Jump to content

Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wslack (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 29 September 2022 (→Requested move 25 September 2022: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2022

– the word "state" is redundant detail, because it is not needed for disambiguation.
Per WP:PRECISE: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" ... and in all of these cases "Death and funeral of Foo" is sufficiently precise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - State funerals are only for heads of state, and should be so named. And they are officially referred to as state funerals when covered by the media. Who is Wikipedia to decide that they know better that the world media, and government protocols, about how they name their funerals? — Maile (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note State funerals in the United States and Category:State funerals by country (etc.) there would have to be a whole lot of renaming of related categories and articles, just for consistency. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: I see no need to rename such set categories just because the attribute is no longer in the title. Most article are categorised by multiple attributes which are not included in the title. For example, Queen Elizabeth II died in September 2022 and her funeral was in London, but "September 2022 in London" is nor part of the title.
It seems that you may have misunderstood this proposal. It is not a plan to somehow pretend that these state funerals are not state funerals; it just a proposal to follow the conciseness principle of the naming policy WP:AT by removing a word which is not needed to identify the article.
As to your comment about government protocols, following them is contrary to policy. The actual policy is to use WP:COMMONNAME, which may or may not be the official name.
As to usage, I see no evidence to support your assumption that reliable sources predominantly use the term "state funeral" rather than "funeral".
I just checked JSTOR, which concentrates reliable sources:
  • "funeral of Winston Churchill": 21 hits
    • "state funeral of Winston Churchill": 2 hits
  • "funeral of Ronald Reagan": 9 hits
    • "state funeral of Ronald Reagan": 1 hits
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose State funerals are state funerals. For some leaders, a state funeral is followed by a private burial. The difference between the two must be noted so there is no confusion. Thriley (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thriley: I am not aware of any case where a Wikipedia article on the "Death and state funeral of Foo" is accompanied by another article on the same person with the title e.g. ""Private funeral of Foo". If I have missed some, please can you post some examples. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl QE2 had a public funeral service followed by a private burial service.1. This is not uncommon for heads of state of any nation to have a public service followed by a private service. I don't know if there are separate Wikipedia articles on the private services, but for heads of state it's normal to have both. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66 the article Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II includes the state funeral, the Committal service and the interment.
    Using the term "state funeral" in the title is not just un-needed precision; it is worse than that, because it misleadingly implies that the article does not go beyond the state funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming this is a valid argument, I fail to see how removing 'state' improves anything. By your argument, it would still 'misleadingly [imply] that the article does not go beyond the funeral.' H. Carver (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @H. Carver: removing redundant verbiage from article titles is policy: see WP:PRECISE. If you don't see how that is an improvement, then go start an RFC to change the policy.
    And you miss my point, which is that the greater specificity does not help. It does not help identify the topic, it does not resolve ambiguity, and it does not reflect common usage in scholarly sources. So no positives; and the downside is that it may mislead about the scope, because while the word "funeral" may or may not be read to exclude the burial service, @Thriley insists that "state funeral" does not include the burial service. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Maile66's citation of the QE2 example demonstrates exactly why the proposed move is appropriate. The article title Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is misdescriptive due to the inclusion of the "state" qualifier: the article covers not only the death and the "state" funeral (as indicated by the title), but the semi-private (limited to 800 guests) committal service and the private interment service. Both of these would be expected to have coverage in the death-and-funeral article -- and neither of them are part of the state funeral as the title misleadingly suggests. TJRC (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning Oppose - While it is true that "death and funeral" is easier to absorb for an everyday person, I feel we should not compromise the true meaning of separating the difference between "state funeral" and a conventional funeral. Per some other points provided above for the opposes, I feel that we should keep "state funeral" in the names of these heads of state. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwertyxp2000: that difference should be conveyed in the text of article. What part of policy do you believe supports keeping the word in the title? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per WP:PRECISE: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that", 'state funeral' unambiguously defines the topic scope. Removing the word 'state' no longer precisely defines the article by these standards. It is misleading to suggest that, to take a fatuous example, 'Death and funeral of my gran' is be functionally equivalent to 'Death and [state] funeral of ...'. There is a level to state funerals that goes far above a simple funeral, and it would be wrong - and imprecise - to conflate these in article names. This is why the addition of the word 'state' where appropriate unambiguously defines the article. H. Carver (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @H. Carver: please can you identify the article(s) nominated where removal of the word "state" would cause ambiguity with some other article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl I have said all I have to say in the comment above. H. Carver (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's up to you.
