The district got renamed in 2018, and the question was whether the new name has become the common name yet. Once it's taken into account that only those sources count that were published after the name change and that talk about the contemporary district (a very obvious point, you'd think), then it becomes pretty clear what the outcome should be. However, the RM was closed as no consensus. After a brief discussion on their talk page, the closer agreed that the RM should have been closed as "moved" instead, but suggested a move review anyway, on account of the previous RMs for this article. – Uanfala (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Moved(uninvolved) Going through the RM, the argument that newer data be preferred makes sense. If the closer also agrees, dont see a valid objection to it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Nom's points were crystal clear. This page should be titled by the name it's had since 2018, Ayodhya district. Also, support the moratorium as suggested in the closing statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to move I think its rather obvious that old data, prior to the changing of the name, is not useful in determining if the usage has changed. This is more of a procedural discussion since mover has also agreed with the rationale. >>> Extorc.talk19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that newer data supports the move!!
Search results excluding Afghanistan, Pakistan and Wiki
You know perfectly well I did. So why ask the question! You made a point quibbling some of the results for Faizabad. It is of course always possible to quibble particular results, which why such results are only valid if the same process is done for both columns (which it was). Mathglot replied to your point in the discussion.
I have a tendency to be verbose. I think that other users would consider me unbearable, if I answered everyone's point that I disagreed with. So I do not do it.-- Toddy1(talk)09:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My "quibble" was that, of the Google Scholar results for the old name, the majority were talking of the district pre-name change (it would have been impossible to raise a similar quibble about the results for the new name). This point was never addressed in the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot here that you are brushing under the carpet. On reading the sources, they do not seem to be enough to support your conclusion either due to it being an older article, or a reference to an older time period when it was actually called "Faizabad". For example, In Feb 1980, the Faizabad district court ordered that the Babri Masjid premises be unlocked, is simply because at the time, it was Faizabad district court.
Overturn to moved. I find Uanfala's point that the RS are not referring to the present day district by the old name, persuasive. This hasn't been effectively countered by the opponents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
(involved) BilledMammalrelisted the discussion after nine days, after which there was one additional !vote supporting the move. This was originally closed as rough consensus to move by CityUrbanism. After being listed at WP:RM/TR in uncontroversial moves, it was challenged and an opposing !voter replied to the discussion without disclosing their involvement, and between that discussion and a discussion on the closers talk page, they withdrew their close. Not counting the involved editor, there was only one editor who had a concern about the closure, and given that it was relisted and the only additional !vote was a support, this looks like forum shopping (trying to get someone else who might agree with the involved editor to close it in their favor). I believe the result should be overturned to the original result and the move performed as shown by the strong consensus in favor. —Locke Cole • t • c14:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16:06 – Original close as moved.
16:10 – Original closer requests technical help at WP:RMT to implement the outcome of their close, in line with WP:RMNAC.
17:13 – Uninvolved editor Dr. Vogel intervenes at WP:RMT by expressing their concern that the close may have been wrong; this is equivalent to Dr. Vogel doing the same thing on the closer's talk page.
17:27 – Original closer calls up a random administrator using Template:Admin help, to review their close.
17:32 – Involved editor In ictu oculi also intervenes at WP:RMT, asserting that the close was wrong, but does not move the request to contested requests; that's the same as if an involved editor complained to an RM closer about their close on their talk page.
17:44 – Uninvolved editor EdJohnston (administrator) tells the original closer that *if they feel* that someone else should reclose, they can self-vacate (not even going so far as to recommend undoing the close).
17:53 – Original closer, having the choice of undoing their close or directing In ictu oculi to start a move review, chose the former.
The RM was then reclosed as 'no consensus'. So this was just like someone complaining to a closer on their talk page, and that closer choosing to reopen the discussion. It doesn't matter if the person complained is involved; RM participants who are not happy with the outcome can absolutely complain. Nothing prevented the original editor from following through with their technical request. The post-MR technical request was not moved to contested requests, and it was not really contestable on that level. The closer made the choice of their own will. So the process was fine.
