Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia – In this discussion, the community analyzes a particularly complex close of a move request. The move request consisted of a substantial and well-argued nomination, a string of "per noms", a substantial contribution that was not explicitly labelled as "oppose" but, in context, clearly amounted to an oppose; and, very late in the debate, a second substantial objection. After the second substantial objection nobody but the nominator contributed.One sympathizes with the closer of such a discussion. They have to balance the desire for a fair, full, and thorough discussion, with the fact that discussions are expensive in volunteer time, which is Wikipedia's only scarce resource. In the review below, editors are divided between those who agree with the decision to close as written, and those who feel that a relist would have been more appropriate. There isn't a consensus on this point. There is also a certain amount of relitigation of the original discussion.Normally, a "no consensus" outcome would result in the decision being endorsed by default. But this move review has been a lot longer than the discussion it was reviewing, and it contains a lot more thought and participation. I am hesitant to discard this in an endorse-by-default outcome. On balance, I feel it's right for me to use my closer's discretion to relist, and I shall do so now. The fact that I'm relisting does not amount to a criticism of the original closer. It is merely an acknowledgement that the arguments before me are different, and substantial, and community clearly hasn't finished talking about this yet.—S MarshallT/C 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Concern that the closure and move was undertaken prematurely, while contested, rather than re-listed.
The particulars are given in the talk page of the closer. In brief, User:Piotrus opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem asking for opinions on a potential future move of "Ethnic Discrimination in Ethiopia", without informing the people there he had actually already opened an RM discussion there as well. I strongly disagreed with the move in a discussion in one venue, awaiting his answers patiently there, unaware he had already initiated an RM and was conducting the same discussion elsewhere. It was nearly a week later that one of the participants informed us at the Wikiproject that Piotrus had opened an RM, and that there were two discussions going on simultaneously on the same page move. I promptly transferred my contentions to the RM. I strongly objected to the move. But a day later, the closer User:Jack Frost closed and moved it, without comment. My contention was simply ignored, and no time was given to discuss it further there.
While it is true seven days had passed since the RM was opened, and the closer could not have guessed two discussions had been going on simultaneously in two different venues, I explained the circumstance and asked that he reopen and relist, giving users more time than one day to actually look at the new evidence and arguments against the move that were transferred from one venue to the other. The closer declined and said there was a "clear consensus", despite my vigorous contention and RS evidence disputing it. He also said that he was not obligated to provide closing comments. He provided no further criteria, other than just reiterate his "assessment of consensus" was correct.
How the closer came to that conclusion, I am not sure. It was certainly not by weight of arguments or evidence - although admittedly the closer did not say it was. The mover provided no RS's, nor referred to any criteria, nor any evidence, just asserted his intuitive hunch that "ethnic discrimination" is a political euphemism for "racism". While there were !votes that concurred, none provided any additional argument. Instead, it was easily shown that the overwhelming and consistent characterization of Ethiopian conflicts as "ethnic" or "ethno-linguistic" in RSs. Not a single RS was produced characterizing it as racial or racism. Given the sorry history of 19th C. "scientists" arbitrarily inventing and assigning "races" to native groups in other countries, this should be taken a little more seriously and not just come down to someone's hunch. Particularly not after objections are brought up, just ignored and zipped up in a day.
