDanielx. A blatant violation of WP:POVTITLE and clearly there was no consensus to disregard that rule. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also no consensus on which option was the "blatant violation" (arguments were made for all three). – Joe (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved) – this was an incredibly well-attended discussion that evolved and settled in line with the sources – of which they were plenty supporting the eventual move target, and few seriously challenging it – and that is a pretty major order of the day. I'm not sure what could possibly be so unreasonable about the close that was made in the circumstances. The closer's weighing of arguments was the closer's weighing of arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But was the closer's weighing of arguments appropriate considering the discussion? My impression is that it wasn't. Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And this impression is based on what exactly? You would have weighed the arguments differently? Why? Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a closer and don't want to become one, but see above for why I'm unconvinced in this case. Closer strongly relied on a headcount supposedly in favour of option 3 (claiming "most support by a clear margin") which, however, can't be confirmed by a recount. They also seem to have weighed the arguments differently, apparently disregarding some votes for option 1/2 as "not policy-based" (namely: "there is no Gaza genocide"), while silently allowing exactly the same kind of argument ("there is a genocide in Gaza") in favour of option 3. A no consensus close would have been more appropriate considering the headcount and the arguments presented. Gawaon (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're saying that I over-relied on the headcount, but also that a difference of one or two !votes should change the outcome. Which one is it? FTR I don't know whether it's 31-27, 29-28, or 28-29 (we have three different counts from three different people), but nor do I think it matters: the strength of argument for option 3 was greatest, and I explained how I came to that conclusion. – Joe (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying that regardless of the exact count, the headcount by itself is too close to be conclusive (but you said "Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin ... I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide" in the final sentence of your decision). There remains the "stronger grounding in reliable sources" that you gave as additional basis for your decision. Maybe that by itself is enough, but I don't really see it and so remain unconvinced. Gawaon (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By "support" I don't mean the raw numbers, I mean the level of support after discounting non-policy-based arguments, which as I explained where found more on the option 1/2 side than the option 3 side. Sorry if that wasn't clear (though I do think it is standard practice). – Joe (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved) – Not to be all "Webster's Dictionary states..." but the NPOV policy makes it clear: "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." In this case the original title as well as options 1 and 2 were wholly descriptive, the current title after the move is a name derived from reliable sources. Everyone is free to disagree with the sources, but they do call it the Gaza Genocide, so the closer made the correct decision here.Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some do, some don't, right? Gawaon (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (involved) per the arguments above. Excluding the margins question, which I would call less-than-clear, the closer did not sufficiently differentiate between the legal vs. non-legal destination of genocide, a question at the core of (just to be clear, in my opinion rather opaque) question of source majority vs. minority. The side supporting the move did not make a case of why „Gaza Genocide“ was a neutral title or used overwhelmingly, thereby failing to meet the requirements of WP:POVNAME.
- FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved) - I don't see any issues with the way the closer weighed the strength of arguments, including the arguments that the title "Gaza genocide" does not mean that there is a genocide in Gaza (in the same way "Flat Earth" doesn't imply that the Earth is flat, "Race and intelligence" doesn't imply that race determines intelligence, and "Israel and apartheid" doesn't imply that Israel is committing apartheid). These arguments, rooted in WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NPOVTITLE, were not rebutted by those voting for 1 or 2. Similarly, arguments rooted in WP:COMMONNAME based on source analysis were not rebutted. The closer's job is to weigh the strength of these arguments. Those voting overturn haven't shown why or how this weighing of arguments was incorrect. Assertions like "well it's blatantly wrong" are unpersuasive. The sources call it "Gaza genocide" even when they're arguing against there being a genocide in Gaza, and that's a strong argument for "Gaza genocide" being the name of this topic. So I agree with the closer that those who think it shouldn't be called "Gaza genocide" because not everyone agrees it's a genocide, are making the weaker argument. Just like the Earth