Radio 1 FM (Gambia) – Overturn to move. While there is no explicit convention how to disambiguate pages related to the Gambia, reasonable arguments (grounded in CONSISTENT) in the RM were provided in favor of the move, but ignored by the closer. Local consensus to move this particular page was rather clearcut. While several reviewers suggested a relist, the RM hads been relisted for two times already, and perhaps it would be more fruitful to discuss the preferred disambiguation method elsewhere. No such user (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't think this close was an accurate reading of consensus, and introduced novel arguments not raised in the discussion. Examples like Gambian nationality law which the closer invoked in their closing statement were not discussed in the RM, and the closer gave no further rationale for following the preference of one participant over the three who supported the disambiguator (The Gambia). I would suggest the discussion be reopened to allow another editor to close it. Colin M (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to move <uninvolved> The closer's statement that "'The' is not needed neither it is a mandatory disambiguator" is unsupported by any policy or guideline, and the four examples given don't undermine the supporters' point that titles involving The Gambia are inconsistent. Since the numerical majority's arguments – specifically, that it's best to follow the main article's title – are not at odds with any policy or guideline, there's no reason for the closer to discount them. This is a fairly straightforward supervote, and I would respectfully encourage the closer to be a bit more careful that his closures are describing consensus rather than prescribing it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have presented my rationale on my tp – "the" is an official part of Republic of The Gambia, but we still don't need "the" in disambiguation since we don't have other topic with the same title that needs to be distinguished with "The Gambia"". We have only one page named "Gambia" and therefore, "the" seems an unnecessary disambiguator. Also, we have many articles about various topics in the country that do not use "the". For example, Gambia national football team, Gambian nationality law, Gambia Regiment, Gambia Armed Forces etc. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reread Colin M‘s comments in that tp discussion. The closer job is not to decide whether the page should be moved, but to determine what, if anything, the discussion participants have decided. In your close, on your tp, and now here, you’re merely presenting an argument for the move. Not a word about the discussion you’re closing. —В²C☎ 06:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scattergun complaint. Yet another NAC ambiguous close, no attempt by the closer to clearly summarise any consensus or lack of one, the language is instead Supervotey, as if they thing the decision was their arbitrary perogative to rule on their own judgement. On the part of the RM nominator, proposals without proposals should not even be allowed, they are not conducive to leading a discussion to any consensus. Instead, it should have been an ordinary talk page thread. Save RM for when you have a move target to propose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not one to criticise non-admin closures in and of themselves, given that we have some very experienced and knowledgeable RM people out there who don't have the bit. With all due respect, this isn't a good close at all though - it doesn't allude to the discussion at all, and simply gives the closer's own opinion as you'd see in a !vote, even introducing elements such as "Gambia national football team" that weren't mentioned by any of the participants. — Amakuru (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NAC thing I guess is a correlation that gets too much attention. NAC closes have a stronge correlation with bad closes than do admin closes. This should not be overgeneralised, and personally I found two NAC-ers as the best closers on Wikipedia. The real problem is inexperienced closers. Maybe we need a catchy TLA for them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, revert the close as a BADNAC, an action that any uninvolved admin may do unilaterally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought this to RM was because I felt that a discussion to establish "what is the appropriate disambiguator for pages about the country known as The Gambia" was necessary given the inconsistency of about 30 titles. In this case, there were three courses of action. Additionally, the project pages related to the country are sparsely viewed, and the issue at hand has little to do with the other topic area of the nominated article, radio stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist. <uninvolved> I can’t recall seeing a more blatant WP:SUPERVOTE. I advise the closer to refrain from any more closes at least until they learn closer responsibilities, if not forever. The close was bad enough. But the obstinacy in the post-close discussion on their talk page is where the cluelessness was revealed. —В²C☎ 06:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I