To me it sounds and feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE, more by neglect than interest. Given the circumstances, the closer should have relisted and allowed for more time rather than closed and moved. Walrasiad (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The existence of the stalled discussion at WikiProject is irrelevant; both discussions had majority of contributors supporting the move. Op above is the only person who opposed the move, ignoring arguments that reliable sources do discuss the concept of racism in this context, and that he confuses race/ethnicity (different concepts) with racial and ethnic discrimination (much more ambiguous and rarely distinguished in academia). For all the talk about 'this is wrong', the op failed to present academic sources backing his view. Anyway, as far as the policy is concerned, the close was correct: over a week has elapsed, the majority supported the move. Also, the op falsly claims above that I did not inform WikiProject of the move. Setting aside that this is not required, my post to the WikiProject clearly named the pages I am concerned with and that "I will be proposing four 4RMs for the affected articles momentarily." which I did within minutes of my initial post (this was already pointed to the op at Jack Frost's talk page, where he made this false claim, yet here he goes repeating it again). The op can start their own RM to move the article back after the right period of time has elapsed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was not clear by the signature, the user above is the "User:Piotrus" referred to in the review request. He was the proposer of the move, and the principal editor involved in the discussion, whose move I objected. Walrasiad (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Disclaimers: I'm the creator of the article and currently the main author; I added several arguments to the move discussion as comments, without explicitly recommending a support/oppose !vote.Walrasiad responded to the issue with a well-constructed argument, and his/her most recent response in the discussion left the debate very much still open. Walrasiad's argument about the existence of a huge number of academic articles on the topic (318 articles on just one sub-topic of the article according to Walrasiad), rather than just a tiny handful (12 articles on the whole topic according to Piotrus), was not responded to before the move request was closed. The debate is non-trivial, and I don't see the arguments as having been properly explored and responded to. Boud (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Not a single support that went beyond "per nom" against a strong oppose and a comment that says "we currently have no sources at all that describe ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia as racism". I'm less concerned with the issues raised by the OP than by the fact that it just isn't a strong consensus at all. Consistency strikes me as irrelevant when the two non-supporting participants raise accuracy issues. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved>. Seven editors participated in the RM and only one opposed. That is a strong enough consensus to close after the minimum listing period. Regarding the racial vs ethnic discrimination debate, User:Piotrus mentioned a source that says they are the same. User:Walrasiad didn't provide any source to refute it. Vpab15 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walrasiad did not have time, as he was awaiting Piotrus's answer to produce a single RS. But it is very easy to refute. Piotrus evidently did not read the UN document, which conditions it on "In this convention...", as a convenience to avoid repetition of long phrases in a legal document. It does not equate the terms. The Convention is applied to cases of ethnic discrimination without changing the language e.g. ethnic discrimination in Bosnia does not suddenly become racial discrimination in Bosnia even when the convention is applied (e.g. pdf). Don't mean to re-argue here, but just illustrating how this needed more time and discussion and was cut too short. Walrasiad (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The pdf you link literally says: They were racially abused by the security guards and confronted with racist graffiti in a document about ethnic discrimination in Bosnia. Also, the full name of the UN convention is International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. No "ethnic" anywhere in the title even if it is mentioned multiple times in the text itself. Both documents strongly imply that ethnic discrimination and racial discrimination are somewhat synonyms or ethnic discrimination is a kind of racial discrimination. In any way, in the RM discussion you were in the minority, so the burden would have been on you to provide RS that refute the opinion of the majority. Vpab15 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to re-argue this here. We can certainly take it up, should it be reopened. But if you're curious, you are invited to examine Convention(Article 1 - "In this convention"). As to the particular "racist abuse" and "racist graffiti" they were confronted with in that singular instance, I really can't answer. But with that one exception, the rest of the document refers to pretty consistently and overwhelmingly to "ethnic discrimination". As do pretty much all RS related to such problems in Bosnia (and Ethiopia). An article title should reflect preponderant usage, not a throwaway phrase here and there.
While both are egregious, they are not synonymous, and one is not reducible to the other. "is a kind of racial discrimination" sounds like a bit of OR. That said, I am certainly flexible, and willing to recognize enough similarity to leave the article under that general category. But not to replace the article title itself, where it goes from vaguely related to precisely wrong. That said, it is not on me to prove they are not, but for the proposer to prove that they are, because they are requesting the change. The preponderance of the RS literature on Ethiopia (like that on Bosnia) refers to ethnic discrimination and ethnic strife. I asked him to bring RS to bear to the contrary. I was still waiting when the RM was closed. Walrasiad (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think they are similar enough that it can be in the category "Racism by country" yet you oppose changing the title. That is pretty arbitrary. But glad that to know you accept that ethnic and racial discrimination are closely related concepts. Regarding the proposer showing they are the same, I don't