- Native American boarding schools (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
Procedural nomination as closer, pursuant to discussion on my talk page. I closed the discussion as "move to American Indian boarding schools" per the detailed reasoning I explained on my talk page, but several people seem to disagree with the logic I employed. My final count was two opposes, two vacated opposes (since the only reasoning they stated was not applicable to the title I saw as consensus), and six support (four explicit support and two "no objection"s).—Darkwind (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse ( but allow immediate new RM ): While it would have been better to in my opinion to close as not moved with a suggestion to open a move request to alternate suggestion. That said the alternate title was quickly suggested by several of the commenters, and only two !votes were made before the first suggestion of it. Both of those commenters made additional comments after the suggestion was raised, one indicating support for the alternate name. PaleAqua (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think allowing an immediate new RM would be appropriate, even though this was not a no-consensus close and I find no fault with the close itself. PaleAqua (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It appears the editors complaining on the talk page didn't look much beyond the bolded votes. Of the six oppose voters, myself included, four of us primarily objected to using "Indian" alone due to potential confusion,and SmokeyJoe and I explicitly endorsed American Indian boarding schools. This title was a good compromise because it addressed concerns of supporters that "Native American" wasn't used to describe these schools, as well as the concerns of some opposers that the proposed title was ambiguous. Til Eulenspiegel's observation that these sorts of situations lead to back-to-back RMs hasn't exactly been true, in my experience. There are plenty of cases like this where consensus forms behind an alternative suggestion. Certainly it was not a procedural error on Darkwind's part to recognize consensus rather than force a new request. Finally, the article should not have been moved back to the old title prior to the resolution of this review. In the event of a no consensus decision here, the title should revert to American Indian boarding schools. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close (edit conflict – comments written before BDD's concurring response), so title should be American Indian boarding schools (since reverted by Til Eulenspiegel, improperly in my opinion): Per the summary on the closer's Talk page. My impression is that after some initial opposition to the proposer's original (different) suggestion was expressed, the tide had clearly turned in favor of the declared outcome, and the discussion had stabilized in that state. I was not a participant in the discussion since I did not think I had a clear personal opinion about what the name should be, although was watching it take place as a learning experience. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: By my reading, the last comment that appears to oppose the outcome that was ultimately declared (a comment by Uyvsdi) was on 28 September. All subsequent remarks in the discussion seem to explicitly or implicitly support the outcome. This includes three comments in a row at the end that express a clear agreement during 5–7 October. The consensus was declared on 11 October. Two weeks of waiting after the last direct opposition before closing seems sufficient to establish that the discussion had stabilized in that direction. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slap Til_Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) for reverting the move during this review, move-warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The page move was reverted before I opened the review, but I still don't feel it was appropriate (as I noted on my talk page). In fact, the revert was what prompted me to escalate to a review. —Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my reasoning was correct. There was no formal proposal to move from "Native American" to "American Indian". There was no clear consensus for this. If someone wishes to propose a move to "American Indian", I will of course not complain about the outcome. However this breach of procedure done by supposedly divining what people think is the best title is unprecedented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with those who stated that "American Indian" is better than just "Indian" myself. That is not the same as saying "American Indian" is better than the original title, "Native American". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you want to insist that "Indian" is the correct and most common term today then slap me with a trout for disagreeing, I would urge you to think twice before slapping me with a trout Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It really doesn't matter that the title decided upon wasn't the same as the one that was originally proposed. That sort of thing happens all the time (cf. WP:NOTBURO). --BDD (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the first time I've ever seen anything like it. It is an abuse of procedure. There is no clear consensus for this title. I will link to this conversation from the Native American Project, because an ass-backwards decision in favor of 'American Indian" over "Native American" is being held upo by the usual bunch of cronies and I intend to continue this appeal as far as it will possibly go. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bringing in other interested editors, such as from the Native American Project, is a good idea. Others' participation on the talk page, especially in a follow-up RM discussion is definitely a positive way to move forward. Unfortunately, this Move Review discussion precludes initiating a fresh RM discussion due to simultaneous related discussions being generally undesirable. Unfortunately, this Move Review was necessitated by your unilateral rejection of respect for the closer's closing per his reading of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse. The closer's call was clearly the right one. First, there's the little matter that "American Indian boarding schools" is the much more common name in the sources, while "Native American boarding schools" is uncommon (and anachronistic). Especially once that was pointed out, the majority of users supported this title. Until the point this move review decides otherwise, the article needs to be restored to where the closing admin put it, and yes, Til should be summarily trouted for unilateral move warring.--Cúchullain t/c 23:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not open to being slapped by a trout by anyone just because I support the current term Native American and not the antiquated misnomer American Indian. Please save your stupid trout slapping for editors who specifically state that they are "open" to such experiences. I do not go for that. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By unilaterally rejecting the result of a reasonably run and closed RM discussion, you have been disruptive. There is a strong community consensus that the WP:RM process is the way to decide on questions of contested page renames, and that the result of the RM process is to be respected, subject to demonstrated consensus otherwise. Would you please reverse your page move, and leave any action on that front to the closer of this MR discussion, or to a later RM discussion? You have made your views clear. Now, you need to wait and see if other interested editors agree. I suggest that you may fine others more likely to voice their agreement with you if you do not appear to be disruptive or combative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with SmokeyJoe. Please reverse your page move. Also, unless you are Indian, it is not your place to determine what we are called. GregJackP Boomer! 14:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never stated whether or not I am Native American. But I'm definitely not "Indian", because I am not from India. I can't bring myself to move the page back to "Indian" from the original location but I am still all for having a much wider discussion. Does the race of any of the participants in the discussion matter really? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I am Menominee and Indian. You've made the comment that you support the "current term Native American and not the antiquated misnomer American Indian." "Native American" is a BS term invented by politically correct white people to label Indians. Unless you are Indian, who are you to say what we should be called, or what is an "antiquated misnomer"? GregJackP Boomer! 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it doesn't matter what an editor's ethnic and cultural background is. What matters are that procedures are followed, and the closing of that particular discussion was premature, since not even a rough consensus had been developed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- I don't disagree that process is more important than an individual's background, but it is irritating and insulting to be told what one should be called. GregJackP Boomer! 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Native people don't unanimously agree, and no one can speak for all Native people. We can only speak for ourselves. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- Til, you're not being trout-slapped for your opinion, but because you started edit warring to get your way. If you revert yourself we can move the discussion forward; until then your edit warring will just be a distraction that seriously undermines your own case.--Cúchullain t/c 15:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow a near immediate relisting as a fresh RM to decide between Native American boarding schools and American Indian boarding schools, given unexpected strength of opinion. In the event of a "no consensus" outcome to this followup RM, Native American boarding schools should be considered default, as the term used in the early version of the page, and in the page from which it was spun out. No criticism of the closer, as the close looks, on its face, to be quite reasonable. It is not uncommon for a RM discussion to result in a consensus for something not originally mentioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse. The move to American Indian boarding schools was the correct move based on stated opinions and matches WP:COMMONNAME. The reversion was uncalled for and should be reverted. GregJackP Boomer! 14:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist
Strong oppose. The term "Native American" includes Alaska Natives who are not Indian (Aleut, Iñupiat, Yupik, etc.). Non-Indian Alaska Natives are part of the residential boarding school experience in the United States, into the late 20th century (Shadian 92)), (Nuttall and Callaghan 381). The term "American Indian" would unnecessarily exclude these non-Indian Alaska Natives. While the article Native American boarding schools begins with the lead sentence saying the schools started in the late 19th and early 20th century, these schools did not all close then; many still are still in operation today. Some have been taken over by tribes, but many are still run by organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church (Red Cloud Indian School), American Baptist Churches (Bacone College), etc. so the notion that the title needs to adhere to terms used 150 years ago is absurd. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- Prefer Native American boarding schools: Per Uyvsdi and the issue of Alaska Natives. Each individual institution may or may not still have "Indian school" in its name, and that is fine for articles about individual instutitions, but for the generic concept, best to use "Native American" due to the highly controversial and still-hotly-debated use of the word "Indian." Some Native people are quite offended by the word "Indian," while others are fine with it and some even prefer it, as we can see here with GregJackP and Uyvsdi, both of whom I believe are of Native ancestry. (FYI, I'm white, and I don't even think I might have had an Indian ancestor, somewhere, LOL) "American Indian" is common jargon in legal circles, but "Native American" is still pretty standard in academic circles, particularly history. While (as Greg illustrated) some Native people find "Native American" mildly irritating, a bit PC, and sometimes kind of pretentious, you won't find people jumping up and down with accusations that it is racist. Personally, I've had Native folks mock me for saying "Native American," but I've seen folks be SERIOUSLY pissed off if I say the word "Indian" to the wrong person. For that reason, I prefer "Native American" as a category title and to title the overview article. That said, I also agree that there is a place to use the term "American Indian" when it is in its proper context and there is no need for people to go into WP:OR land and suggest we have to go into SYNTH territory to call the BIA the "Bureau of Native American Affairs" or something equally ridiculous. Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist as a choice between 2 titles per SmokeyJoe and Slap Til_Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) for violating WP:Canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This should have been presented briefly and neutrally and the comment "Wider range of opinions than the usual pro-sysop editors is requested" is out of line and clearly lacks good faith. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose close. per uyvsdi and montanab Pass a Method talk 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - BDD summarises it well. Vacating opposes on the grounds of not liking the standalone term "Indian" and including those who were happy to support the alternative proposal, a consensus was there. — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I like the term "American Indian" just fine; however, Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut peoples have been and are still part of the boarding school experience, and they are not American Indians—culturally, genetically, historically, or politically. Since this article is very definitely about the United States, it should include non-Indian Alaskan Natives. There's no reason to exclude them from the scope of this article. The current term "Native American" includes them. A consensus was *not* developed around the term "American Indian." -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- I am biased (having supported "American Indian boarding schools" in the initial move discussion) but want to point out that many RM discussions are closed with a move to a title different from that in the original nomination. That's why it is called a discussion, not a ballot. However, I also believe that in this and similar cases, a new RM to undo the move should be allowed. — AjaxSmack 20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