oppose an "overturn to moved" because I would like to participate in the RM with an oppose, and explain my reasons. --В²C☎ 00:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist <uninvolved> - Sanction closer for clear violation of RCMI - Conflict of Interest Provisions. A more blatant violation I’ve never seen. The closer materially participated in the RM discussion several times prior to the closing.Mike Cline (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Cline: I'm not seeing the closer (TheBirdsShedTears) having participated in the discussion. I think you might be confusing them with a different editor? Colin M (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are correct. My mistake. I strike my comments, but retain the Overturn. Thanks for the heads up.Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved or no consensus (uninvolved) while I support having the main article with the "The" I'm not sure its needed for articles using it as a disambiguator, that said I'd say per Amakuru's comment and the subsequent comments that there was if anything a rough consensus to move especially since that position was a 3:1 majority (or 4:1 if counting the nom since its not clear if they supported it). While I think per WP:NOTBURO that supervotes are OK sometimes for non-controversial articles if someone does object to it you should generally revert and make a !vote instead. There is a related RM at Talk:Two of Us (song)#Requested move 15 February 2022 where I have suggested the "The" isn't needed but as noted per Amakuru that might not be correct? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved (involved, voted to move) - with a ratio of 4:2 and a fairly clear rationale for moving, in that the name of the country is clearly always written as "The Gambia", with a capital T, there seems little reason for the closer to have gone against the majority here. Also, per SmokeyJoe above, the close is a fairly clear WP:SUPERVOTE as it doesn't allude to the discussion at all. — Amakuru (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist) was Overturn(reclose). Close is a WP:SUPERVOTE. PaleAqua (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updating to overturn (relist) to allow for additional discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved (uninvolved). The consensus at the RM is clear and the close was a textbook super vote. Given that the RM was open for nearly a month, I don't think a relist is needed here. Calidum 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: Normally I'd agree a relist of a discussion open for more than a month with 2 relists doesn't need relisting but given in the last less than 5 days this move review has had more participation than the entire RM a relist may be helpful here. I'd expect it would likely end in no consensus if relisted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved to Radio 1 FM (The Gambia) (uninvolved). A terrible close and a pretty clear consensus to move. It's already been relisted several times, so let's just bury it. StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. The close was fine. What do you want to the closer to do? There's a great deal to say here, so I'll give the main points, with the supporting proofs collapsed. You can trust me, or you can dig down into the details if you want. (DISCLAIMER: I began this vetting with no opinion on the matter. I came here because a veteran editor called it the worst RM close xe'd ever seen, so that made me curious.)
1) There was no quorum and no consensus
The "vote" was 3-1. 3-1 with two neutral, so you could say 3-1-2, and also say 3-3 of people supporting the change vs people not. Note that the nominator xisself didn't advocate the move (it was an advisory RM) and one of the commenters was also neutral. (Also FWIW the one don't-move "vote" was User:Dicklyon, who has been considering title-style issues like this closely and cogently since, well, since Hector was a pup (and he is also a Grand Gom). That doesn't make him right (I disagree with him often enough) but it does make him experienced in the area and well versed in our rules, and that could be at least a minor data point depending on how you roll).
Anyway... 3-1 is not a quorum. That's completely meaningless. 15-5 would be a quorum. Hopefully the closer considered the headcount a distinctly minor data point here -- if xe didn't, then that would be a problem -- and went to on to the arguments, and the merits of the proposal.
2) On the merits, the controlling policy WP:Article titles prescribes the short form
And the arguments for moving are poor. I mean Wikipedia:Article titles is an actually policy and is built around the Five Virtues of titles, one of which is [[[WP:CONCISE]] which requires article names to be as as concise as possible, saying "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" and as an example "The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, was formerly State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island was the most concise title to fully identify the subject". Here you a case very similar to ours, the shorter and easier-to-grasp name vs the official name, the former being advised.