Endorse - Uninvolved. This is a somewhat gray area Grey Area of policy, which isn't quite as prescriptive as either side might make it out to be. Opinions were split about how to interpret existing guidance, with some good and some bad arguments made all around. I think a no consensus close is a reasonable way to go, keeping the main title a disambiguation. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hindu terrorism – In this move review, the community considers whether ModernDayTrilobite's very articulate and well-explained close really reflects what the community said. Arguably it doesn't, and many editors -- too many good faith editors to disregard -- feel that this close reduces to MDT's opinion in a hat box. I have to say that the close can't stand as written. I think that's a pity, because it is a very clear close that comes with a commendably detailed explanation of its basis in policy. It was a non-admin close, and yet I wish that more admin closes looked like that.The article we're considering was previously called "Saffron terror", which is a problematic title for several reasons that are well-explained in the move discussion that MDT closed. It has been moved to "Hindu terror", which is also problematic for other reasons that are also well-explained.The community hasn't coalesced around one of the options here, and I think that's because none of the choices is really satisfactory. The actual subject of the article is terrorism committed by Hindu nationalist groups in India in the 21st century. The challenge here is to find a pithy title that encapsulates this in a neutral, non-partisan way that isn't totally opaque to people who aren't Indian. We need new ideas about this.I seriously considered overturning to relist, and I'm not going to do that, because it sends us back to the old choice between the two unsatisfactory titles. We've already had that conversation and we know it doesn't go anywhere helpful. Therefore we know we need to go back to the article talk page and come up with some better names.From this discussion we already know some of the characteristics a satisfactory article title would have. We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious. It's also unsatisfactory to ascribe terrorist acts to a spice or a colour.If the article talk page discussion stalls or becomes stagnant, then I would suggest beginning a Request for Comment to ask previously uninvolved users to help workshop satisfactory titles. I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.I haven't given you a word in bold, and this is intentional. This outcome is neither "endorse", nor "overturn", nor "relist". I haven't selected any of the options from the menu at Wikipedia:Move reviews#Closing reviews because none of them resolve the problem in this case. Instead I'm providing a narrative verdict. MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory, so please, go back to the talk page and come up with other possible titles for this article.—S MarshallT/C23:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I initiated discussion on the closing editor's talk page[1] and so far I have only found them to be giving more weight to their own definitions and standards instead of those that are generally accepted. When shown how the closure was factually incorrect, their argument was these points were "never raised or discussed in the RM discussion" and their "my usage of "rough consensus" is meant to indicate my stance that, while I did ultimately find a consensus (by examining and appraising the range of arguments made in the RM discussion itself, as discussed in my closing statement), I also wanted to make clear that it was a close call."[2]
I am also highlighting that 3 options were mostly discussed. Retaining "Saffron terror" had the largest support, while some had supported "Hindu terror"/"Hindu terrorism" and "Hindutva terror" but "Hindu terrorism" didn't have the largest support. It's beyond necessary that this supervote should be overturned. Capitals00 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved). I was also quite surprised with the close of "rough consensus", when there were 7 opposes, and 6 supports (including the nominator). There were no frivolous votes that I could see. I think the closer overinterpreted the arguments made. The nominator worked hard to sway the opponents, but it didn't make much headway. I think "no consensus" is the obvious result. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - Uninvolved except insofar as I made a comment when this came up over at ANI. I have a hard time seeing consensus in favor of "Hindu terrorism" (or much of anything) in that discussion. Some people argued for/against WP:CONSISTENT, some people argued for/against WP:COMMONNAME, some people argued for/against WP:RECOGNIZABLE, there was a side discussion about the proposed name being tainted by political rhetoric, and there was an alternative provided which seemed to get a good amount of support (including some who disagreed on the rest). It's not surprising that "Hindutva terrorism" proved an acceptable compromise for many, since the very first sentence of the article makes clear that it's in fact Hindutva terrorism that's the subject (i.e. it's about a form of religious nationalist terrorism, not religious terrorism). All of this is to say there's not really consensus there for anything. IMO the most appropriate outcome would be "no consensus to move, with a recommendation to start a new move request to see if there's consensus for a move to 'Hindutva terror[ism]'". Adding: to be clear, I'm not saying this was a supervote. I just don't think the closing statement got it right. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edited the article) Overturn to no consensus per Rhododendrites. Not such a bad summary of the discussion, but a strangely bad final conclusion regarding consensus. I'll add: The burden is on move proponents to create a consensus that the proposed name is the common name, it isn't enough to assert that the current name is not the common name. Furthermore the predominant subject of the article is the term itself, its origins and usage. This is significantly a WP:WORDISSUBJECT-type article (... is a term used for ...), and there is a longstanding dispute about how it should actually be written, and how the subject should be formulated. It's illogical then to say that the term is not the common name for the term. —Alalch E.00:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a note of clarification, about 50% of the article is about terror incidents, so the notion that the article is just about a term is dispelled by the content itself. As sources such as this one make plain, the original title is just a nickname. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (Involved, nominator) I couldn't really tell which way this discussion would go, mainly because the votes were roughly balanced, and a lot of closers just do a vote count or hedge with a 'no consensus'. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see the closer go over the discussion with some rigor and assess the discussion based on the strength of the arguments with respect to policy. As a roughly even split numerically, the closer was within their rights to resolve upon a rough consensus based on policy strength. In no way did the closer overturn an overwhelming numerical superiority of oppose votes, such that the close could be considered a WP:SUPERVOTE, nor did they ignore policy and the proper weighting of the discussion. On the contrary, they appear to have put significant effort into the close. The closer also correctly appraised that a number of the oppose votes here were largely frivolous in nature. First there were the oppose votes that claimed the existing title was the WP:COMMONNAME, despite this being clearly refuted in the opening evidence. Then there were complaints that no WP:RS used the proposed term, another argument dispelled by the opening evidence. And then there were the arguments that the term was invented by the BJP, which was again belied by the opening evidence. Given how riddled the discussion was with flawed assertions, the closer did an admiral job picking through it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, among many other faults, this comment glosses over the fact that the "opening evidence" was picked apart fairly early in the discussion; it also falsely claims that the closer believed the votes to be frivolous - I have not found such a statement from the closer either in the close or in the discussion on their TP, and it seems inappropriate to assume as such. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Involved, original closer) I readily acknowledge that this was a close call, but I think the arguments in favor of the move had a small yet meaningful advantage in strength. Once the inconclusive lines of argument had been factored out, the supporters of the move still had policy-backed arguments to turn to (WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE in particular). Meanwhile, the arguments against the move – while they were reasonable – did not provide a similar policy basis. Thus, I ultimately found it reasonable to close in favor of the argument that was more directly grounded in titling policy. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (commented to oppose) The close was detailed which is good but it was inaccurate reading of the overall discussion. There was clearly zero consensus for any page move. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> When policy-based arguments tip the scale, then there is a strong community consensus that's been garnered. This is never an easy call when some editors locally disagree with that community consensus. This was a good and reasonable close. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there16:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. (uninvolved) The arguments in favor relied heavily on Google n-grams. Opposing editors objected that mere word counts did not take into account recentism, quality, and overall context of sources using particular terms. The closer disregarded those objections on the basis that certain terms existed in the 1940s, but this shows a lack of consideration for the full nuances of the objections. Sennalen (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (involved, voted oppose) (1) Noting that among the six support votes, two (12) were completely based on WP:CONSISTENT, and another two (12) mentioned it as part of their reason to support move. The closer themselves noted that WP:CONSISTENT does not support either title—which would mean that those two support votes did not support the move, while the other two partly did not. (2) As I already noted on the RM, most of the article is about the term (i.e. the former, original title) and its usage, and the contention around the term, which a commenter above said makes it “significantly a WP:WORDISSUBJECT-type article”. Obviously, if the term is the subject, then the term should be title. The part of the article that is not about the term is just a detailed section about three individual bomb blast cases, all three of which have their own articles. In other similar articles, such as Islamic terrorism, you don’t find similar content forking, at best one or two lines describing terrorist incidents. (3) The closer has mentioned two reasons for the close: recognisability and precision. WP:RECOGNISE was mentioned in one support vote and implied in another (both of these also mentioned WP:CONSISTENT, which the closer says does not support either title) while WP:PRECISE was implied in one (“very hesitant”) support vote. The main support arguments, including the nom, were based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT, not these two. Little or no discussion on the RM about whether or not these two apply. That does not equal “rough consensus to move.” I’d argue that if recognisability is the issue, then Hindu extremism (one of the redirects to the page) is as viable, if not more, as the new title. It is wider in scope and probably better defined in reliable scholarship. Similar arguments for other titles exist for precision. The lack of discussion on these two policy in the RM is because the support votes using these themselves were relying half on the other two guidelines, and not because they indisputably apply. The close is based on the assumption that they do. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consenses (involved) The close seemed like a supervote. Statements like "Opponents of the move largely sought to criticize the proposed title, "Hindu terrorism", rather than to give affirmative cases for retaining "Saffron terror" " (which is exactly what you are required to do when voting oppose in a move request, and can in no way be held against those who voted oppose) are inconsistent with how WP policy works.