being round doesn't mean we don't call it "Flat Earth". Levivich (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Title's with "and" are bad examples since they don't imply anything except that some people see a connection between the two topics. However, if the article was named "Apartheid in Israel" instead of Israel and apartheid, it wouldn't be neutral any more, since it would suggest that there actually is apartheid in Israel. Flat Earth is an article about an outdated theory, but there's also Spherical Earth which discusses the theory which is now generally accepted. If the Earth's form were entirely discussed in the "Flat Earth" article, that would mean Wikipedia is taking sides by giving an outdated theory more weight (promoting it to article title even!) than it deserves. Now, when it comes to genocides, we do have a well-established naming schema. "Genocide" is the main noun if a genocide is well-documented to actually have taken place, as in Armenian genocide, Bangladesh genocide, Cambodian genocide, Greek genocide, Rwandan genocide, and many others sadly too numerous to list (but see List of genocides). If, on the other hand, there's serious dispute about whether a genocide happened somewhere, we usually call that "genocide question" in the article or section title, such as Holodomor genocide question, Congo Free State#Genocide question, Nigerian Civil War#Genocide question. Merely alleged or imagined "genocides" are also identified as such, e.g. White genocide conspiracy theory. Would it be neutral to rename that page to "White genocide"? I don't think so! The Gaza genocide article now sadly and illogically deviates from this pattern. To keep neutrality and stick with our well established patterns, "Gaza genocide question" would be the appropriate title. Gawaon (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the article was named "Apartheid in Israel" instead of Israel and apartheid, it wouldn't be neutral any more, since it would suggest that there actually is apartheid in Israel
Nope, the current title reflects the fact that the accusations are that Israel commits apartheid both in Israel and in the occupied territory. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]- This is a strong and well-reasoned argument, and I endorse it wholeheartedly. Domeditrix (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If intersection articles (X and Y) aren't good analogues, then neither are conspiracy theories (although I'd be fine with it being called "White genocide" just like I'd be fine with "Chemtrail"). But voters in the RM didn't base their votes entirely on either intersection or conspiracy theory articles; they looked at others like "American exceptionalism", which doesn't imply that the US is exceptional, it's just what that idea is called. Ultimately, that you or other editors might disagree that this is the best title has no bearing really on whether or not it was a proper close. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptionalism refers to be the belief that something is exceptional, rather than referring to the thing itself as exceptional - I don’t think that’s the best example. Plus, it’s almost certainly the WP:COMMONNAME BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved) - per xDanielx and others. Jdcomix (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). There already a lengthy debate over the name of the article which had a broad consensus, there is no need to go through another change. There is broad scholarly consensus using the name 'Gaza genocide' and as it becomes colloquialised the name will continue to line up with public opinion and WP:COMMONNAME. Also as per other arguments presented here. Ecpiandy (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as it becomes colloquialised the name will continue to line up with public opinion and WP:COMMONNAME
which means it isn't a common name yet and it is only about to line with the criterion, and also really, are we phychics? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved in the RM, although regular editor in the topic). The close was carried out correctly and with due care.
- 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). There are fundamentally two problems with the closure:
(1) At issue here is not, as some (especially outside Wikipedia) are saying, whether the situation in Gaza qualifies as genocide; the issue is a fundamentally stylistic question of how to title an article about [allegations/debates/questions] of genocide. Wikipedians are funny about style. We obsess over it sometimes, argue about it, have endless discussions... Some of the most heated conflict arises because of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. The role of the admin in closing such discussions is in evaluating the strength of policy-based arguments and placing the weight of those arguments where they belong in terms of policy. That means placing core content policies over style pages. At the end of the day, if those pushing for a stylistic change fail to account for the way the change would affect reader understanding of the subject, they are presenting fundamentally weaker arguments and it shouldn't matter what the numbers are. If the argument is between word economy and reader understanding, it's the job of the closer to weigh the latter arguments more strongly rather than accept framing put forward that only style arguments matter.