This would win the day unless one of Five Virtues offers contrary advice. But quite the contrary. This search result appears to imply that WP:CONSISTENCY would tend to militate for "Gambia". WP:PRECISION to a degree also probably supports the shorter title, as "The Gambia" could be taken by at least a few folk as short for "The Gambia River" (similar to how people say "The Mississippi" etc.), while "Gambia" can only be taken as the country. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS are more or less a wash I at best; I anything, the search result above would tend to indicate NATURALNESS for "Gambia" is indicated because most editors seem to be naturally using it. It's clear that WP:AT wants (actually, being a policy, pretty much requires) us to use the shorter title.
And note -- while we're not generally not supposed to much consider the merits of the case rather than strictly the merits of the close, the Wikipedia search result above was in the original RM arguments and the closer surely read it. So I mean what was xe supposed to do???? Ignore it? Make a wrong close on purpose to avoid a hassle?
The WP:AT points I give above were, granted, not raised, but the closer, being an admin, can be assumed to be familiar with policies. Is xe supposed to just discard xyr knowledge which has been specially acknowledged by the community at xyr admin vetting? "Welp, these guys sure don't know policy, but gosh there's three of 'em, so it is what it is"? Good grief.
3) Moving on to real life, it seems that the reader is at least as likely as not to use (and expect) just "Gambia"
"The Gambia" is a distinctly odd and archaic formulation, and, now that "The Ukraine" and "The Argentine" have been retired, the last of its breed. And it appears it too might be wearing down to the shorter version, which would be remarkable if that wasn't' the case, considering how languages tend to smooth and simplify rare, odd, or difficult phrasings.
The Gambians -- sorry, the The Gambians -- are welcome to name their country as they wish. Nothing they do requires us to confuse our readers, tho. We have our own rules which we've formulated for our own purposes, including WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME as well as the ones mentioned above.
If I'm doing and reading it right (good chance I'm not, willing to be corrected), this google Ngram seems to indicate that over half of instances of "Gambia" in books appear without "The" prepended. Then, this Google Trends result shows that people google for "Gambia" much more than "The Gambia". That means little because people would naturally use short forms when googling, and the Ngram data is subject to various questions. But certainly neither refutes a proposition that "Gambia" is used as least as much as "The Gambia" generally.
The closer is not a robot. We have bots that find and count the bolded instances of "oppose" and "support" prepended to most "votes". If you want to request that a bot make these decisions, make that proposal (I doubt that such a robot would be allowed to make decisions on 3-1-2 results anyway.) And I request that my contribution here, on which I spent a few hours, be given more weight than that of editors who appear not to have read WP:AT as closely as one might wish. ("The closer's statement... is unsupported by any policy or guideline..." etc.). Re "I advise the closer to refrain from any more closes at least until they learn closer responsibilities, if not forever", all I'll say is stuff like that is not a good look, particularly when you are stone dead wrong on the merits. Cut it out. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, first of all, this was not a particularly fine closure. Granted some of the comments here should give administrators pause and may inspire one of them to close this review procedurally. No, WP:AT#CONCISE is not applicable, since the involved editors were arguing for a change to the disambiguation, not a change to the title itself. So WP:AT#Disambiguation and the accompanying guideline apply. No, the closer was not an admin. I'll stop there because I don't want to go on and on about the rest of your interesting and supportive work. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 07:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, the disambiguator is part of the title and is subject to CONCISE consideration as much as the rest of the title is. After all, we use concise disambiguators, and WP:QUALIFIER recognizes this: “When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in: …” But this point was not made by any of the participants, though arguably underlies the single oppose which notes it’s not a problem to drop the The. —В²C☎ 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never really agreed that any qualifier/disambiguator of and for an article title is actually "part of the title", because a) qualifiers are described as part of the precision criterion (not concision), and b) the inconsistencies with what you've quoted from the policy, such as the phrase, "...the title must be disambiguated". That leads me to conclude that for example in the title Mercury (element), "Mercury" is the title, the full title, of the article – "(element)" is the qualifier for the article title. I know, it's been bandied about for years, so neither one of us is right or wrong; that's just the way I've always understood it. No argument though that CONCISE is just as important as PRECISE when it comes to titles or qualifiers. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, did you really just make up out of thin air an unspecified quorum requirement for RM discussions in order to defend a blatant SUPERVOTE close that completely ignored all input from the participants? You know better than that! Whether there was consensus is debatable; one can argue there was a local consensus to move. But there certainly was no consensus to not move, yet that was the closer’s finding. I agree WP:AT indicates no move here, and I agree with the only opposer Dicklyon, and that’s why I would have opposed. But to close based on an argument not presented in the discussion being closed that goes against the local consensus there is the epitome of a SUPERVOTE. The closer should have presented their argument in an opposing !vote allowing someone else to evaluate the discussion including that argument accordingly. —В²C☎ 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "vote" was 3-1. 3-1 with two neutral, so you could say 3-1-2, and also say 3-3 of people supporting the change vs people not. You could say that, but it would be pretty misleading. I was one of those neutral participants. I think my comment made it pretty clear that I opposed the status quo of having articles with an inconsistent mix of disambiguators. A move to a disambiguator of (The Gambia) would have resolved my concern. I was only neutral in the sense that I wasn't opposed to the alternative solution of moving (The Gambia)-disambiguated articles to (Gambia)-disambiguated titles. Regarding your question in point 2) about what a would-be closer should do if they think there are important policy considerations that participants have failed to raise in the discussion, the answer is simple: instead of closing the discussion, leave a !vote describing those relevant policy arguments. Leave it to someone else to close. Colin M (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, Colin! I must be one the the luckiest sumbitches around, because I've done that so many times in my closes. It's up to the closer to point out any applicable PAGs that were not brought out in the RM. WP:RMCI's "Determining consensus" begins explicitly: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the PAGs are brought up by the RM participants. So it's 7 to 1 in favor of moving a page; however, there is a policy that says the page should not be moved, but the single opposer did not cite it. Close as Not moved per the community consensus at WP:Sorry 'bout that! If that's a supervote, then it's one time supervoting must be done, per WP:RMCI. (And yes, I have closed RMs like that. They're pretty rare, because there are a lot of PAG-savvy editors, but they do happen.) P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 22:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, PAG? Regardless, a closer may of course close against LOCALCONSENSUS when it contradicts community WP:CONSENSUS, but this kind of close usually depends on someone in the discussion making the argument, and requires a detailed explanation accordingly, not unlike what you spelled out above. But that’s not what this closer did at all. —В²C☎ 20:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so sorry WP:PAG – and I was not making a case for the veracity of this RM closure, just commenting in regard to Colin's statement about what to do if... and so on. Yes, I've been known to do just that: join the RM sometimes as a lone voice in the wilderness. But rather than take the chance that another closer would get it wrong, I'll usually go ahead and close it – per WP:RMCI and whatever applicable PAG I find. As a child I learned in school, and grew up calling it "the Ukraine", but that is no more, is it. Certainly didn't mean it as a slight to those unfortunate people who now play the role of David against Russ's Goliath. Just the way things were, the way we were taught. Now we learn new things, eh? P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – I was opposed to the move, and as the only opposer I was surprised that closer closed in my favor. His good reasons would have been better as opposition arguments, after which some other closer might have concluded "no consenssus to move". But he basically supervoted, which I think leaves this in a bad state. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was extensive, with dozens of comments, some suggesting alternative names; but the majority of opinions were against the proposed change from "Freedom Convoy 2022" to "Ottawa convoy protest". Despite of that, the page was moved anyway. There was not an agreement on the best title, but there was a majority opposing the change. Therefore I think the change should be reversed until a consensus, or at least a majority, is reached. It was also pointed out in a new section in the discussion.CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> Tough one, but I think Paine got it more-or-less right. There was indeed a consensus against the proposed change—which is why the closer did not make the proposed change. He rightly observed that, even among editors opposing the specific proposal, there was nonetheless a strong consensus that the then-current title (Freedom Convoy 2022) was not ideal either. (I don't think that's been contested.) The best way to effectuate that consensus is to do precisely what Paine did: move the article to a new title that tries to address the community's concerns, while simultaneously noting that further discussion is welcome to iron out a more consensus-based title. (WP:BARTENDER does a good job of