Further, "rough consensus" cannot be established when there are clear, non trivial arguments that the proposer has failed to satisfy (which include, but are not limited to, the fact that the proposer claimed their entire premise was based on WP:NDESC - a policy that has nothing to do with the move request, as discussed in the section below the MR; The fact that the proposers have not yet been able to define what even is Hindu Terror, so on ans so forth)
Lastly, the criteria used by the closer, highlighted in the first paragraph, revolves around why they consider "Saffron Terror" to not be the perfect title; It in no way implies that the proposed title is a better one. Indeed, the question of why "Hindu Terror" is a better title does not even feature in the justification of the move, and even the words "Hindu Terror" are not to be found in the description of the rationale behind the move.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "affirmative cases" argument is a case of poor phrasing on my part, and did not form a meaningful part of my actual thinking in the close. For more detail, see my discussion of that point during the earlier discussion on my talk page (diff here). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that did seem to be the criteria which was used as your logic for the move, though perhaps not intentionally. The arguments that you stated as having guided your opinion both revolved around particular flaws of the current title, not the merits of the proposed title. The same arguments were also raised against the proposed title, which were not considered in the close. For example, in terms of Recognizability, those supporting the title were not even able to find enough good sources to properly define what "Hindu Terror" actually was; And in terms of Precision, they also failed to show that the term is indeed accurate to the topic, with no good source to show that.
Your comment about recognizability is not about precision. The term "Hindu terrorism" is self-explanatory, like any other term combining 'religion + terrorism' to anyone. A spade is a spade stuff. All religions have extremists and all religions have the potential for a minority of their extremists to commit acts of terror. Not really news. I would have to question any line of argumentation that seeks to slyly question the validity of the term despite clear evidence of usage in sourcing for far longer than the prior term. Murmurings along such lines are highly questionable with respect to NPOV. Editors should take care to ensure that they are not simply parroting documented ideological dogma, e.g.: The BJP’s stated position, in each case, has been to reject any link between religion and acts of terror [...,] attack the very phrase “Hindu terrorism,” and to claim that it is a myth conjured up by the Congress”[3]Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave no room for a diversity of opinion by accusing others of being wrong, presumably because you think you are right, you beg a response. Religious nationalism is just a politicized religious movement whose proponents hold the ideological goal of better combining their religious beliefs with the function of the state - a pretty common religious fantasy. Wordplay really. One could just as easily posit the term "Islamic nationalist terror" to describe the Islamic State for seeking a theocratic state. Indeed, the parallels to other "nationalist terrorisms" have already been drawn. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, too many words for too little value. If you are saying religious nationalism is the same as religion alone, you are just plain wrong (as pointed out to you in the linked discussion above); If you are not claiming that, then this comment is pointless. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved, and so am genuinely unsure of how to call this, and am not going to !vote. However, I want to point out that weighting arguments by policy is exactly what a closer is supposed to do, and doing so is not evidence of supervoting; quite the opposite. As such, at least a few opinions here aren't based in policy, which is unsurprising, given that many comments in the move discussion were not, either. FWIW; if this is overturned to no consensus, I would recommend a new RM specifically to settle the Saffron terror vs Hindutva terrorism question, leaving out Hindu terrorism entirely. The three-way split makes this harder to assess. Vanamonde (Talk)16:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist). Supervote. Non-admins are not entitled to admin discretion to call a rough consensus. A rough consensus is a divination of where the closer thinks it is headed, even though it is not there yet. Let the close add there !vote and see where the discussion goes. Don’t close as “no consensus”, the discussion is not finished. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was opened on 25 Feb and relisted twice. When it was relisted the second time, there had been no comments at all in 9 days. In the time after relisting, there was just one comment (by one of the already-active participants) and then nothing for 11 days until it was closed. I don't think more relisting is the answer here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my intention with the term "rough consensus" was merely the sense described in the last sentence of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Sometimes the term rough consensus is used to indicate a slight consensus. If the term has any further nuances beyond that, I wasn't aware of them and didn't intend to invoke them. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that; with very few exceptions non-admins are allowed to close any discussion an admin is permitted to close, and that includes close discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with the term “admin discretion”?