(2) The closer acknowledged there were two nearly identical choices and one different choice -- that those who supported the first two seemed to have some overlap and combine to have a lot more support than the third. But then that fact was simply ignored. This was a nearly 2:1 result against the third option (not that numbers need play a role -- see #1). There would be an easy way to determine if this was correct: have a run-off vote with two options. But like I said, reader understanding arguments should be weighed more heavily than style anyway as reflective of core content policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Small edit, but re-signing for transparency since it's been a week. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]- @Rhododendrites: This has already been mentioned multiple times, but there was not a 2:1 result against the third option because many participants voted for more than one option. If you count the number of people in favour of option three versus the number of people opposed to option three (including people who supported option one or option two), it is almost even but very slightly in favour of option three. You can find the exact figures elsewhere in this discussion. Counting this way is equivalent to the 'run-off' you propose. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I misunderstood the numbers in this thread, so struck that line and went to count for myself. I see roughly equal numbers between 3 and !3, with a handful including 3 and !3. With those numbers, the policy based arguments on one side would have to be quite a bit stronger than the other's to find consensus for anything. My reading is that the policy-based arguments were not quite a bit stronger in favor of #3 but in fact substantially weaker per my first point above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that the policy-based arguments were not quite a bit stronger in favor of #3 but in fact substantially weaker per my first point above
Only if you want to completely ignore the sourcing, which was conclusive (and recently became even more conclusive with yet another high profile genocide scholar stipulating a genocide). Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]- I'd like to remind you, @Selfstudier, that this is not the place to relitigate arguments made in the initial discussion, as you have done here. @Rhododendrites should be free to at least give their opinion on the merits of the close without a recommencement of the original discussion in full (for the umpteenth time). The length of this move review is already going to give any closer a massive headache, it doesn't need to be lengthened further needlessly. Domeditrix (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) One of the reasons I found the arguments of those supporting #3 weak is this way that of talking about sourcing. You're relying on a bespoke collection of sources identified through their use of a specific label, but it's a label for a subject that is more often described than labeled. The fact that the body of literature which doesn't use "gaza genocide" do not produce a nice neat keyword to use is a problem, but a stylistic problem. It means "gaza genocide" is worth considering from a stylistic point of view, so long as there aren't other problems with it that would harm reader understanding. In this case, many people in the discussion flagged such an issue: it's not a neutral title and/or gives the reader the wrong impression about the subject of the article. That is fundamentally a stronger policy-based argument than the stylistic perspective based on counting keywords in sources, and IMO we need the closer to recognize such an imbalance. I won't likely reply to this further, btw, as I don't think I have anything else to add. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved) per the arguments presented by Szmenderowiecki. Feels like putting such a contentious title in Wikivoice would require a wider consensus that almost 50/50, but I suppose not. The Kip (contribs) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved) This MR is rehashing all the old arguments without offering new evidence or arguments. The current title is in line with reputed sources' description of the topic. I see editors who are opposed are bringing up works of questionable reliability as disagreeing sources. The closer accounted for this in their original decision and followed WP:RMCI by appropriately giving weight to the relevant sources based on their level of reliability. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved). The discussion doesn't need a rerun. It lasted almost two months - surely that was enough time for everyone to add their two cents. I myself changed my vote a couple of times based on arguments provided by other editors. The closer explained in detail how the verdict was reached. Simply doing a headcount is not enough since what matters is the quality of the responses, if they relied on proper sources etc. The criticism mostly relies on a supposed POV violation. The topic here is unequivocally Gaza genocide, whether people are arguing that it exists or it doesn't. If anything adding "allegation", "accusation" or similar is POVish on our part. Other editors have already provided plenty of examples showing why the title being as it is doesn't imply that it is true. - Ïvana (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Narrow and continue (uninvolved) Given the sourcing, the close was not fully unreasonable, but it also left doubt as to how it would do in a two-horse race or whether it's a WP:POVNAMING. Should it be the title, I don't think so. I feel it's biased and we can do better. Most of the sources aren't exactly Jewish-friendly but given the fairly biased lead paragraphs, the title fits. This whole article is a "don't let this happen to you lesson" for my students so they don't get Ds and Fs. The easiest thing to do is re-run it and give two firm choices. "Gaza genocide" and "Gaza genocide accusations." It really should never have been run with three choices and with a 2-way split between (softest choice + softer choice) or (harsher choice) there was always going to remain doubt and finger pointing. It's not that hard folks.... redo with a 1. Gaza genocide accusations (with an s, plural since there are many) and 2. Gaza genocide. Dump the super-soft and silly Gaza genocide question. Make it clear this is it... a third choice is no choice. We are in no rush so let it run for a few weeks and see if there is any difference. It relieves the look of WP:POVNAMING. I don't expect there to be but you never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why go with two more or less biased versions when the "question" alternative would be the most neutral one? Gawaon (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the reasons would be sourcing. Everywhere you look you see "Israel accused of genocide." I see it every day. The accusations can be shot down or enhanced depending on press from the right or left, but accusations are the name of the day in this dispute. The only place I see the term "question" on google is when it links back to this discussion. To me "accusations" is the more neutral and used term. "Question" is the softer less used and therefore more biased term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the above has absolutely nothing to do with whether the close was good. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the participants in the original discussion already addressed this problem by !voting for "option 1 and 2". This was mentioned in the close. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (involved). This seems obvious to me. Editors agree we shouldn't be saying there is a genocide in Wikivoice, and thus per WP:POVNAMING we shouldn't be saying there is one in the title. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). Comparing the move discussion and this discussion, it is difficult to escape the sense that this move review is mostly rehashing the move discussion. As the close explained, the source analysis, among other factors, demonstrated stronger policy-based support for option 3. By way of aside, in this move review I noticed a sentiment from some overturn support arguing that the topic isn't broadly known by readers this way. However, in neutrally naming topics, as editors we try to take our cues not from the general average of the human population or from the average of the probable reader population but from the best reliable sources that are relevant. As Joe Roe's close explains, the discussion revealed more grounding for option 3 in relevant quality sourcing, and I don't see a compelling reason to overturn the move. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved). The closing statement and the post-RM discussion were reasonable and based on wikipolicies. A "no consensus" result was inappropriate, given that few wanted to stay with the current title. As for head numbers, many of the "overturn" !votes here are proposing combining "option 1" with "option 2", even though in the RM many of those who voted for "option 1" opposed "option 2" and vice versa. If you look a couple of !votes above, two overturn !voters (Fyunck, Gawaon) can't seem to agree between "option 1" and "option 2".VR (Please ping on reply) 17:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll look at the discussion again, you'll notice that many participants accepted both, at least in preference to option 3. Personally I'd consider both quite acceptable too (but I didn't participate in the discussion, so that hardly matters). Gawaon (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved). I'm not sure how the current naming of the article doesn't violate WP:POVTITLE. I don't see a consensus for the third option. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A POVFORK is a type of content fork, not something that can occur merely as a result of an RM. TarnishedPathtalk 08:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- POVFORK?? Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 11 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]
- Overturn (uninvolved). The move to "Gaza genocide" did not reflect a clear consensus of the discussion. The headcount was nearly evenly split, and the closer’s decision overly relied on numbers rather than the strength of policy-based arguments. Options 1 and 2, which together garnered substantial support, better align with Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. The new title violates Wikipedia's stance on neutrality by implying a settled conclusion in an ongoing debate and even contradicts the lead sentence of the article which says Israel has been 'accused' of genocide. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved with discussion, involved with topic). The decision was within the bounds of a reasonable close. The closer found that the many sources presented as evidence gave more weight to favour option 3, while also finding several non-policy-based votes for option 1 and 2. Therefore, by weight, option 3 prevailed. Certainly, when the numbers are close, the more policy-complaint arguments win. starship.paint (RUN) 10:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on a point of definition, when something is marginal, it is very hard (or impossible?) to argue that a consensus has been reached. A plurality or slim majority does not indicate a 'consensus'. The way you've framed the point ("when the numbers are close") seems more consistent with an argument of WP:NOCON. Maybe if you explain in a bit more detail what you meant here I can understand where you're coming from. Domeditrix (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Domeditrix: - simple: WP:NOTAVOTE. Numbers and votes are not the only factor. One must analyse the strength of the arguments. If both sides have the similar number of votes and similar strength in arguments, then no consensus. But the closer determined that option 3 had stronger votes due to sources presented, whereas some option 1 and 2 votes had little strength. So when evaluating both numbers and strength, the closer concluded that option 3 was superior overall. starship.paint (RUN) 15:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (uninvolved). The new title clearly violates WP:NPOV. The nominator has effectively demonstrated that the majority of votes are against the new framing, which improperly uses WP:VOICE to present a highly contested allegation as fact. UnspokenPassion (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't highly contested except by people with personal misguided tribalist interests in acting as apologists. As is very clear by actually reading the page in question, along with other closely associated Wikipedia pages, the vast majority of expert scholars, well-informed relief organisations, and member countries of the United Nations consider this a textbook case of genocide. David A (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archivo
Ver también