Content deleted Content added
→Requested move 3 May 2024: closed, rough consensus in favour of Gaza genocide |
|||
Line 78:
== Requested move 3 May 2024 ==
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
The result of the move request was: '''moved''' to [[Gaza genocide]].
This was a lengthy but actually quite straightforward discussion. There was a clear consensus from the beginning that the former title was not acceptable. From several suggestions, three plausible alternatives emerged:
* '''Option 1''' [[Gaza genocide question]]
* '''Option 2''' [[Gaza genocide accusation]]
* '''Option 3''' [[Gaza genocide]]
The discussion ran for several weeks and was well-attended after being [[WP:CENT|centrally advertised]] to all editors. The [[#Three options|rough headcount]] in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3. Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2. A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based (i.e. along the lines of "there is no Gaza genocide") and the headcounts for those options should be down-weighted accordingly.
The main argument in favour of option 3 was that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this. This argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. The main argument in favour of options 2 and 3 were that the unqualified use of the word 'genocide' in an article title, when the existence of a genocide is disputed, would violate Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV) policy, and specifically the principle that titles should be [[WP:NDESC|non-judgmentally descriptive]]. Editors in favour of option 3 countered that the source analysis supported 'genocide' as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that 'accusation' is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual.
Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin, that the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources, and that neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by [[WP:POVTITLE]], I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be [[Gaza genocide]]. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
----
[[:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza]] → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Line 980 ⟶ 996:
:::::::That of course doesn’t mean that all or any of those comments are good or bad, but it likely means that this is more an issue of inter-editor discussions than it is a problem with content being bludgeoned. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 19:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|"In any given discussion, especially a "big" one like this, there will usually be two editors who have posted more comments than everyone else, and they're usually on opposite sides of the discussion. '''They become like the leading editors of the pro/anti viewpoints.'''"}} (emphasis added). Thanks for the insight, this adequately represents the issue; the idea that certain editors become "representatives" of the discussion. This is exactly the problem when the discussion is supposed to be representative of all ECR editors. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>
== Leading ICJ Judge in Case: "[The court] didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible" ==
| |||