Talk:Big Ben/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See also Talk:Palace of Westminster/Archive 1#Stephen's Tower

The

There are three towers in the Palace of Westminster - The Clock Tower to the north, Victoria Tower to the south, and the Central Tower above the central corridor between the House of Lords and House of Commons. - MykReeve 01:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to the Warden of the Clock Tower (a friend of mine), St. Stephen's Tower is what you are calling Central Tower. David Brooks 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to go through all pages that link to

• If you are going to do that, I would suggest putting the article at Big Ben and moving the disambiguation page that's currently there to Big Ben (disambiguation). Anyone else have any thoughts? Gasheadsteve 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to move the page to Big Ben, which is the most common name --Astrokey44 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google book search returns "630 on Big Ben St Stephen's Tower"[2] of the first 10 returned none state that the clock tower is not St Stephen's Tower and several do. Is there a reliable source that states that these sources are wrong because the current source used to support the sentence "The Big Ben clock tower been referred to incorrectly as St Stephen's Tower, which is actually the spired tower towards the middle of the Palace" does not state this instead it only refers to "St Stephen's Hall". --

talk

) 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As no one has yet come up with a

talk

) 11:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I use the search facility on at www.publications.parliament.uk seach and put in St. Stephens Tower. There are a number of articles returned that proves that those who work in the Palace describe the central tower as St. Stephens Tower, See:

• Interview with the Clock Tower Guide Section "Can you clear up the Big Ben/Clock Tower confusion?"
• Department of the Serjeant at Arms Annual Report 2001-02 Section "St Stephen's Tower": "This project involved the renovation and re-modelling of offices on four floors above St Stephen's Entrance."
• Minutes of Proceedings The Accommodation and Works Committee Wednesday 8 December 1999 Section "Refurbishment of St. Stephen's Tower"
• Also St Stephens Tower, Palace of Westminster,Gilmore Hankey Kirke (CHK) the contractors who did the work.

--

talk

) 11:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the clock face of St. Peter, Zürich 28.5 feet in diameter, installed in 1534 ?? Stumps 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The quarter-bells are supposed to play a tune from Handel's Messiah. This claim is featured in the exhibition within the tower itself. Can anyone actually point to the movement of the oratorio they come from? I'm pretty familiar with the work, and the tune doesn't ring a bell (sorry!). David Brooks 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I just read Westminster Quarters. David Brooks 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Its reputed to come from the aria "I know that my Redeemer Liveth". The original chime was used at St Mary in Cambridge. Edmund Beckett Dennsison, the designer of the Great Clock was at Cambridge and would have know the St Mary's chime well; it was almost certainly chosen by him. Chris McKay

Great St. Mary's... there are 2 St Mary's in Cambridge ;) - JVG (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese and just know little about the Big Ben. Excited when I found the strikes can be heard on BBC, however, I can't hear the strike hours but "Bee, Bee..." on the BBC World Service on the Internet. Is that canceled?--Walter Smith 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

6pm on Radio 4 weekdays. Don't know about world service.--

Mongreilf

18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I added an audio file to the article. Share and enjoy. HairyWombat 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you listen on digital radio, don't forget that the time is delayed - so making it a little pointless! Phooto 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seams to be a minor contradiction regarding the big bell in the article. In section "Clock faces", it's stated that "[...] its metal was recast as the 12.5 tonne (13.8 ton) bell which is in use today.", whereas in the section "The main bell" the bell is said it "weighs 13 metric tonnes and is 2.2 metres high.". - So, which statement is correct? MikeZ 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After the weight was given to be 13.5 tonnes by the cited reference, I changed the ton value to 14.9 ton. - Please review, as I'm not at all used to imperial measurements. Thanks, MikeZ 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article claims that the clock tower of the Gare de Lyon in Paris, France is "inspired by" the Palace of Westminster Clock Tower. Unlike the other tower listed as "inspired by" the Westminster Clock Tower, the Peace Tower in Ottawa, the Gare de Lyon clock tower does not look particularly similar at all, other than the fact that they are both turret clock towers. Is there any evidence that the Paris tower was actually inspired by the Westminster one? --thirty-seven 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone any idea how they change the time on big ben in the spriong and autumn??

