Closure statement disregarded the majority of !votes by discounting concerns about
WP:UCRN to the exclusion of all other criteria in the naming guideline. !Votes were more or less evenly split so I doubt there is consensus for either name, but there certainly wasn't consensus to move away from the status quo. VQuakr (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn. There was no consensus. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). We don't count votes, and consensus only occurs among people talking about actual Wikipedia policies. There are very, very few people in this world who even understand what the phrase "antisemitic canard" refers to, and while they are represented among Wikipedians (who care a lot about this), there's only one policy at play here, which is
WP:SNOW it as completely implausible. French ducks don't hate Jews; the arguments in this move request that insisted on this frankly bizarre and almost unheard-of name over an actual common and understandable one were summarily--and correctly--discarded by the closer. Among arguments founded in policy, the consensus to move was clear. RedSlash 06:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn (involved). Opposers were in majority, clearly no consensus. The closer applied something akin to a supervote IMO. It seemed (to me) pretty evident that supporters had no idea what either of the words "canard" or "trope" means, or how they are used. Much of their argumentation was out of sheer personal ignorance of the terms (as evidenced by "French ducks" above) and thus
WP:JUSTDON'TLIKEIT. They threw up numbers, but did not examine if the usage fit the content. Those editors who knew and understood the meaning of the words, and how they are used, opposed the move as inadequate. And, to reiterate, they were in the majority. Closer gave all weight to only one (poor) piece of evidence (which was contested), and ignored the lack of consensus. The closer overreached his remit. Walrasiad (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If a title is claimed (by some, with no factual independent backing whatsoever) to be the "correct" term, but nobody actually uses it (see ngrams, see the freaking Anti-Defamation League itself), is it really the correct term? The unfounded arguments of the opposers were correctly discarded because you can't just make stuff up. No, "canard" isn't the "correct" term, because if it were, someone out there would be using it. When the opposers completely and totally failed at providing even one single solitary example of "antisemitic canard" being used in the real world, you can't blame the closer for disregarding the opposers and going with the proven WP:COMMONNAME. RedSlash 19:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're on about. Yes, examples were given. Yes, "anti-semitic canard" is a correct phrase, certainly for the topic covered in the article, and has been used and prevalent for far longer than "anti-semitic trope", which was essentially non-existent before, and only started to become popular very recently (post-2010s) (e.g. gmap), probably by confused people who take their vocabulary lessons from bad Youtube videos and misapplying terms of literary or visual art indiscriminately to unrelated areas outside of art. Of course, anti-semitic "tropes" do exist in paintings, novels and movies, and the phrase is used correctly for those, but this article is not limited to works of art, but to political and social life where "trope" does not apply. That you once again wish to advertise your personal ignorance of both words is not really an argument. If you don't know what words mean, look them up in a dictionary. Frankly, you and Iskandar23 are the only two people I am aware of who are unfamiliar with these words. Walrasiad (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to relitigate the move; we're here to decide if the closer accurately interpreted the consensus in the discussion. Not a single opposer posted any sort of link or evidence showing that literally anyone has ever used the phrase "antisemitic canard" ever. You cannot possibly expect any sort of finding other than "moved per common name" when you don't offer up any actual evidence to oppose the arguments of the proposers. RedSlash 20:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The closer correctly assessed that the proponents actually deferred to policy (
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see what right you have to loftily criticize others in this regard, when you dragged in the irrelevant (and factually incorrect) poultry stuff. AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) Bad close with no basis in policy, pretty much a super-vote that simply flicked away a numerical majority that they did not like. A "trope" in no way encapsulates the meaning of antisemitism, i.e. the deep racism and bigotry of what are historically referred to as canards. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is addressing the RM and not the close, and is just a repeat of one of the various brands of flawed OR logic seen in the RM. No, of course "trope" does not encapsulate the meaning of "antisemitism" in the title; "antisemitic" does that - to again belabour the completely obvious. Subject authorities like the Anti-Defamation League also beg to differ.
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This is addressing the RM and not the close It helps to read what people actually write rather than what you pretend. Sentence 1 addressed the close itself, i.e. that it was a supervote. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) The closer has correctly established that (while the !votes being a 50/50 split) the !votes for "Antisemitic trope" demonstrated it to be the
WP:COMMONNAME, even by a wide margin and supported with a broad range of sources and statistics. The closer has correctly diagnosed that the other !votes basically missed to show supporting evidence and also were not able to discard the evidence shown for "Antisemitic trope" (probably also no coincidence the other !votes avoided to react to shown inconsistencies of their explanations)--Betternews (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The user above (@Betternews:) was an involved participant in the original discussion. It would be useful to disclose that. Walrasiad (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) The closer made an appropriate assessment based on the information and quality of arguments present in the discussion, and as that is the only issue in question here, I strongly endorse it (even though the close did not align with my !vote). Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Can understand the strong opinions of the opposers; however, the end result is based upon the much, much stronger opinions of the supporters. Closure was a tough call, and definitely reasonable.