Close discussions are not the same as rough consensus. A close discussion may nevertheless be a consensus. A rough consensus is not a consensus. It’s an almost-consensus that someone with authority may use their discretion to cut short continued discussion, in the interest of moving on to more important matters. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are drawing procedural distinctions that do not exist in practice. Discussion outcomes exist on a spectrum, from the clearest consensus to a lack thereof. Somewhere on that spectrum is the threshold for making a change on Wikipedia versus not. Any user is able to determine whether that threshold is met; we suggest that contentious discussions be left to admins only to ensure an experienced closer, and that the closer can take any flak that ensues; we do not have special powers to create consensus that non-admins cannot. Vanamonde (Talk)17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is important subtle meaning to the terminology. Rough consensus is, and always has been, reserved for admins to make a discretionary call. The point of calling a rough consensus is to say “Enough!” “We haven’t reached a consensus, but more investment in discussing it would be a net negative, and so I’m using admin discretion to call a particular result even if it is slightly arbitrary”. It is used where the discussion is becoming a waste of time, but a decision is needed. Admittedly it has fallen out of common use in favour of near endless relisting, and also RM and MR have wandered away from the formalities of proper closings.
Non admins are not entitled to call a “rough consensus”. The closer has admitted that they meant “slight consensus”, so all is well. That is defensible. Personally, I am not convinced that it was a slight consensus, as he injected too much debatable analysis, but if he !voted that analysis, and was not then disagreed with, that would be a consensus. The advice of WP:Supervote is that where in such close cases, a closer should !vote instead.
If others think that he did call an accurate slight consensus, that’s fine. It was very close. I call it a Supervote because I can easily believe that a different closer might have called it “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I partially disagree with it (I think if the vast majority of closers would have closed a discussion differently we should overturn, even if the close could be seen as reasonable) the standard isn't that a different closer might have closed it differently, its that the close was unreasonable. I'm not seeing that here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rough consensus is, and always has been, reserved for admins to make a discretionary call." that's just wrong. WP:CONSENSUS says nothing like that. Of course the deletion guidelines for admins refer to admins and not editors; that page does not discuss more general closes. If you have any basis in policy for what you're saying, now is the time to demonstrate it. Vanamonde (Talk)15:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I call it a Supervote because I can easily believe that a different closer might have called it “no consensus”
with love, bro, any activity that requires critical analysis is going to lead to different people coming to different conclusions. RedSlash05:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The answer, if such a detail critical analysis is required, !vote that analysis and see if the next participant agrees or disagrees.
The closer should be the least important participant in the discussion. Less important than any contributing participant. In this RM, the closer supervoted.
I mean, sometimes RMs are difficult, and critical analysis is required. And sometimes, reasonable people get it wrong. Think of how many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions come out (often not based on any ideological lines, like in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill). These are exceptionally talented judges, the absolute pinnacle of weighing the merits of a case against the law, and yet they completely disagreed about this case (and many, many, many others).
Other than absolutely trivial cases, almost any RM or other discussion is bound to have at least two possible interpretations, and it's really hard to say who is right, who is wrong, etc., without any critical analysis.
And, with respect (and I mean it--I respect you tons), when you say "the closer should be the least important participant in the discussion", I would love to see any example (from a non-trivial discussion) where this is the case. I just don't think you're describing reality. RedSlash17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5-4 Supreme Court decisions are a really bad sign for American democracy. When legal decisions are being made on numbers, and the appointment of decisions makers is intensely political, the system is as probable as far as possible from consensus decision-making as one can get short of dictatorship.
Here, the closer made deep critical analaysis. That’s ok, even good, unless, there is creativity in the critical analysis, or whether it was all based on arguments already in the discussion. Here, it was too creative, a Supervote, and it should have been entered as a !vote.
The vast majority of RM closes are unquestionably correct. You don’t get to discard the trivial. Difficult cases are not a justification to Supervote. WP:Rough consensus is a discussion shut down mechanism reserved for admins, for discussions that have a negative cost benefit in being allowed to continue.