explaining why this is best.) I see you've already started such a discussion, which is great. Since there was no consensus in the RM, further proposals are welcome. But since consensus is explicitly against the previous title, moving it back there is not prudent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <involved> I predicted in the discussion that it would be tough to find a consensus here, but looking through the !votes does add up to what the closer explained -- there is a consensus that the current title was not the right one. It therefore was a proper close to assess the various proposed options. With a majority of !votes opposing the now-previous title in some way, and with the majority of !oppose votes only having concerns with the focus on Ottawa, the selection seems a proper determination of the consensus, with a clear invitation to continue the discussion at any time.--Yaksar(let's chat) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close <involved>. A super-majority of editors involved in the discussion opposed changing the title (35 opposed to the change, 17 supporting). About half of those in the oppose camp opposed the change because they thought the proposed title change was inaccurate, the other half opposed the change because they thought the 'Freedom Convoy 2022' title was appropriate. The fact that many editors suggested alternative titles does not mean those editors preferred the new name 'Canada convoy protest' to the old name 'Freedom Convoy 2022'. All that said, I'm confident that Paine Ellsworth had the best intentions, and I don't even particularly dislike the title she opted for (though neither would it be my first pick). I would prefer that the name change be discussed, and an actual consensus be formed about what the name should be. I'd like to move the title back to pre-RM title, and reopen a RM discussion about what to change the title to. Joe (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.<uninvolved> Free advice to the closer on how it would read more clearly to future editors browsing: Start with "Moved to Canada convoy protest, with consensus against the current title per WP:POVTITLE, and the new title per WP:OTHEROPTIONS." All following words are fine, but you should appreciate that casual browsers of old RM discussions should be able to read the first sentence of the close simply and at face value.
The MRV nominator CasuarioAlmeriense does not appear to appreciate that the move is well justified by WP:OTHEROPTIONS, and does not appear to contest the reading of consensus to move away from the prior title.
Urge interested editors to pre-discuss better titles before anyone unilaterally launches a formal new RM. Advise the closer to give a moratorium period, I suggest two weeks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> Close is in line with WP:OTHEROPTIONS. PaleAqua (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> Close is in line with WP:OTHEROPTIONS.Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <involved> There was a strong consensus against the current name, and a strong consensus that the current name failed both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. Under those circumstances, choosing a temporary name per WP:OTHEROPTIONS was appropriate; leaving the article under a title that was plainly rejected and clearly violated policy simply because people could not agree on which of multiple superior alternatives to select would not have made sense and would not have accurately reflected the RFC's conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
George I of Great Britain – Endorsed. While, per review, the RM might as well have been closed as "no consensus", "no move" was within the closer's discretion. It would not significantly affect the outcome anyway. No such user (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There were good arguments on both sides and the discussion was evenly split between supports and opposes. This is a classic case of "no consensus" but it was closed as "not moved". I asked the closer to reconsider their closing, but they refused. While overturning this close from "not moved" to "no consensus" will not change the location of this article, it is important that this closing is done correctly for the record. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "no consensus" (uninvolved) while there were reasonable arguments on both sides I'd say the supporting side made the slightly stronger case so "not moved" was inappropriate. Like Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March#Planters this is apparently not appropriate for MR but unlike Planters I'd say this one was borderline between "no consensus" and "moved" rather than "no consensus" and "not moved". There are 6 oppose !votes and 6 support but the nom counts as a "support" unless they state otherwise so even numeric this was not a "not moved". Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reword the close to comply with WP:THREEOUTCOMES. The tautological “not moved” is a poor statement. Is this a problem with User:TheTVExpert’s helper script? No comment yet on whether there was a consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Not moved" has become the standard closing language for "Consensus to not move". WP:THREEOUTCOMES should probably be updated to reflect the current status quo. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Not moved" is stupid, has been the focus of several WT:RM threads, and should NOT be used. The page log indicates that it was not moved. The point of a closing statement is to summarise the discussion, and a closing statement that doesn't speak to the consensus or not is a failing close. Think of the non RM regulars who don't know the jargon of RM regulars. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Not moved" has been used for many years to denote a consensus not to move. Granted here lately, some closers seem to use it even when they should have used "no consensus", but that does not make the phrase any more "stupid" than "Moved". Both are indicated in the page log; neither is "stupid". Now because some closers use "not moved" when they really meant "no consensus", that is precisely why I close with "Not moved per consensus garnered below," or something similar. Imho, placing "Consensus to not move" all in boldface text is severe overkill, and since the page that's on is not a policy- nor guideline-vetted page, I refuse to use it. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 01:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. At first read I tend to read “not moved” as closer in meaning to “no consensus”… as something akin to “consensus to move was not reached”. — HTGS (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why it has been (until just recently) fully explained at the closing instructions page, a page that all closers should know inside and out. "Not moved" and "no consensus" have always meant two very different things when it comes to reading the consensus of a requested move survey and discussion. So there is no reason to "tend to read" anything else into them. "Not moved" does not now nor has it ever meant "no consensus". The main reason for the ambiguity is that the outcome is usually the same. While "not moved" means there should be no more move requests for at least a year, and while "no consensus" means that editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to rename the article, they both usually result in not moving the page. There are rare times when "no consenus" results in a page move, but not usually. This all has become rather vague and ambiguous for some editors who close move requests. And that is why the recent change from "not moved" to "consensus to not move". I just hope that change helps things. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 04:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Not moved” communicates poorly. WP:RMCI is an obscure page to most editors. The number of words you put into justifying “not moved” is proof in itself. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really arguing about it, just saying that "Not moved" communicates only as poorly as the communicator allows it. Next thing? putting the entire closure in bold typeface? Meh. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 11:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (uninvolved). Discussions are not votes, and those supporting the move did not make a case for ignoring Wikipedia:SOVEREIGN. Calidum 23:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). There's no reason for a move review if there's no desire to actually move the article. If someone disagrees with the reasoning of a close, just add a comment on the article's talk page for the record. Then anyone can read the archived discussion and decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree with the wording of the close. Station1 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (No consensus) Note that point 2 of SOVEREIGN specifically defers to COMMONNAME, and there is a reasonable case to be made on primary topic. The close undervalues the strength of the support arguments. Agree with SmokeyJoe, "Not moved" is ambiguous and should be avoided in RM closes. PaleAqua (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Perfectly reasonable closure. In this case the closer obviously noted the consensus to not move. This is not a case of ambiguity between "not moved" and "no consensus". There is a clear consensus to keep the current titles. Good close!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse<uninvolved> per P.I. Ellsworth --Spekkios (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). This close was a reasonable reading of the consensus. I also agree with Station1's statement There's no reason for a move review if there's no desire to actually move the article.Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is either consensus to move an article or there isn't. If there is no functional change to what happens to the article, we're just dickering about word choices, which is a total waste of time. --Jayron32 16:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Pākehā settlers – Consensus among uninvolved participants is to endorse the close, on the basis that the discussion could not have resulted in a "moved" outcome, since it doesn't show a consensus to move the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This close, which found a consensus against the proposed move, had two related issues.
The primary issue is that the closer did not reflect the discussion when they decided that the common term in NZ English, and thus the one supported by WP:TITLEVAR, was "Pākehā settlers" rather "European settlers"; the number of editors supporting each were comparable, and it was improper for the closer to give greater weight to the arguments that "Pākehā settlers" was the common term when evidence was not provided for this position, while evidence was provided for "European settlers" being the common term.