know what else you can conclude when the convention explicitly says the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Even if you disagree with them, the people who wrote that refer to ethnic discrimination as racial discrimination. Vpab15 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the conditional "In this convention". Anyway, we shouldn't really be discussing this here. I'll be happy to discuss further in the right place when it re-opens. Walrasiad (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist seven days) uninvolved Discussion had not concluded. There was a sole late "strong oppose" after a few perfunctory "support per nom" !votes. In this situation, the later strong oppose needs serious consideration. I recommend pinging the earlier participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy relist. The original close was fine, but a request for a little more time given the light traffic is fair enough. This particular topic sounds like it's a bit different than the other "Racism in country" articles so a different name or a split may well be merited. SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There were strong and argumented concerns by Walrasiad and Boud that were not adequately responded to, and several perfunctory "support"s weren't very convincing, particularly having in mind that WP:CONSISTENCY on which the proposal was based is the weakest of the five WP:CRITERIA. No such user (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to not moved. Discussions are not a vote, and the concerns raised about the move by Boud (talk·contribs) in his initial comment were not adequately overcome by a handful of "per nom" comments (not to mention the oppose comment cast soon before the close). This seems headed to a relist, but I don't believe that is necessary. -- Calidum 14:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - seems reasonable, a reasonable person would read that discussion and presume that ethnic discrimination and racism are either synonyms or are so close that a mild rescoping of the article would be a minor problem at worst. RedSlash 05:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that people here have shown willingness to participate in a meta-level issue in relation to one Horn-of-Africa article, someone here might also be motivated and sufficiently uninvolved to consider closing another meta-level Horn-of-Africa issue that has been hanging around for quite some time and may be ready for a close: RfC on Demographics of Eritrea. Boud (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have mentioned this MR on the talk page of the affected article and pinged editors who participated in the RM but did not comment here. Particularly since some of them have been criticized here for 'move per' vote, and I concur that best practices do encourage a more substantial comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (RM Closer): It is my perspective that the closure was entirely within the grounds of reason to make, and that the decision should be endorsed. To address specific concerns:
Lack of notification - The requester notes that there was discussion regarding this issue ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem, and they state that there was inadequate notification of participants. However, in the first post of that discussion, it is clearly stated by the proposer that they ...will be proposing four 4RMs for the affected articles momentarily. The requester appears to therefore be proposing that it is the fault of the other participants (or the closer of the RM) that they failed to notice or comprehend this clear statement of intent; I would respectfully suggest that this may (at best) be politely described as a novel argument (much in the same vein as Tired and emotional) and should therefore be afforded little weight.
Comparative strength of argument - As has been already noted, requested move discussions (as with other forms of Wikipedia consensus building activities), are not a vote; that is, arguments are assessed on their reasoning rather than numerical superiority. The RM nominator proposed the move using arguments reeliant on Consistency (The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.) (and to a lesser extent Recognizability (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.) and Naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.)). There were three participants whom supported 'per nom', which (despite the comments here) appears to have consensus across the project as being an endorsement of the arguments proposed by the original participant. I.e. I have not seen any guideline or policy which indicates that such arguments should be afforded less weight than the original argument. One participant supported "for consistency"; a policy based, if somewhat perfunctory, argument. In relation to the participants whom opposed the move, one participant noted a lack of sources to support the move, which the nominator addressed by locating sources, whicih appeared conceded by the participant. The participant whom strongly opposed the move did so on a number of grounds, however the primary argument was essentially that race and ethnicity are not comparable concepts (particilarly in relation to Ethiopia), and therefore the arguments based on consistency should fail. However, this ground was argued against and sources were provided, which the participant subsequently challenged. The question, essentially, is whether the opposition to the move was sufficient to outweigh the support for the move; my view was, and remains, that it was not.
Insufficient time for discussion - The suggestion is that the discussion should have been relisted to allow further discussion. This essentially comes down to whether there was a consensus formed for the page to be moved. I also note that No minimum participation is required for requested moves. In brief, as the closer of a requested move, I have four possible outcomes open to me. The first is to relist the discussion. Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus.. That is; relisting is only an option should I not find one of the following three options available to me. The second is not moved (i.e. There is a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is.). The third is no consensus (i.e. ...there is neither a strong consensus to move nor a strong consensus to keep the current title.). The fourth is moved (i.e. ...consensus is found to move.). As outlined above, my view was that there was sufficient 'positive' consensus for the article to be moved. Given this, the option to relist the discussion was not open.