Thanks. —The preceding

Does the animated version used at the start of the "Have I Got News For You" title sequence count? Mittfh 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This page keeps getting vandalised. I applied for semi protection, as did DrKiernan a day or two later, but it was denied. Does anyone know the best course of action to protect the page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Trixxy

that section now... Paulbrock 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Although there is a majority of opinion in favour of the move, it is not overwhelming, and much of the support was admittedly reluctant. Many contributors are adamant that the tern "Big Ben" should only be used for the bell itself. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

How about naming the page either Clock Tower (Big Ben) or Big Ben Clock Tower, including both names in the title?
I'm proposing this because even though Big Ben is actually the main bell I do concede that many people do mistakenly call the Clock Tower "Big Ben". The first proposed name — Clock Tower (Big Ben) — is similar to that used in some of the pages on the UK parliament's website, and of those pages that include both names they detail both the Clock Tower and Big Ben. The same with this article, as it also includes details on both the Clock Tower and Big Ben. – Marco79 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposals, and either would be far better than the current situation, where a pedantic and obscure official name is being used in preference to a well-established common name. But they would still be in violation of

The above debate was closed as no consensus because, while a majority supported a decision that is in accordance to the guidelines, a substantial minority expressed a strong opinion that is counter to the guidelines. I'm not sure where to go from here. Andrewa 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that regardless of the fact that "Saint Stephen's Tower" is the official name, the clocktower is known globally as Big Ben and to use the correct name could provoke confusion for those who have always known it to be referred to as "Big Ben". I think it would be worthy to hold another decision on the matter.-Kingpin1055 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it could cause confusion. It clearly says in the article introduction that the tower is often mistakenly referred to as Big Ben, with that name bold. So any reader with half a brain would know they're reading the article they're after. I also don't see any value in repeating the discussion/vote at this stage, so soon after the above one - presumably the same people would make the same contributions and therefore it would end the same way. There is, however, an ongoing discussion on the wider topic of giving more weight to official names at

Wikipedia is not a democracy/-- Waggers

14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be picky, "Saint Stephen's Tower" is an entirely different tower, see this, which is also referenced from the article. And to get back on track, I like the fact that

WT:NC#Incorrect name is being under centralized discussion. -- Jao

16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've clarified that I doubt as many people search for "Saint Stephen's Tower" compared to "Big Ben".

I'd agree with either of these. I don't think the official name is as clear cut as some in this discussion have claimed; for example, the Images of England (listed buildings register) site seems to refer to the tower as both 'Big Ben' & 'the clock tower of Big Ben': [3] Espresso Addict 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This debate is grown cold, but I still wanted to add my view. It would really be absurd to me, if I came to an article called "Big Ben" which then told me "Ben Ben is not actually the name of the thing". What am I to think of an encyclopedia that tells me it's own categorization is wrong? In a related note, I wonder what's in print encyclopedias on this? I'll bet its a "redirect" there, too.

Eric Blair is a redirect to a pseudonym, George Orwell, so go figure. Eaglizard

05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that, despite the majority above being in favour of moving the article to Big Ben, the redirect there has now been pointed to Big Ben (disambiguation).

ISTM that there's a deeper issue here. Andrewa 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been pointed back to this article now. Eaglizard 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article contains two statements which I should like someone to check for me

The Clock Tower is the world's largest four-faced, chiming turret clock

and

A clock tower similar to Big Ben is the Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower of the University of Birmingham, England. Often referred to as "Old Tom" or "Old Joe", it is around three quarters of the size of Big Ben. Its four faces are each seventeen feet in diameter.

Firstly, from where is the claim that the clock is the world's largest turret clock sourced. The Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower (100m) is actually taller than the clock tower (96.3m), so both statements are thus incorrect. I will correct them unless someone provides me with some evidence to the contrary. Are we perhaps referring to the size of the clock face; Clock Tower has diameter of 23ft against JCMCT's diameter of 17ft. If this is the cause of the statement, then it really needs tidying up! Also, where did the "Old Tom" reference to the JCMCT come from; my experience at the University and from Wikipedia is that there is no such nickname. --PWakeley 09:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The first statement is definitely misleading. A casual reader may conclude the Clock Tower is the tallest in the world when this is acknowledged to be the JCMT. I'll edit it to emphasise that it is the clock itself which is the largest (is this correct?) sixball (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

see: At 9'-0" diameter, 7'-6" high, and weighing in at 13 tons 10 cwts 3 qtrs 15lbs (13,760 Kg), the hour bell of the Great Clock of Westminster - known worldwide as 'Big Ben' - is the most famous bell ever cast at Whitechapel. Big Ben was cast on Saturday 10th April 1858. http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/bigben.htm --Wdew (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to repair the damage done to this article by