Overturn (uninvolved). Both sides argued on the basis of the
WP:COMMONNAME, which reads in part inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. The closer seems to say that the claim of inaccuracy was not evidenced or proven in the context of common usage. I do not know what "in the context of common usage" means here. It actually doesn't matter, according to COMMONNAME, if the inaccurate term is "more frequently used by reliable sources". Demonstrating that it is inaccurate (per RS) is enough. This is a bit weird, but I take it to mean that more specific RS can trump more broad ones on a question of accuracy. That is, for example, should we expect the ADL to use the word "trope" correctly? If it doesn't and a majority like sources don't either, must we parrot them? I do not pretend to judge the accuracy claim here, but I do think the closer misread the policy-based consensus. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
What determines 'correct usage' if not a majority of reliable sources? Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability are intrinsically majoritarian.
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources. No one in the discussion mentioned any reliable source that said "antisemitic trope is an inaccurate term". So not sure how that applies here. And that's the core of the debate. On the one hand, supporters provided evidence that "Antisemitic trope" is the common name in reliable sources. On the other, opposers claimed that "Antisemitic trope" is inaccurate or incorrect, but they didn't provide any reliable source to back up that statement. Vpab15 (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, or what you expect. The question was whether the term accurately reflects the content of the article. The only way to do that is by us (editors) comparing the proposed terms to the content of the article. I provided the RS dictionary definitions of both canard & trope, and urged the two readers ignorant of the terms to evaluate if it fit this article in question. They just threw up numbers into the air without evaluating whether they were accurately used or applied to the same content. "Anti-semitic slur" is also a very common phrase - I can probably cite thousands more references for it than all others put together. Should "Anti-semitic slur" be judged the common name for this article? But that is not what the article is about! "Anti-semitic graffiti" is also very common phrase. Should we call it that? Again, high numbers, but not accurate. You expect there to be an RS that states "Anti-semitic graffiti is an inaccurate term"? Where do you imagine that would be found? That's what dictionaries are for! You can look up "slur", "graffiti" and judge for yourself whether it applies. The opposers never denied anti-semitic tropes exist, but only that the content and scope of this article was larger than that. You can only evaluate accuracy by understanding what words mean, and comparing it to the article content. I suppose my naivete was to assume that introducing dictionary definitions would be enough to clarify to people of self-confessedly limited vocabulary, who did not know the meaning of the very terms they were debating, and hoping their judgment of the applicability and accuracy of the terms would improve. But I didn't get a sense that they were interested in accuracy, only numbers. By that criteria, it could just as well have been changed to "anti-semitic slur" or "anti-semitic graffiti". Walrasiad (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> To quote the closer, There was a counterargument that the proposed title is not accurate for the topic material in question, but this proposition was not evidenced or proven in the context of common usage. Ergo, the "canard" title was and remains unsubstantiated by usage in reliable sources. The RM also suffered from another common failing, to quote from the book featured in
No such user (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Yikes! Another instance, both in that RM and here, of people misusing Google's results count estimate. You must keep clicking on the last Google page until you get to the end; only then do you get a pretty accurate count. The numbers mentioned: 13500 hits, 5000 hits, and 3900 hits, are in fact 127, 101, and 90 respectively, almost equal (and these are still minor approximations, though I don't have time to explain that in depth). By the way, the Google Ngram mentioned in that discussion[[1] ] is also flawed, by arbitrarily using the plurals instead of the more-used singular, which show radically different trends (making it more about past vs present as opposed to higher vs lower).[2]. I don't think this affects the close's correctness, which I endorse (uninvolved); I only mention it since these numbers were used as arguments here too. I'll try to propose changes at
WP:VPI to fix this clearly-systemic overreliance on bad data across most Wikipedia RMs, which makes many consensuses tenuous or flawed. DFlhb (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we have to assume that neither participating editors nor closing editors are idiots and have a basic understanding that Google hits are purely indicative and not a definitive data point. As for the Ngrams evidence, it is equally flawed to purely use the singular - if you show both at once, it actually only strengthens the sense of dominance by "tropes".
Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I prefer to assume they're idiots, or simply ignorant of it. Better than the alternative hypothesis that they're deceptive scoundrels. Walrasiad (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... "idiots", "ignorant" or "deceptive scoundrels"? That's what I like about positive attitudes – they allow for a wide range of spy-like deceptions. And it's why we trust WP-defined consensus to a high degree, because when a sufficient number of editors become involved, such as in "community consensus", knowledge and wisdom tend to make ignorance and other negative traits fade into oblivion. Sorry, guess I've learned to trust WP's necessarily high standards to overcome its perceived weaknesses. Haven't been feeling well lately; will try to do better.