In summary, grounds for the closure to be overturned have not been made out and it should therefore be endorsed. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t object to a relist, which is what some people want, why are you leaving it to the bureaucratic process of MR and a formal close? You are being a bureaucratic obstacle here. If you relist and it is then re-closed the same why, then you are vindicated in exemplary closing conduct, and your original close. If you stick your close in the ground for process to play out, what is achieved? Very likely, if you relist yourself right now, the person who is ripe to close this MR will be the one to close the relister RM. NAC-ers generally do very poorly by resisting a request to relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely defend the decision not to relist, though I personally actually probably would have relisted, given the bizarre circumstances here. If closers always relisted every time someone asked us to, no moves would ever actually get closed. At some point you have to say "well, yeah, guess this is going on WP:MRV and wasting everyone's time, but if you can't handle 'losing' a move request, I'm not gonna be bullied into canceling or reversing my decision just to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare." I've done that... seven times in recent years? It happens. And if I reversed every single time someone pressured me to, I would just be teaching editors to have sour grapes and complain all the time. (See 2020 United States presidential election.) If an editor doesn't like the result of an RM, they should wait a bit and then propose moving it again, not automatically pressure someone into relisting to avoid an MRV.
That said, here I totally would have done so, because in this particular case the discussion was actually fractured and it's not that reasonable to expect a Wikiproject to follow WP:RMRM. But it's very understandable why anyone would do what Jack did and refuse. RedSlash 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash, I do support a closer holding their ground when the complainant has no good rationale. Also, complainants do better to start by asking politely (which he did, but the discussion got bogged in an irrelevant tangent). Here I reacted to the illogical citing of NOTBURO in forcing the formal process to play out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, there is a patently obvious difference between a consensus saying "Closure was wrong, RM discussion should be relisted" and "Closure is endorsed, but relist anyway because why not". I object to the first (as I believe the closure was correct) and do not particularly care about the second. The point that the outcome after the relist will dictate whether the original close was correct is a fallacy, as the outcome of a future discussion process regarding whether the title of that page should be moved cannot discern whether the discussion (as it stands) was closed in line with policy and guidelines; hence the reference to an IAR relist separately to the outcome here. Jack Frost (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy. The best way forward from here is a quick relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting would be an easy way to close this Move review. But it would have been easier to just wait a few weeks and open a new RM. It would have been much less disruptive and even faster, considering move reviews take a long time. The closer found a consensus to move and it is a reasonable close even if relisting would have also been an option (it almost always is). Of course, consensus can change but that is no reason to wait to close an RM. Otherwise, RMs will just be open forever just in case consensus changes. Vpab15 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer has declared a consensus, and doesn’t give permission for a quick renomination, then the standard moratorium for a repeat RM is six months. “Wait a few weeks” in the absence of new information is considered disruptive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Relisting would be fine too, I suppose). - I came here to close this as it is listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests, but decided to comment instead. While I respect that the closer apparently feels that this was within closer discretion, this really looks like a rather clear result of "no consensus to move" for the RM. If anything, I think it could have stood staying open longer. This discussion appeared to have been still active when closed. In such cases, since there is no deadline, it's not a bad idea to leave the discussion open a bit to give discussers a chance to see if a consensus can be found. Closing in this way just means there will be another RM upcoming. Whether relisted due to this MRV, or following another references discussion on that talk page. (See also WP:WHENCLOSE.) - jc37 04:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
To make sure I understood the RfC close correctly, I also asked the RfC closer, Barkeep49, for further clarification at User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? to see if the RfC applies to cases such as the Rachel Nickell one (where the killer was convicted of manslaughter, but reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME all say murder), and they responded that the RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies. I mentioned this information in my note to the closer on March 20. After that, the move discussion became stale and no new !votes came in.
Right when the 7th day passed, the requested move discussion was swiftly closed with one sentence, which I felt ignored the article naming policies and guidelines mentioned above and was based on a vote count and WP:SUPERVOTE instead.
I would like the move closure to be overturned. Thank you. Some1 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The clear consensus in the discussion was to move it. Most editors argued that it was inaccurate to call the event a "murder" given that the suspect was only convicted of manslaughter. Some1 wants me to ignore these on the basis that, according to the two editors who opposed the move, many sources do call it a "murder". When I am closing a move discussion, I always disregard arguments that do not have basis in policy, but in fact article titles policy does include other considerations than just the common name and in this case the consensus in the discussion is to use "killing". (t · c) buidhe 02:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfC close was "There is a consensus that the word "murder" is not appropriate to use in the title of this article, as the individual responsible was convicted of manslaughter, not murder." Your response above says: "editors argued that it was inaccurate to call the event a "murder" given that the suspect was only convicted of manslaughter."