I repaired it by doing a cut-and-paste move myself (I know that's bad), but most of the changes made to the article since the cut-and-paste were either vandalism or to suit the article title, and so I don't think the histories needed merging, but make-up your own mind, see here. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to callt eh clock by its common use name which is Big Ben. can we request a move or will that stir things up. We cannot claim that common usage is mistaken, that is not our function, looks like some wierd stuff going on. Can anyone clarify. Thanks,

The clock is *NOT* Big Ben, Big Ben is the nickname of the Great Bell. "Common" usage can be considered a mistake if used in the wrong way, if the meaning is not understood or interpret correctly. Requesting another move would definitely stir things up again. As quoted from UK Parliament – History of the Clock Tower (Big Ben):

"Isn't that Big Ben?"... "Yes. Although the Clock Tower is often referred to as Big Ben, this is actually the nickname of the bell housed within the Clock Tower – and Big Ben's official name is the Great Bell."

I have interpreted this statement to mean that it is a "mistake" to call the clock tower "Big Ben". Obviously there are some that take offence at the use of the word "mistakenly", so in the interest of understanding, I've removed "mistakenly" from the text and replaced it with "referred to" as used in the statement above. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently the

• The colour of the sky in the new image appears quite harsh, especially around the area of the clock face.
• The angle in the new picture makes the body of the tower look quite flat and 2D.
• It is possible to see greater detailing of the exterior of the tower in the old kkkkkpicture (because of the angle and shadowing)
• The previous picture is a better representation of the normal weather conditions around the tower.
• The previous picture is of a (marginly) higher resolution.

Any thoughts? Guest9999 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubts: the original is better, for all the reasons offered by User:Guest9999. --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the original, the slanted lighting angle makes the relief of the masonry stand out, thus higher enc. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A new version of the original image has now been uploaded (Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg). It's brightened up a bit (don't know the technical stuff) but otherwise is pretty much identical. Guest9999 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I took another photo the other day which I will endeavour to upload in the next 24-48 hours. Its from a slightly more off-centre angle than either of these and may be preferential. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the closing of

• • Thanks. I do think though that there was potential consensus for the updated version of that image in the FPC nomination, but given how late it was introduced, a lot of the people who prefered the one with blue sky did not have the opportunity to change their vote to the updated version. I'll renominate but it is my preference to replace the old version as I think it is a bit dull and not as representative of the conditions that day. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This section had devolved into a list of sightings rather than any kind of analysis of Big Ben's role as an iconic symbol in popular culture. Popular culture sections do not exist to list every single last solitary reference to an object--they exist to describe that object's importance as a cultural symbol. This section was out of control and beyond repair and should be rewritten from scratch (as prose) if it is to be included in the future. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the rewrite :) TallNapoleon (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the long overdue pruning. --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 07:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be merging these sections. I don't see any reason for them to be separate. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Palace of Westminster - HISTORY 1856, 6th Aug. - The Great Bell was cast at Norton. It later came (by sea, on a ship which nearly sank) to London, and was “brought to Westminster on a great trolley drawn by sixteen gaily bedecked horses before the gaze of such a crowd as normally turns out for a public execution”. It was indeed duly hung on a scaffold and subjected to daily testing with a hammer weighing over 10 cwt, which drove MP’s mad and the locals to drink. http://westminster.lovesguide.com/palace_of_westminster.htm THE STORY OF BIG BEN - … In 1844, Parliament decided that the new buildings for the Houses of Parliament, by then under construction, should incorporate a tower and clock. … The largest bell ever cast in Britain up to that time had been 'Great Peter' at York Minster. This weighed just 10¾ tons, so it is not surprising the bellfounders were wary of bidding for the contract to produce the new bell, particularly since Denison insisted on his own design for the shape of the bell as well as his own recipe for the bellmetal. In both respects his requirements varied significantly from traditional custom and practice. Eventually, a bell was made to his specification, albeit somewhat oversize at 16 tons, by John Warner & Sons at Stockton-on-Tees on 6th August 1856, but this cracked irreparably while under test in the Palace Yard at Westminster. … http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/bigben.htm