You and some others active here at MRV appear to support closer activism. Like judicial activism, it is not compatible with consensus decision-making, but is well on the path to authoritarianism. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I considered closing this myself but decided against doing so as a move I participated in was referenced by editors in this move and though I felt that my arguments there were not applicable to this move request it was still too close to WP:INVOLVED for my comfort. If I had closed it, my assessment would have been similar, with a rough consensus against the current title based on strength of argument; while a no consensus result was possible, the result the closer found was permissible and in my opinion correct. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that IPs should be entitled to !vote in these discussions, or indeed to edit anywhere in projectspace. IP editors lack accountability. There may be someone with an involved history. They may be editing logged out in violation of WP:SOCK. Some IPs claim a philosophical objection to registering, but they could at least sign with a nickname to identify themself as an individual. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only charitable assumption is that it's an editor who found himself accidentally logged out and didn't realize it right away. But yes, in either case, this should be tossed out right alongside Mr. Chatbox further down. RedSlash17:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with args that tend to belittle IP editing. Such registration elitism is not in accord with WP:AGF, nor does WP:5P4 make any such distinction. Perhaps mine is a different experience, since I began editing WP when it was only three or four years old and didn't register until early 2009. Few of us probably remember the tremendous amount of battleground behavior that took place back then, which is the main reason I avoided registering. Heh... back then I stuck to a lot of CE and vandaledit blasting, a lot of F-word removals and such, I mean almost nobody had any respect for Jimbo's Giant Jigsaw back then! Sock concerns? Seems to be just as easy to sock-edit with an anonymous registered username as for an IP usernumber. Truth be told, opinion-weight should probably be as different for IP editors such as the above as it would be for an obviously inexperienced registered editor unless the IP editor has a proven track record. Guess what I'm sayin' is that the distinction should be by perceived experience level and, unless they show otherwise, IP editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there10:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the first thing I did when I saw this comment was to check if the CT area had IP restrictions, and was surprised to see it didn't. This is a user at an IP address that has been used solely to vote, at a move review, from the get-to ... which is obviously not 'I'm new to Wikipedia' behaviour, and isn't likely a 'don't bite the newby' situation. Sock risk high. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an unregistered editor whose IP recently changed and has a track record under several IP numbers. I tried to keep track of my own changing IP addresses back then, but my provider kept changing the numbers so often that I stopped. BotD, BotD, BotD!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there12:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, now that's an interesting IP finding website. It brings up my present IPv6 address, which my system config tells me is a temporary (dynamic) IP. That website, however, says that my IP address is "likely static". Hmmm... BotD, BotD, BotD!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there14:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved) There was no consensus for moving the page to any of the proposed titles. The closing note was big but it still failed to point out the arguments that were made against the page moves. desmay (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Interesting close, votes were analyzed by closer according to their weight. Precise titles on Wikipedia are necessary given it's English Wikipedia where titles should be recognizable rather than going after google hits and as someone pointed out in discussion as well that analysis of google hits also bring current title with more results. It was fairly a reasonable close. 2402:E000:629:49BF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the discussion, you will realise that neither was the title accurate, nor recognisable and the argument of it being more common was also shredded apart due to the data being manipulated incorrectly by the person who had made that claim. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: Stop bludgeoning the process with your, at this point, tiresomely over-reiterated personal opinions laced with aspersions. WP:NPA aside, masquerading your views as if they are statements of fact is unconstructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the NGRAMS you used was wrong isnt my opinion, it is fact. Adding new search terms will distort the data, this isnt some new theory of mine. And it isnt NPA to say that the data was manipulated incorrectly. Manipulated is used in the same sense as handled, and I think you may have misunderstood it as an accusation of intentionally manipulating data to favour your side. I cannot say if it was intentional, but I can say with certainty that the data was handled wrongly.
At the same time, it is absurd to see an allegation of bludgeoning the process from you; A cursory reading of this page and the preceding MR (where there is only one oppose comment you have not replied to, repeating arguments over and over) makes clear who is actually bludgeoning. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for those who dont have much experience dealing with data, or how its supposed to be treated while drawing any sort of observation from it. If you dont trust me, google for "Data Manipulation Courses". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed read the discussion and the same google hits claim was confirmed by another editor in the discussion, perhaps you missed that or he can tell whether it was data manipulation or you are casting aspersions here. Also I stressed on the title being precise and recognizable more than google hits thing. 2402:E000:629:49BF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was a bit jumbled, but no? He did put forth some data, but as discussed in the MR, many books and articles that show up for "hindu terror" actually prefer to call it Saffron Terror instead (which only lends weight to the old title) thereby artificially inflating the results for "hindu terror". And explain how the title is "precise and recognisable" when no one can even come up with a reliably sourced definition for it? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Undoubtedly, terrorism in any form is unacceptable and should not be condoned. When writing about terrorism on Wikipedia, neutrality should be maintained. Following the guidelines of Wikipedia, it is essential to provide information based on verified and unbiased sources.