WP:GTEST, though thankfully they also rely on other sources like Ngram. DFlhb (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse. <involved> Policy was clearly on the side of this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved>. Per Paine Ellsworth, this was clearly a tough call, but it doesn't seem like an invalid close. In particular, the argument of some opposers that "trope" does not adequately imply falsity doesn't seem accurate. Do not agree with the overturn crowd that the ngrams evidence was decisively flawed or misleading and incorrectly swayed votes; it looks like the same kind of ngrams evidence used all the time without a problem. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Gas station – Procedural close. After unanimous support for overturning in this MR, the closer has reclosed the discussion as no consensus (with the exception of the third move). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion with closer
)
Me and other opposers felt there was no consensus on the request. I felt the closer placed undue weight on a Ngrams result and moved on a
I'm sorry, but I really don't agree with the move here. Your rationale is based on an ngrams search bringing back the most hits for 'Gas station', but of course that will happen, as the US + Canada have larger populations than other English speaking nations.
The arguments against centred around
WP:COMMONALITY, which can't easily be corroborated with a simple ngrams query, for example. Some of the supporting statements were either neutral or simply showing support for a move, but not specifying a move target. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Seconded. This needs to be reopened or it will have to go to review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus! It should have been closed as no consensus. Any look at Google will tell you that most English-speaking countries use "petrol" not "gas". But we're not suggesting a move to "petrol station", merely to retaining the neutral "filling station". Anything else would be a further move to converting English Wikipedia to American English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:COMMONALITY is quite clear that we favour using an international name if available even if some evidence points to 1 variety being more common. Indeed 2 of the supporters only seemed to support the 3rd move (which I'm not disputing and I don't thin the other 2 people here are) so it also looks like there is a 5-5 !vote count in favour of moving so I don't see consensus in a majority vote for the other 3 moves anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From
WP:ENGVAR, The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over others, and yet you are clearly preferring American English over other varieties. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Evidence was presented by the opposers (though I agree not as much) like in Nigeria but can we really take the claim that "Gas station" has been the most common term in British English since 2000 when I'd never heard the term except maybe on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one says 'Gas station' in the UK, apart from possibly some Gen Z (Zee) people who have seen too many films ;) YorkshireExpat (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The supplementary above is the discussion posted on my talk page after my RM closure which goes into further detail about my closure reasoning, based on the guidelines listed above by YorkshireExpat, but I actually referenced wording from the guidlines rather than just linked them. In response to YorkshireExpat's reasoning for this review as I had already stated in my talk page discussion, what evidence do you and the opposers have that shows "gas station" isn't the common name overall around the world? Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over others, so I must use logical thinking for my closure, based on the guidelines and/or policies on Wikipedia, not an editor's claim or one's own regional interpretation on what is or isn't the common name. Only the RM initiator provided the common name/usage via ngrams.
So if you'd likealistof British English sources using 'Petrol station', that can be provided. How many do you need? Also, I think it assumed that when we link policy it is reasonable to think that the closer might click on and read the policy. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably also worth stating that I was the only person to consider any English variants other than British or American (Nigerian). If this is the standard then supporters should prove the prevalence of 'gas station' throughout the
Angloshpere, not just North America and the UK. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn moves 1, 2 and 4, endorse move 3 (involved) the closer doesn't appear to have adequately explained why they chose the title per COMMONNAME and didn't also put significant weight on COMMONALITY. The 3rd move seems fine as it doesn't seem like anyone actually opposed it and that has strong ties but the other pages don't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Judekkan as you agree are you going to reverse moves 1, 2 and 4 and close them as no consensus or are you going to relist? I don't think its likely a consensus to move will emerge so closing as no consensus seems best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR debatable topics are are not suitable for new users to close contentious discussions. I think new recipients of the pagemover right need to be firmly told that it is not a licence for inexperienced closers to close contentious discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
That makes this even worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn moves 1, 2 and 4, endorse move 3 (involved). With all due respect to the closer, this does seem like a bit of a supervote. COMMONALITY was clearly ignored and a push was made to convert to American English because ngrams have been produced to say it's more common (ignoring the fact that just following ngrams would almost always mean that US English is favoured in every single topic that doesn't specifically relate to a non-US country), with an entirely ludicrous claim added that "gas station" is more common even in British English (take it from us Brits, it really is not!). It is certainly true that "filling station" is not a common term in modern times, but it is an acceptable compromise between petrol station (not seen in North America) and gas station (rarely seen outside North America). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jaw harp – Procedural close. There is no actual requested move to review. A new RM can be started. Vpab15 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
RM
) (No discussion on closer's talk page)
Though I'm an admin this is my first time with move review, so if I'm in the wrong place let me know. The article was recently moved from the longstanding title Jew's harp as a request for a technical, uncontroversial move. The last discussion on this was old, but decisively in favor of not moving it, and for this move there was never any formal discussion at all. Moving an article that's been at a stable title for 17 years should, at minimum, require broader input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
22 October I moved the page to Lions' Den without leaving a redirect and edit summary "Possessive plural and disambiguation not needed" because the created page incorrectly used 's instead of s' and the s' version did not in my view require disambiguation.