Wdew (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1917 there was a hit popular song "When Big Ben Chimes again". (words by Ralph Roberts). Was this because it had stopped ? Does anyone know? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:39Steps1978.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea of moving this article has been discussed many times; last time there was no consensus to make such a move - that debate is clearly displayed here on the talk page. But someone has chosen to move the article, apparently without discussion or consultation. Should it be moved back, or are we happy with the new location? Personally I don't like the name "Big Ben, London" - it makes it sound like a geography article. If we have to have the article named "Big Ben" (and I don't think we should - that article should be about the bell, this one is about the clock and tower) then I would prefer something like Big Ben (clock). I've never heard it referred to as "Big Ben, London" - I've heard it referred to as "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster" more times than that. Waggers (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I agree. The move should be reversed. --Bonadea (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Waggers (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IS IT A MONUMENT? IS THERE ANOTHER NAME FOR IT? OR IS IT AN AMERICAN THING TO MAKE EVERYTHING A MONUMENT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.100.173 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

These are now harmonized at the

I am a strong supporter in favor of moving this article to Big Ben, but clearly the consensus among those involved in the discussion is not there. This appears to be an abuse of admin power to me, and very bad precedent. Decisions in Wikipedia are supposed to be made by achieving consensus through discussion, and not even by polling, much less by authoritarian fiat. --Serge (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that there is an easy way to create an article with the name "Big Ben" which can please everyone, Iif the first version of this article is used as a template. That is put an explanation of the bell first and then add in the details of the clock tower after that. That should satisfy those who think that the name Big Ben should only be used for the bell and it would still allow "

I have edited the article to explicitly include a discussion of the naming controversy. I have tried to make the edit as NPOV as possible. I followed the following principles:

1. Only use the nickname directly for the bell within the main article; its use for the bell is undisputed.
2. Avoid taking a position on use of the nickname for anything but the bell in the rest of the article; only note the nickname is used where necessary, without considering "accuracy".
3. Create a new section discussing the various viewpoints on the nickname.
4. Keep all current references. Where assertions of accuracy have been removed, all references used have been transferred to the new section.

I hope that this change is viewed as improving the article by both "sides" in the recent move request, by giving a centralised discussion of the issues, based on our recent debate. Personally I think this is a big win for the article, and something that everyone can agree is a positive result of the move request.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a brilliant move by admin

Agreed. Can we have this decision reversed? What's the procedure for doing that, surely it cannot be another

Admin who moved this page says in his closing statement that "Big Ben is probably the most common name", through reliable sources, but by using the word "probably" this indicates to me the move should not have been made, even if more "unreliable" sources prefer Big Ben, they should be ignored, because they are just that, unreliable. Therefore the move was unjustified and against any consensus (or lack of). – Axman (☏

) 04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have filed this case with the Mediation Cabal as I feel this issue needs proper resolution.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben

Chillysnow (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation cabal case has now been closed per PBS's request. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben for more details. Mononomic (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Under this article was a deleted duplicate article with 63 edits. I have moved that duplicate article to Big Ben/version 2, as having such a lot of deleted matter under this article is a risk if a temporary delete is needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is this article called Big Ben? I've searched under the correct name (Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster) looking for information and finding nothing - eventually resorting to searching for the NICKname of the blinking bell...

Many people refer to the "chimes of Big Ben" which seems to me to be fairly clear that name means the bell - for pity's sake if this entire website is to be usable please classify things under the correct name for them and direct people typing in the popular names to the correctly labelled name. 12.155.201.147 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use Google, and search on [ "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower" ] then the Wikipedia article is the first one returned, as it is if you miss out the double quotes. If you put the whole quote into Google search ["Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster"] then no pages are returned under that string but Google returns "the Results for Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster (without quotes):" So which search engine did you use? If you used the internal search there was already a redirect on "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower" and "Great Clock of Westminster" but to "fixed" your search I have added the full name "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster" as another redirect. --

talk

) 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I used Google.CO.UK which doesn't return it. Heaven help that I'd dare use the US search engine for a UK based search. The UK localised Wikipedia doesn't return the results you reference above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

full stop --

talk

) 11:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you must but try reading my point above. Regardless it's nice to see a "definitive" work present falsehood as truth when it clearly isn't. Lowers the value and worth of the entire body of "knowledge" if such mediocrity is allowed to continue12.155.201.147 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this issue to the Administrators' Incident board