Wikipedia articles about terrorism should be written in an impartial and unadulterated manner. In addition, detailed content should be managed with comprehensive and reliable references. Keeping in mind the educational purposes of Wikipedia, articles on terrorism should be written based on general understanding, facts, and fairness.
Wikipedia articles should be impartial and unadulterated. Content should be managed with comprehensive and reliable references. Articles should be written based on general understanding, facts, and fairness. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think so. I did a little investigating and it seems to be a legitimate person, so maybe it's someone who's not great at English and uses a chatbot to supplement their arguments. Here, though, this is a bad enough argument that it should really be stricken. RedSlash17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The statement made by the closing editor provides enough reasons for me to say that the move made was a logical conclusion to the discussion. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY number of votes is not the only factor in consensus. It was a close call but closer seems to define consensus on policy votes instead of frivolous votes. By all means it is rightly the consensus as closer sees it. War Wounded (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I guess. The unanswered argument about precision carries the day in this close, and it's a reasonable decision to make. However, I doubt that "endorse" will win due to possible canvassing as well as people just throwing out random platitudes in this move review. I feel like Steph Curry watching Draymond Green just stomp right on Sabonis's chest; like, my "teammate" is not helping here. Then again, someone used an IP sockpuppet to vote to overturn, as well.
Can you please explain this? Lots of editors have cited "precision" as a reason to endorse, but have avoided answering how it can be more precise than the old title when no one has been able to string together one reliable definition of the term in the weeks since the discussion began? How can we call a term "precise" when no one can even reliably say what it means?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The last 5 votes ([4][5][6][7][8]) for endorse all come from editors who are either Pakistani or have a very narrow editing history of Pakistan related articles, or both. Might have been canvassed off wiki somewhere. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). I dont see any "rough consensus" as suggested by the closer. Rough consensus cant be established when there is valid criticism on several key points that havent been addressed by proposer and those who support the move. It is not the job of the closer to then add their own views to one side to try and "complete" their arguments. If the arguments are not conclusive enough, either relist, or close as no consensus. The close was indeed improper, and while Im not sure if it would classify as a supervote or not, it was definitely not correct to move the page following from the arguments that were raised. Dympies (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The most striking comment by the closer was Some participants noted that the term "Saffron terror" was also used to refer to Buddhist terrorism, especially in Burma. This created a WP:PRECISION problem with the "Saffron terror" title, which no supporters of that title addressed. I too could not find a single supporter of "saffron terror" addressing the Wp:precision problem. Closes should be based on policy not votes.VRtalk20:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you make above is dated to April 20. The requested move closed on March 30. The closer should only consider arguments made during RM in their closing.VRtalk22:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. Seems like more words will be needed.
The comment is from April 20 because the comment is from this thread :).
The comment points out that many of editors point to "precision" while voting "endorse" on this MR, while ignoring the fact that a term that no one can even define reliably is hopelessly far from being precise. As you may know, for move requests it is required to prove why the new title is better, not why the old title isnt perfect. Hope you understand now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[a response to both Vice regent and Red Slash, who make the same argument] - The objections to the proposed target were also because it's imprecise and that, too, was insufficiently addressed. That the closer mentioned one precision claim and not the other is part of the problem with the closing statement, not an argument in favor of its accuracy. In other words, there are precision problems with both saffron terror and hindu terrorism, and there wasn't consensus for either one. You need arguments to support the target not just reasons to oppose the current title. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus<uninvolved>. Saw this elsewhere. I don't think that the closer had analyzed the arguments correctly. The minor arguments which received zero attention or were debunked couldn't be used to support a less meaningful page title which was actually opposed by most of the editors. Orientls (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The closer failed to evaluate the arguments properly. As correctly identified by several commenters above, the closer lent an undue weight to the arguments for supporting the proposed title while glossing over some of the objections to those arguments. Overall I would consider it a supervote. Given that even the "reasoning" supplied for the title by the closer only offers criticism of the old title, and nothing as to how the new title is better, it ought not have been closed as "moved". >>> Extorc.talk18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