But it is not up to us to decide what is "accurate" or "inaccurate". We go by what reliable sources say and reliable sources all call this event a murder, even 30 years after the event had occurred. The murder/killing/death/ RfC was there to help out with these sorts of tricky subjects and said to use WP:COMMONNAME; and this comment by Barkeep49 [2] also says that the RfC applies to cases of "charged with murder, convicted of manslaughter."
Even the admin who initiated the RM changed their tune after learning about the RfC and said if sources use a particular term then so should we.[3]Some1 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm a big fan of COMMONNAME arguments (as is the MR initiator, apparently) but the consensus was quite clear in the discussion. It'd have been a "supervote" had the discussion been closed with any outcome other than move, really. This MR amounts to "overturn because I'm right", which is not really the purpose of MR - it's about improper closes, not round 2 of a RM. Suggest MR initiator to instead ask closer how long they should wait before filing an actual round 2 of the RM and what conditions / evidence would help. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, SnowFire. A second RM could always be started I guess; I won't be starting a round 2 of the RM. Some1 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I participated in the discussion and even though my comment was before that RFC, which ended as no consensus due to many feeling it was too prescriptive, I was aware of it (and even participated in it). The subsequent mention of it did not change my opinion, we do not know whether anyone else's opinion was or was not changed. It is also worth noting that we only have Some1's assertion that "murder" is the common name, they were asked to justify their assertion that the "vast majority of reliable sources call it murder" but responded only with the nominator said they could present "dozens of reliable sources referring to Nickell's killing as 'murder' ", which is not the same thing and even those sources were not actually presented anywhere. It may be that "murder" is the common name, but it has not been demonstrated one way or the other yet (and this review is not the place to determine it, given that the consensus was not based on what the COMMONNAME was, it is something for a future move discussion if anyone wants to use that as the basis of their argument). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that "we do not know whether anyone else's opinion was or was not changed" when the RfC was subsequently mentioned (but we do know it changed the mind of the person who initiated the RM [6]). Anyway, thank you for that comment; it helped me understand the close a bit better. Some1 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a suggestion here that a comment referring to an RfC was so insightful and informative that the remarks made by others before that comment should be disregarded – that if we had only seen that comment before expressing our opinion, we would have changed our minds. I don't support that argument. Like Thryduulf, I was also one of the people who commented in the RM before Some1 began talking about that particular RfC, and like Thryduulf, I was already aware of that RfC and had actually participated in it. My opinion about the RM and my interpretation of Wikipedia policies & guidelines persists. I refrain from saying "endorse" only because I expressed an opinion about what the article title should be, so I may not be very objective about whether the consensus supporting that conclusion was assessed correctly. However, I would like to point out that this case has a long history. The killing was in 1992, and the wrong person was then accused and put on trial. It wasn't until 2002 that the case was reopened and until 2008 that the death was ruled a manslaughter rather than a murder. Sources prior to 2008 would have been written without knowledge of what happened in 2008. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - we have policies that help us decide, and this was in line with them RedSlash 05:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The support to move the page was all subjective. The comments were because the name was ugly or did not align with an example from another company. The full name of this company is Connect, powered by American Family Insurance. If additional sources are needed, it should be marked on the page and not moved because an editor thought the name was ugly.