You neglected to mention that it was a Requested Move. The way to undo a Requested Move is to file another one; if you are right that the move was wrongly decided, the same consensus will support you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But what on earth would be the point of that? If this guy can just ignore the lack of consensus on the first RM, what is the point of having a second one that he can just ignore again in favour of his own views? Chillysnow (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there are many admins who close Requested Moves. I would object myself if PBS closed again after a protest; one should avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. Although I'm sure that PBS would in fact close as you wish if there were unambiguous consensus for it, which I don't see in the previous RM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem: there was no clear consensus in the RM in question. The rules clearly state that if there is no consensus after an RM, the status quo should be preserved, but despite that PBS moved it anyway. If we have another RM it is likely that there will be no clear consensus again, as was the case in the first two RMs. So any Admin applying the rules properly on the new RM would keep the current status quo, which was only got to after PBS's flawed conclusion of the last one. So we're in a bit of a bind aren't we? Are you suggesting that if there was another RM which had no clear consensus then the article would still be moved back? Chillysnow (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS's action was within the limits of admin discretion - as your efforts to have it reversed have shown. If you can now show consensus for the title that you prefer, it will be moved back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually already has been moved back. --70.24.177.35 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous situation. So basically as an admin you can do what the hell you like. An RM has been held, and the results have been ignored, PBS has just done what he wanted to do all along without consensus. Now, when I point it out, I am told that a consensus is now required to move it back. This makes a mockery of the entire process (not to mention Wikipedia itself) and an insult to all those who it now appears wasted their valuable time in taking part in the original RM. Mugabe would be proud. Chillysnow (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in every way. I, too, am totally disgusted with the move and really want the article moved back. (Haven't you noticed? The article has totally deteriorated since the move! The move wasn't bad enough, but the introduction's terrible! And the fact that PBS made the move without consensus and is using the excuse he's an admin to make it as hard as possible to move the article just because of his own opinion?!?!? That is abuse of admin power to me! Shame on him!) [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's time to move the article back. I checked the requested move that PBS made without consensus and made a startling discovery: If you count the votes, excluding PBS's closing comment, and the crossed-out votes by the anonymous users, the consensus opposes the move 7 to 6!!! Even if you add in the anonymous users, the consensus is still the same: Oppose wins 9 to 8! If you add the only remaining excluded comment, PBS's closing comment, then the consensus is even 9 to 9! PBS carrying the move out anyways, even with the consensus preferring keeping the (then) current name, means that a move back without a RM should be legal, because the admin (PBS) who made the move was not playing fair! If the consensus for that move opposed the move, and the admin did the move anyway just because of his own opinion, the move should be reverted! He was violating

WP:OWNERSHIP!!!!! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs

) |] 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to move the article back. Let's just be careful we don't start an edit war. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why that naughty admin PBS!!!!! He had to make an edit to the Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster page by adding a comment to the page just to prevent any non-admin user from moving the page!!!!! @#$%^&*`~!!!!! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed a little fanatic on the above comment I just got very frustrated I couldn't do the move back because of (you know who). [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing naughty about it. Retro00064 as you are a relatively new editor you may not have come across a page which was moved using

talk

) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you know how much bickering you have caused? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PBS - it's a bit rich you going on about unilateral page moves and wasting everyone's time when it was you who unilaterally moved the page against consensus in the first place, which has now caused the most monumental waste of a great many editors' that time I have ever witnessed. You should examine your own affairs a bit more closely before criticising others. Chillysnow (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to remove his admin powers, he's to much of a j*** to have them. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am calling this dispute resolved per my last entry at

User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Big Ben move despite lack of consensus. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs

) |] 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsequently the cracks have been wallpapered over, with the article's main thrust now being about the bell rather than the tower in an effort to post-justify this poor decision. The worst part of it is that such a hash was made of the whole process that a number of editors (such as Harumphy and myself) have either left altogether in disgust or indefinitely suspended their valuable contributions. Chillysnow (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you call one name "wrong" and another name "correct", you need to have a universally accepted and objective set of criteria by which to judge what name is wrong and what is right. I am not aware of any such set of criteria accepted by the Wikipedia community; indeed Wikipedia explicitly declines to judge such things in general, deferring to reliable sources (see e.g.