    But that leaves with no editor having identified any of article(s) nominated where removal of the word "state" would cause ambiguity, or otherwise make the articles hard to find or identify. I fact, I don't see any policy-based arguments for retaining the word "state". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, I think, being needlessly pedantic. You appear to be arguing that because there isn't a Dave Jones (to use a stand-in name for any and all actual examples) who has had a funeral, his article doesn't need to say he had a state funeral. You are therefore arguing on a per-person record.
    I, on the other hand, am arguing on a per-category record; that the distinction between 'funeral' and 'state funeral' is important enough that it should be noted. This argument is on a level removed from an individual person; it doesn't matter to me if there is another Dave Jones who has had a funeral. This is why I won't - indeed, can't - respond to your request to identify specific articles. Your framing is overly specific and I refute it. H. Carver (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @H. Carver: on the contrary, this is very simple: I am arguing per policy, and you are not.
    No part of article policy supports your desire to use article titles to convey a "category distinction".
    It would be very helpful if before contributing further, you would take time to actually study the policy WP:AT, especially WP:CRITERIA. The closer is obliged to discount arguments which are not founded in policy, so all your non-policy ideas are simply a waste of your time and everyone else's time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that we were both arguing over a policy, and our difference was in the interpretation of said policy.
    However, I will post a response to my original comment later with references to specific policy documents. I wouldn't want to risk my vote being discounted.
    I feel I must also note that - and I accept you may not realise or intend it - some of your responses here come across as unnecessarily antagonistic. You have replied to a lot of 'oppose' votes to essentially tell people they're wrong. If your argument is so strong and the oppose arguments so weak - why? You could simply keep quiet and trust the eventual closer. I don't think it was appropriate for you to say my comment was 'a waste of time' and effectively address the eventual closer to ignore it. Nor do I think you needed to state "I'm arguing [properly] and you're not". There are kinder ways to say "Can you please support your arguments by referring to specific policies" H. Carver (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    H. Carver, you made a series of post which had absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia policy. You accused me of being needlessly pedantic and of arguing on a per-person record
    Both those claims are false and hostile. When you choose to conduct yourself like that, don't complain that the response you get is blunt. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want speak where I'm not wanted, but since both you and @H. Carver have established that you want a friendly discussion why not set any insults in previous comments aside and be cordial going forward? It's only Wikipedia, after all A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.D.Hope: if H. Carver chooses to conduct themselves with proper civility, by basing their comments on policy and refraining from their ad hominems, then I will be very happy to have a friendly discussion.
    However, ignoring policy is uncivil and disruptive. Attacking other editors as pedantic for upholding policy is very nasty; in my view it is WP:NOTHERE conduct. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that, if each of you thinks the other has been insulting, but you both want a friendly discussion, the easiest thing might be to just forget the previous comments move on civilly. Anyway, this isn't my discussion so I'm going to keep quiet now! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the first comment, I didn't intend that to be hostile but I accept it was poorly worded. I'm baffled as to the issue with the second comment, however, and don't understand how that caused offence. H. Carver (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the basis that state funerals are (generally) considered to be a special, quite small subset of funerals (such as described in the article State funeral), so only a small subset would apply to articles pertaining to particular individuals, such as the list of people that are the subject of this requested move. Having made myself familiar with the policy under WP:PRECISE, and noting that this discussion appears to be currently @BrownHairedGirl vs. the world over following the policy to the letter, there should be consideration of the first word of the section on Precision, which is "Usually". This discussion could be a case of applying the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA more aligned with WP:COMMONNAME. The example given of using Bothell, Washington instead of Bothell, where adding the state name is in deference to common name not disambiguation, appears to be pertinent in this case. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matilda Maniac: I agree that we should use the COMMONNAME. However, neither you nor anyone else in this discussion has even attempted to provide any evidence that the COMMONNAME includes "state".