Brenda haines (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We regularly shorten long official versions of names to a more concise version of that name. Even if the opener of this Move Review had commented with the above comments in the RM, the RM opener suggested that the WP:NAMECHANGES test hadn't been met here and none of the other commenters disagreed. Iffy★Chat -- 12:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. The RM had 6 participants and unanimous support and was open for a full week (also per Iffy and those who commented in the RM discussion). The person requesting the move review is a disclosed COI paid editor with an SPA. There is absolutely no basis for a move review here. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. This was closed five months ago. Why not just start a new request? -- Calidum 19:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one reason why is that it would just be a distraction and would not succeed. I suspect that no one who isn't on the company's payroll would support it, while others would just refer to guidelines like those linked by Iffy. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Buidhe did not accurately assess the consensus based on sources, policies and arguments provided. They've mistakingly cited WP:MODERNPLACENAME as a reason to not move, claiming that opposing side has provided 2 recent reliable sources (claimed this in their talk page), yet this ignores the fact that one of those sources is 17-years-old while other is 5-years-old, compared to 5 recent WP:RS sources, as well as a wide WP:GOOGLETEST I provided. — CuriousGolden(T·C) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When closing this move, I weighted both the arguments for and against the move. In my opinion, neither side provided compelling evidence as to which name was more common in recent, English-language sources. A random selection of 5 sources or 2 of them is not enough to tell, and Google search results have various flaws rendering them questionable to make this determination. (Google scholar search is the other way around, with "Şirvan" more common[7][8]) Since I found that neither side made a clearcut case in terms of common name and the article titles policy, I felt that a "no consensus" close was appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was 5 reliable sources referring to the city as "Shirvan" vs 2 travel books, one being 17-years-old and the other 5-years-old referring to it by its non-anglicized name. Google Search results have some flaws but they give good idea as to what is the common name, especially when there are already individual reliable sources provided. I already provided Google Scholar results in my RM as well and your results, differently searched than mine, still show "Shirvan" as the common name (somewhat confused here since it seems you thought it was the other way around in your comment). — CuriousGolden(T·C) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Disclosure - have been opposing the nom's attempts to establish a new MOS for our Azerbaijan geo corpus via RMs. But aside from that, even if I were not in favour of keeping Azerbaijan geos in line with all other Latin-alphabet country geos with full spellings for everything other than major cities with list of English exonyms status, this is a good close. The closer has followed sentiment in discussion, and also WP:RS cited such as Financial Times World Desk Reference 2003 - there is no consensus for a move to Shirvan. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> While I saw a strong consensus to rename Xızı → Khizi, I agree with the closer that there was no consensus in this move request. Good close!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost the same case as "Khizi" with the same arguments being provided by both sides. There are 2 oppose and 1 support votes (compared to one more support vote in Khizi) and as far as I know, arguments matter more than the WP:VOTE counts, so what was different here than in Khizi? — CuriousGolden(T·C) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is little about this issue in policies and style guidelines, Wikipedia has to rely on case-by-case determinations of consensus. Your request to rename Xızı succeeded to garner consensus; however, your request to rename Şirvan, Azerbaijan failed to achieve consensus. In this move request there was enough disagreement with your argument that "Shirvan" is the "common name" to preclude moving the article. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, you can further strengthen your arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this name change. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but no prejudice against a fairly speedy re-nomination. Close was perfectly accurate based on the turnout, not something for MR to fix. If nom's other requested moves succeed and there's a consistency case that this RM was the odd-one-out, though, the combination no consensus and light turnout means that there shouldn't be an issue with reopening a new RM and pinging old participants. SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was closed due to a lack of objections, but another user (Dicklyon) has since objected to it at WP:RM/TR. So now, we should consider reopening and relisting this RM to give the chance for other users to support or oppose it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to give it time to get some feedback. An RM with no feedback should generally be relisted once at least. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Point is moot since the page moves have been reverted (which one would think would wait until MRV is resolved). Also, the brief discussion at WP:RM/TR notwithstanding, I'm not crazy about the fact that the nom began a discussion on the closer's talk page and gave the closer all of seven minutes to respond before opening this MRV. Would have to agree, though, that the city does not meet PTOPIC requirements. The close should have picked up on that, and a relist is acceptable. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 04:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the moves was not yet executed after being requested at RMTR, and the other I had reverted when I didn't realize there had been an RM discussion, this before the review. That's part of why things are in an unusual process/order here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closer reverted his close, so discussion is open again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There was a WP:SUPERVOTE, and also there are both supports and opposes that make the discussion controversial. I recommend letting an administrator do the closure instead. See also WP:RM/TR (the last edit before removing the contested request resulting in this move review). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn: It's not quite an AC vs NAC issue; there are administrators who've made...debatable...closes, and page moves are explicitly NAC-friendly (with the unbundled rights and all). That said, I'm not heartened by the fact this was made by someone who doesn't even have page mover rights. It's not impossible for a reasonable reading here to interpret it as consensus to move, but 'no consensus' seems a lot closer to my reading, and there are strong arguments on both sides. (I !voted not to move, and I'm disclosing that for transparency, but I keep a very strong practice of not disputing closes simply because I ended up on the wrong side -- this is not a "you didn't do what I wanted" MR.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If "it's not impossible for a reasonable reading here to interpret it as consensus to move", it's not a strong argument for overturning to say a different reading "seems a lot closer to my reading". Station1 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not to insult the original mover, who was working in good faith and presumably using the interpretation which made sense to him. Accordingly, I don't plan to use any harsh terminology or try to discourage him from improving his moving abilities, particularly with difficult closes such as this. I don't think hedging your language to try be kind to someone who's accidentally gotten in deeper than he meant should be at all penalized. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's admirable, but unless you are now saying that the close was definitely unreasonable, it's still not a reason to overturn one reasonable close in favor a different reasonable close that some might prefer. (And I disagree with your assessment of the closer. There are others who would have closed the same way.) Station1 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not impossible" should be read as a statement that it's not literally impossible, not that it's a likely reading. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this review IMMEDIATELY. Are the instructions not clear enough? Leave a message on the closer's talk page before filing a move review. RedSlash 04:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I guess this wasn't followed. Endorse as a rejection of this botched process followed by the protestors, and following that, endorse the close anyway as reasonable on the merits RedSlash 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Uninvolved) The close seems reasonable enough. The nominator here asserts it is a supervote, but offers no justification for it. And while the closer is not admin, WP:RMNAC plainly states "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." -- Calidum 04:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“The mere fact”. Nominator said “Supervote”. That means “the mere fact” clause is not met. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have my concerns about the close as well. But there are plenty of bad closes that are self-reverted IF someone will just bother to talk to the closer and express their concerns. Someone should close this immediately; it's ridiculous to have a move review without having even notified the closer. RedSlash 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But again, he did not tell us why it is a supervote. Simply saying it does not make it so. See WP:VAGUEWAVE. -- Calidum 14:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. I’m undecided. I don’t think I see a Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> In this there is the special case, RedSlash, where a discussion with the closer did take place at WP:RM/TR. And the closer suggested MRV (rather than an immediate overturn). Such a malplaced discussion doesn't happen often; however, imho it adequately subs for the "closer's talk page" discussion. It was a bit of a close call perhaps, and yet the closer's assessment of policy appears to be spot on. Apologies to the nom: no !supervote; good close!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 04:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should respond before this is closed - WP:RM/TR is SO not the place to fight over a closed move request! That is strictly a technical phase for those not blessed with page mover status. Holy cow, trout slaps in the face for anyone who thought it appropriate to discuss a duly proposed and duly closed move request there of all places. It's not that hard to treat the closer with the respect they deserve and not interfere in the technical process of moving a page; discuss it on the closer's talk page! RedSlash 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not a supervote. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but not excessively.
If I try to offer criticism of the closing remarks, at the bottom of the RM:
1. Please put the closing rationale in the header.
2. I found the supporting arguments more persuasive than the opposing ones might be considered an introductory lede statement, but it can also be read as unsupported random opinion.
3. The mention of WP:RECENTISM is less relevant one month after the events. Is this arguing that one month is long enough to overcome recentism? I disagree, I expect > 12 months.
4. The rest prompts no immediate criticism. Quoting participants statements is exemplary in closing superficially contentious closes.
The biggest problem I would point to is the trend of "oppose"/"support" votes favour "oppose" after the first 24 hours of discussion, which is quite a problem when "RECENTISM" arguments are prominent.
I think a better close would have been "no consensus for a PrimaryTopic, and therefore "no primary topic", disambiguate both". I think there is a strong consensus that Keith Gill (athletic director) is not the primary topic for "Keith Gill", and therefore a Do Nothing close would not be OK. The closer's find that Keith Gill (investor) is the PrimaryTopic is weak, but defendable. I recommend: Let the close stand, and review it in not less than 12 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at pageviews and google news, Keith Gill investor Redditor looks more like a flash in the pan. No consensus for a primary topic means no primary topic. Disambiguate both would have been better, as it usually the case. The idea that a dab page inconveniences is a nonsense. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, i.e. disambiguate both. While I agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis, I think reclosing as "no consensus for a PrimaryTopic, and therefore "no primary topic", disambiguate both" is the correct course of action based on the discussion. I don't think the closer sufficiently weighed the opposers' concerns about recentism. Calling the discussion a "consensus to move" is a real stretch. No such user (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I weighted the concerns about recentism against the fact that the athletic director article only had US-based coverage, was four sentences long and hardly had any page views. Vpab15 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