tremolo arm, on-base percentage, White chocolate or Interstate Highway System (not an exhaustive list) --Rogerb67 (talk

) 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. To suggest that the only time that anything can be declared as wrong is in the presence of a universally accepted and objective set of criteria (which clearly will never exist) is patent rubbish. As you well know, the plain fact of the matter is that the name has been misapplied to mean the tower by some of the population, as clearly stated in the majority of the reliable sources and also the primary sources that you and I had an argument over previously. This should be as much evidence as is required to retain the status quo before the page move was made: that is the overarching point here and is all I am attempting to get across. With regards the redirect, the whole point in a situation like this is to have the article correctly named with a redirect in place to point those still labouring under the misconception to the right place. To have the incorrect name as the proper article title therefore is misleading and only serves to compound the fallacy. Chillysnow (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ChillySnow, if the common name policy strictly says that the common name must be determined by reliable sources, then it would make sense for me to return to the fight. I will gladly if that is the case. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Retro, a clause referring to "reliable sources" was added to the common name guideline within the last year, unfortunately (ironically by the admin who closed the above discussion and moved this article). The idea of holding the process of determining the most common name to the same standard of "reliable sources" as that necessary for establishing facts for article content is absurd, but it is currently there. It is the source of endless confusion and excuses. There is no way to determine what it means, and so everyone interprets it as they please. It has to go. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Language evolves, ChillySnow. Meanings of names change over time. Meanings that were true yesterday are not necessarily true today. Meanings today will not necessarily be true tomorrow. We don't define usage here, we reflect it. It's a dynamic process. Not only will WP never be "done", but even the naming of all the articles that exist today will never be done. None of it is written in stone. Originally Big Ben referred to just the bell. Today, when people say, write, read and hear "Big Ben", they are likely, perhaps more likely, to think of the clock tower. That's a fact. That's not wrong. And there is nothing wrong with WP reflecting that fact in an article title. Language evolves. Get used to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not some die hard who is anachronistically sticking to an outmoded concept as you appear to be suggesting. The fact is that there is clear evidence from "reliable" sources that, to quote the Palace of Westminster's own website, the use of the term Big Ben to describe the tower is "incorrect". So there is nothing to "get used to". Chillysnow (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a slightly different point here. I'm glad you think that a completely objective set of criteria to determine "right" and "wrong" is an absurd idea. I completely agree, and that is my point. Where such criteria don't exist (and this is the case in general), then all we can use are subjective criteria. This is quite normal and reasonable. It's quite normal and reasonable for someone to hold the view that calling the Palace of Westminster Clock Tower or Great Clock Big Ben is wrong, while acknowledging its common usage, including in some reliable sources. However, in the absence of an agreed objective set of criteria and given that the term is in significant use for that purpose, it is unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that opinion. This is the essence of

WP:NPOV. While I think that the closing administrator's decision was correct in the sense that his decision was sympathetic to my view in the debate, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the rules to be certain it was procedurally correct. Certainly it would have been less controversial to close as "no consensus". However, to suggest others have failed to act on the basis the decision clearly gave the article the wrong name is inappropriate when there is no agreed objective way of determining that it is wrong. In your opinion, the name is fundamentally wrong. A significant number of other contributors to the debate believe along with you it is not the most appropriate article name (possibly varying in the extent to which they believe the current name to be wrong). In a significant number of other contributors' opinions (a group which happens to include myself), it is sufficiently correct to be the best title for this article. One significant group must always be dissatisfied. That is the nature of human existence on this planet and we have to find ways of dealing with it, preferably amicably. --Rogerb67 (talk