24 October Article creator moved page to Lions' Den (group) with edit summary "Can easily be mixed up with Lion's Den"
Article creator then initiated the RM subject of this submission.
As can be seen, the RM was about the need for disambiguation which was not addressed in the close. There has not been any stable title. I request that the RM be reopened and relisted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RM has been reopened and relisted so this may be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
WP:SNOW close as appropriate, but at the same time, there seems to be no chance that the article will be moved by this RM. No prejudice against opening a new RM afresh later if circumstances can be proven to have changed. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion with closer
)
This was inappropriately closed after about an hour of debate. There should have been more of an opportunity for others to participate who may not have this page on their watchlist. The last time a similar move request was given legitimate consideration was almost a year ago and some things have changed since then. I asked the closer to revert and he refuses. Very rarely are discussions of any type closed with such speed. This was a serious request that should have been given serious consideration.
Consensus can change, even though I don't think this one has. It was given serious consideration in December 2021. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
I thought those other calls for a SNOW close were kinda early too. Especially since Rusf wasn't disrespectful and noone was talking about deadnaming. That said, I endorse the close because Rusf's move rationale was that NBC calls him Ye, not acknowledging that most outlets still call him Kanye, and it was unanimous before the close. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I was surprised by how fast it happened doesn't mean it wasn't correct for it to happen that fast. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No sense in prolonging the bleedlingly obvious, sources are near-unanimous that he is still "Kanye". Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open - if an involved user closes a discussion early and there is any objection that user should undo their close. Dont really care about any of the other details, and Id probably vote to keep it at Kanye West, but you cant speedy close a discussion on a page youre involved in and then refuse to re-open it when there is an objection. nableezy - 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How Am I involved? I only copyedited that page (minor uncontroversial tweaks). Plus, simply editing a page is not a criterion that qualifies involvement when it comes to closing Move Requests specifically. (this is also in the
Youd previously edited the talk page and the article. As far as SNOW, its a bit too early to claim that an hour and twenty minutes in to a seven day discussion. nableezy - 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen immediately - there's no reason to rush this RedSlash 21:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<uninvolved> Meh. SNOWing this so quickly was probably a poor idea (the purpose of a SNOW closure is to save time, and no time is being saved when we have to spend a week or more arguing about it at MR), but given 1) the unanimous opposition to the request, 2) the strong consensus at the previous RM, and 3) the lack of any real evidence that the
WP:NAMECHANGES), this particular RM was clearly going nowhere, and re-opening it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Applying a bit of IAR, I'd say weak endorse but with no prejudice against starting a better-reasoned RM with actual evidence about the prevalence of Ye in recent reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse: We have
WP:SNOW for a reason. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
Comment Even the famously speedy Charles III close took two days. Closing this only an hour after opening is unheard of even by Charles III standards. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen. <uninvolved> Probably still won't have any chance in hell of success; however, have to agree with the nom of this review. There is no way to assess consensus after just a few minutes into a discussion. No possible way. Sorry, but this closure was unreasonable, an abuse of the essay and a dangerous precedent to set.
Endorse<involved> If this were the first RM on this subject, then I would agree that it was closed prematurely. But this is the third RM for this article in less than a year.
WP:SNOW was appropriately used here. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The first time a move was proposed was in December 2021. I would also like to point out that it has been incorrectly stated more than once (including by the closure of that discussion) that the discussion produced a unanimous result when in fact athere was one person (besides the proposer) that actually did support the move. The second time was proposed was in February and that debate was shut down in less than a hour (therefore you don't get to count that as a serious discussion). I believe 11 months is more than a reasonable and there is no rule that you have to wait an entire year before proposing a move again. There are limited circumstances when a speedy close is appropriate, but this is not one of them. People like yourself push "speedy closes" as a way to shut down debate. And yes, I could have easily pointed out the flaws in your argument had I had the opportunity to respond.--
If reliable sources had shifted their usage from "Kanye West" to "Ye" in the ensuing period, I would agree with you. But one RM per year when nothing has materially changed is enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, its been 11 months and there is no one year requirement.--
I didn't say that there was. My point is that when this same move has already been discussed relatively recently and nothing has materially changed, there was no need to let the discussion run a full week when the consensus and outcome of the discussion was already abundantly clear. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