    OTOH, see evidence I posted above from JSTOR that in the case of Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill, the COMMONAME does not include "state". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above arguments that have been made about the conventions of state funerals. Originoa (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is more often than not the "state" character of the funeral that makes the funeral notable. Removingfrom the article article the word that is most clearly linked to its relevance can not be a clever move. Dentren | Talk 09:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the extra word is largely redundant and AFAIK the final 'private' ceremonies and/or burial are ordinarily covered briefly by us as well - though by their very nature - the final ceremonies are private, largely unreported, wholly un-broadcast and adequately covered by a sentence or two to outline how the person's body was finally dealt with and final farewells said by those closest to the individual in their private life. It is obvious that the title primarily refers to the public (State) event iro figures such as QEII, Churchill, Mandela etc. so no useful purpose is served by the - at best, marginally - more precise title. Yes it is true that a state funeral is - in most countries - a rare honour, but there is no necessity for the title to record that. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The guidance at WP:PRECISE is clear and there's virtually no risk of ambiguity. Elizabeth II, for example, did not have a state and a none-state funeral, and I imagine this is true of everyone in the list above. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the proposed titles appear sufficiently clear and precise in the absence of separate articles dedicated to the private funerals. If anything, the current titles are overly precise for cases where the private funeral activites are also covered by the articles. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close Seriously?????? I’ve seen some ridiculous move, delete and merge requests since the Queen sadly passed but this one takes the biscuit. Others have put the reasons why across better than I will but it’s as simple as this. This was a state funeral fact and that should clearly be reflected in the article title
Davethorp (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another passionate oppose without even a hint of an attempt to find any basis in the policy WP:AT. Similarly, the "speedy close" request has no basis in WP:CSK.
What is it about state funerals that generates such policy-free passion? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are even asking this questions shows that Usually, such a policy should apply, but in some cases arguments in addition to policy are relevant considerations. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matilda Maniac: arguments in addition to policy can by definition by made only if the presenter is aware that they are outside policy, and can make a case as to why policy is inadequate to an exceptional situation.
That has not been the case here, where a flurry of editors have made !votes whilst demonstrating complete ignorance of the principles by which articles are named. These are in fact "arguments in place of policy", and in practice most of them are "arguments in flagrant defiance of policy". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The process here, where the move requester rapidly replies to posts that Oppose with statements implying ignorance, or now flagrant defiance, or to only address policy, rather than at least waiting 48 hours to see what views are out there, in my opinion is a process that is far from helpful, as it will discourage debate. You are passionate about policy, whereas others appear to be passionate about content, and thats fine; but you are coming across as wielding a large weapon to immediately shoot down views contrarian to you own, instead of perhaps reading and absorbing. I wonder if the note to Closer that you generated before any of the debate was started - implying the implications after a particular outcome - has also unconsciously biased the debate. A cycle of Oppose / Shoot / Oppose / Shoot / Support / Support / Oppose / Shoot, with comments such as . . . all your non-policy ideas are simply a waste of your time and everyone else's time is far from constructive debate from such a senior editor. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matilda Maniac: ideally, all editors would uphold decent standards, and there would be no need to remind them that arguments not based in policy carry no weight. Sadly, that is not the case here, which is why I have been trying to point editors towards constructive debate, i.e. debate founded in policy.
I find it bizarre and Kafka-esque that you claim that is somehow not constructive to ask editors to avoid cluttering the page with argument which ignore policy, and even more bizarre that you did so while making no reproach to those who ignore policy. Whatever your intent, the effect of your partisan criticism is encourage editors to ignore policy, which is very undesirable.
Attacking any editor for demanding attention to policy is disruptive conduct, which I find deeply insulting. Please desist. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will desist immediately; my comments on the Requested Move are as above. I am not attacking any editor. I am pointing out that it is the behaviour or conduct of the debate, not the quality of arguments on policy, that i find disappointing. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so.
You made it very clear that you have absolutely no objection at all to the misconduct of editors who disrupt debate by ignore policy.
Instead you attacked me for asking editors to focus on policy, and for reminding them that the closer is obliged to disregard arguments not based on policy. A retraction would have been nice, but thank you for agreeing to desist. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given your conduct in this matter section 2 of WP:CSK applies
WP:IAR also applies in this case and by extension WP:SNOW in support of a speedy close Davethorp (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani&oldid=1112997464"