) 10:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the title of the article. It's quite clear that opinion about that is split down the middle and it's unlikely we can reach a consensus. Rather, this discussion is about what PBS did in response to that absence of consensus. He moved the page, when he should have left it alone. This could only be done by an admin, because the existing redirect prevented an ordinary user from doing a simple page move. Therefore this was a straightforward abuse of admin power. There appears to be no effective process for an editor to challenge an admin's decision. That is the issue, not the title of the article. And that is why I am staying on the sidelines, nursing a huge sense of injustice, until this wrong is put right. I hope it can be put right, because I would like to be able to contribute again, but unless Jimbo Himself grabs the thing by the scruff of its miserable neck I don't expect it to happen. --Harumphy (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And my point is that ChillySnow's justification for his grievance in point (2) of his response above: "No attempt has been made to address the issue of what to do in the event that the suggested move name is fundamentally wrong" is meaningless because there are no objective criteria on which to judge whether an article name is "fundamentally wrong". The correct name is therefore a matter of opinion, which as you say is split. It is the spirit of Wikipedia to acknowledge all significantly held viewpoints as valid, per

WP:NPOV. PBS's decision to move may or may not have been an abuse of process, I have no opinion on that except that it would be hard to prove. Actually closing the debate required no admin powers, indeed many times debates have been closed by non-admins who have subsequently requested administrative help in completing the move. Before 2008-10-26 20:34, PBS had not edited Big Ben (checked at [22]]); that was his original page move after closing the RM [23]

. Once the debate was closed with a conclusion of "move", actually moving the page was not an abuse of admin powers, indeed the move has been reinforced and confirmed by other admins. Had PBS made such a decision against a large majority camp who proffered reasonable arguments, or in favour of a camp who offered no justification at all, then I'm sure other admins would have been only too glad to reverse the requested move decision, and enforce it subsequently.

In summary, PBS's original decision in closing the debate may or may not have been "wrong" according to the processes in place at the time; with a split debate this is hard to prove; effectively in such cases it's up to the closer to weigh the arguments and come to a decision (it's not a vote). Really what happened was that the "no move" camp were unlucky to get a debate closer who was not previously involved in the article but favoured the arguments of the "move" camp sufficiently to decide to move despite the split. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat after Harumphy: This disscusion is not about which name is correct or incorrect. It's about where PBS breached the policy when he moved the page. Forget the correct/incorrect name thing. Let's just talk about the decision/policy thing. He (PBS) had me fooled for a while, me thinking that policy actually supported his decision per

verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject...", There may be, as you said, some reliable sources that call the name Big Ben "correct" for the tower, but I think what ChillySnow was trying to say is that the great majority of reliable sources out there call the name "Big Ben" referring to the tower incorrect. You're just trying to dispute over the name because you are in favor of the move, and therefore want to defend the move (and therefore PBS's decision) to keep the article to your liking. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs

) |] 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about whether it's the correct name; read our two posts above. Mine offers absolutely no justification for either point of view; it simply points out that each camp's view is subjective and opinion is almost equally split, and that to prove a breach of policy in such a case is virtually impossible. Your post on the other hand makes unsupported allegations about the split of reliable sources in their support of either camp. I discussed process and voting patterns. You quote naming policy and discuss its application to the naming of this article. Your interpretation of policy and your complaint against PBS is based on the premise that the name Big Ben is fundamentally incorrect when applied to the clock or tower. This is your subjective opinion and does not match with a significant number of other people's equally valid subjective opinions. Your complaint against PBS fails at that point, before PBS's behaviour or interpretation of policy is even taken into account. This is the only point I've been trying to make. You are correct, my opinion during the vote was to move, but you are totally incorrect about both my motivation for entering this debate and about my opinion of PBS's actions. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote you from above: "Really what happened was that the "no move" camp were unlucky to get a debate closer who was not previously involved in the article but favoured the arguments of the "move" camp sufficiently to decide to move despite the split.", and I totally agree. What do we do when policy is breached? We undo the breach of policy if possible, so that we can return things to plain old fair-and-square normal! Do we make a decision on what's right based on our own opinion? If we were a jury, trying to bring a criminal to justice, would we decide guilty or not guilty based on our own opinion instead of the evidence? No way! We know one thing: that PBS moved the page based on his own opinion, not the consensus. I don't care what the article is called as long as policy is properly followed! We just need to revert PBS's selfish decision, then the "move" camp can file another RM for their opinion of move to Big Ben and I won't care! Because the policy wouldn't be breached! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

outdent] I never said this was a breach of policy! In my opinion it can't be proved to be one. If a move request is not a vote (and it is not) then the debate closer must use his judgement to decide which side wins. Inevitably this will be at least partly subjective. To look at your analogy of a jury, juries ought to decide based on their opinion of the evidence presented. This inevitably involves subjectivity; which witnesses are most credible, which lawyer's arguments are most convincing etc.; these things do not necessarily have objective answers. This is how juries become "hung". Inevitably where opinion enters the equation, luck becomes involved. You present a different argument for claiming wrongdoing, and one that has more merit than an allegation the current name is "fundamentally wrong" in my opinion, however when closing, PBS explicitly stated he read and considered the arguments presented. It would be perfectly reasonable to interpret his subsequent statements as efforts to determine which argument presented has the better case. Unless there are specific restrictions in policy on what a closer may or may not do in considering the arguments put forward (as there are for juries), I don't see how the fact he conducted a few Googles of his own demonstrates a breach of policy. Why do judgements sometimes get overturned in subsequent appeals to higher courts? At least sometimes, because judges' opinions on how to apply law vary. Luck comes in here in terms of which judge a particular case gets. Similarly different RM closers will have different opinions on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy and whether the arguments in a RM debate apply it properly. In this case, luck favoured the movers. This does not constitute a breach of policy. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The breach of policy was a very simple one. There's a general WP principle that in the absence of consensus, the status quo wins. This policy was breached by PBS, who simply ignored the 'jury' of editors who are just as smart as he is and who had discussed relevant policies and sources in depth and still hadn't reached consensus. It is not the job of an admin to ignore that lack of consensus and set up a Diplock court in its place. It is essential that this blatant, bad-faith abuse of admin power by PBS is undone. The issue at stake is much more important than the article title: it is about whether or not admins can ignore the rules, shit all over editors and get away with it.--Harumphy (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, closing the debate cannot possibly be called an abuse of admin powers: There is no requirement that an admin close a debate! Frequently in the past experienced non-admin editors in good standing have closed debates and called on third party admins to remove any blocking redirects with short histories so that they can complete the move. Neither is a move request discussion a vote; it is a debate proposing the various arguments. It is closed by an independent editor, whose job it is to interpret the validity of the arguments presented in light of current consensus as reflected in policy (and not as reflected by the state of the discussion itself), as independently as they can and to the best of their ability. I don't think it's possible in this case to demonstrate that PBS did not do this. I think you've stretched any legal analogy way too far in suggesting a Diplock Court scenario; Wikipedia's processes are based on the idea of reaching consensus by persuasion and compromise, while the kind of court system you draw the analogy to is adversarial. Who precisely is the jury here? Debate contributors? I don't think so. In a divided case like this, they are more like defendant and prosecutor. A debate closer might be analogous to a judge, but in a bench trial rather than a jury trial. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, prosecutor and defendant, we're the prosecutor for the case of the policy breaching move, PBS is the defendant, but you now. You are like the defendant's lawyer, in how you are responding to us. You go on and on about how this is not "an abuse of admin powers", and you are right about that, but it isn't the point of this disscusion. The point of this disscusion is about, as Harumphy just said, whether or not admins (or non-admins) can ignore the rules, shit all over editors and get away with it. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Retro00064, you've lost me there. How can using admin powers to move a page, which could not be moved without admin powers because of the redirect, and which should not have been moved because in the absence of consensus it is WP policy that the status quo should prevail, not be an abuse of admin power?--Harumphy (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please see The Wrong Version to get some perspective on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching me there, Harumphy. You were right, your comment brought back a long lost memory, some time before this move we've been talking about, I remember finding the Big Ben article as an exact duplicate of CT,POW. So I changed it to a redirect. Moving an article over a redirect does not require admin help as long as the target page has no more than one entry in the edit summary. However with Big Ben because of that story I just told there was quite an edit history there, so therefore PBS's action was an abuse of admin power. I should've remembered... ;-) [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think this argument is more or less half for policy and half for opinion. Some people appear to be for policy (like me), and some people appear to be for their own opinion. I think that the point that Colonel Warden was trying to make is that, that page, meta:The Wrong Version, represents what people may feel about having the opposing side's preferred version being the one to be protected by an admin during an edit war. And the perspective is very similar. The only thing I have been trying to do in this argument is to try to get this article to where it follows established policy. It just seemes to me that you, Rogerb67, at first glance you act like a lawyer for PBS. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)