Endorse. <uninvolved> See evidence in opposing args that is not being recognized on the closer's talk page. While I may have gone with "no consensus" (which would result in not renaming the article), a "not moved" closure seems reasonable enough. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Paine Ellsworth, can you clarify what evidence you are referring to? As a side note, the second paragraph of the close, where the closer discusses the Ganges RM, makes it appear that they care too much about discussions similar to these to be considered uninvolved. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for you to be sorry, BilledM, this is your jurisdictive interpretation! In my humble opinion this closer often gets a little too wordy when closing an RM, which is okay when one closes an RfC where wordiness is next to godliness, but not so good when one closes an RM. Me living proof, because back when I was verbose in my RM closes guess where I often ended up? Yes, right here at MRV. Bless Sarah – MRV is a good learning experience! As to the evidence, one example would be editor Timrollpickering's citings of WP:TITLEVAR (policy) and MOS:TIES (guideline). Other opposers cited WP:CRITERIA, and WP:COMMONNAME was bandied around a bit. Lots of good evidence against renaming, imho. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. My point about the lack of evidence was in regards to the lack of evidence supporting their citing of WP:PAGS, rather than any failure to cite PAGS. For example, no evidence was presented, by Timrollpickering or anyone else, that Pākehā settlers is the name in NZ English - while evidence that European settlers is the name in NZ English was provided. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shy away from rearguing the RM here; however, I will say that Māori words have given New Zealand English its individuality since early in the 19th century, so it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than "Pākehā settlers". So I must continue to endorse this closure. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even when unrefuted evidence is presented? Many Māori words have become common in NZ English (kiwi, kākāpō, haka, etc), but this is not true of all Māori words - New Zealand not Aotearoa, European New Zealanders not Pākehā, and European settlers not Pākehā settlers. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother addressing that point because, as someone from New Zealand, the term Pākehā is so ubiquitous here that it seemed odd that someone would question it - just like it'd be weird to question whether people understood what a haka was. Turnagra (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Arabic, haka means "oh really". Does it mean "deformed" in the Māori language? (That's Google Translate's.) P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 03:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's essentially a war dance - made most famous by the All Blacks national rugby team. Turnagra (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's an opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Si si! Just because we might not always say "Como esta? Esta bien?" or "Que paso?", and may prefer to say "How are you? Are you okay?", or "What's happening?" doesn't mean that Spanish, the Mexican, Cuban and Castillian varieties, haven't in part become stronger in American English in many areas. Words are sometimes funny things, and yet here on Wikipedia, words are pretty much all we have. And my simple word for this reasonable closure is still "endorse". P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 03:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Clear WP:Supervote. This closer is in the habit of injecting far too much personal argument into their closes, and this is damaging to respect for the entire RM process. Another could easily have closed faster with a different close. It is not good enough to make the right call, the close has to be a simple reflection of the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, are you saying that you believe the move should've had a different outcome based on those votes - and if so, wouldn't that be more of a case of WP:Supervote by virtue of ruling in favour of a vocal minority of participants? Further, isn't the very first line of the move review guidelines to focus on the move discussion and not on the person who closed it? Turnagra (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This does not require overturning (again!) just because the closer is in the habit of anything. In my opinion, it absolutely is good enough to "make the right call"!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Paine Ellsworth is wrong, and they are also an habitual Supervoter. If the close depends on who turns up first to do it, the process breaks down. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm wrong. But if lovin' u is wrong, I don' wanna be right!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be unambiguous, and forthright, for the sake of efficiency. It doesn’t mean a lack of love. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The complicated RMs tend to fall pretty deep into the backlog, because not many people fancy closing them because you can't do a simple headcount; you actually have to make an actual effort in summing up and weighing the arguments, cross-checking with other similar RMs and relevant policy, then communicating why you've closed it the way you have. In my opinion, the idea of "supervoting" is an unhelpful meme. The difference between a supervote and a well-reasoned close is one of Bernard Woolley's famous irregular verbs, after all. These complicated closes still have to take place, and no matter how it's done, you're going to have a very upset person on your talk page within minutes. As the essay goes, polling is not a substitute for discussion. If the quantity of arguments goes one way but the quality goes the other, it's been a long-held principle on the encyclopedia that you defer to quality. These sorts of discussions aren't about winning arguments, they're about improving the encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, the longer and more convoluted and complex is the RM, the shorter is my closure. That's just me, but most times when an editor comes to my talk page ready to fight, I can then give them a more supervotish reasoning, which often makes them think again about their stance and not bring it to MRV. Let me rephrase that... I stay concise at RM and save detailed reasoning for my talk page if necessary. Again, that's just me. (SmokeyJoe was one of my instructors in this here at MRV, btw.) P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 03:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine has much improved their closures since I first saw them. Paine erred on revealing their thoughtfulness, which was not helpful to the main audience, which is editors not much into policy workery. Questions to the closer should be answerable by pointing to the participants points made in the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sceptre, for what it’s worth, and I want it to be zero for the sake of closing this DRV, I think you’re 100% right, but I think your thoughtful logical contributions should go in as a !vote, not as a closing statement. Your !vote will make it easier for the next closer to close in agreement with you. “Supervote” is not a meme, it has a fuzzy boundary, and it is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am deliberately not commenting on the correct outcome, that is for whoever re-closes.
I focused on the move discussion and decided that the closer goes beyond the move discussion, that makes it a Supervote, the closer should have !voted. voted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then isn't it you who are wrong, SmokeyJoe? MRV exists solely to comment on the closure, and whether or not it was reasonable. If you don't do that, then doesn't that make your overturn vote invalid?!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 03:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not solely. Why is my “overturn” !vote invalid? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say it was. Asked you to consider that if your opinion to overturn is not based upon an unreasonable closure, then perhaps you should have "endorsed with prejudice" oslt. To completely overturn when the closure and end result are reasonable seems like overkill, doesn't it? P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 07:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MRV does not exist solely to comment on the closure. Where did you get that idea? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the first paragraph of the lede and the first section of the page at WP:MRV. That's where I got that idea. YMMV. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 07:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“solely” was an operative word? I read “review” as broadly inclusive, and the purpose statements as not necessarily limiting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly said that the second paragraph was an aside, because it held no bearing on the close (the difference between no consensus/not moved is academic, after all, and there was definitely no consensus to move and a weak but still controlling consensus that "pākehā" is the commonly used term), but there has been a worrying trend in RMs as of late where editors have seen the use of loanwords that are not in AmEng or BrEng as "not English enough", which I did want to comment upon. If it can be shown that a loanword has sustained usage in NZEng speech, then for Wikipedia's purposes, it's English as roast beef. There's a reason some people jokingly refer to English as "the mongrel language"… Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be shown... - this is why I raised this move review, as it wasn't shown, it was only claimed. Given this statement, I struggle to see how you stand by your close. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's the most common term in (the relevant variant of) English is a different question to whether it has sustained usage or not; on the "most common term" question, there wasn't any definitive consensus on the matter that necessitated a move. However, I was satisfied enough from the arguments in the discussion that, in NZEng, "pākehā" has such a sustained usage in English speech. Sceptre (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <involved> The closer's decision clearly reflects the evidence presented in the discussion and the 2:1 margin opposed to the move - I note that the discussion had already been closed as no consensus once by a different author, at which point the editor who initiated this review demanded that it be reopened. Turnagra (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: 5:4, not 2:1. I would also mention that I don't see any evidence provided in opposition to the move - policies and guidelines were cited in opposition to the move, but no evidence supporting the citing of those policies and guidelines was provided. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 5:4 - Schwede66's vote was for Pākehā settlers of New Zealand, and given the majority of the other votes supporting the move directly took issue with the word Pākehā this should not be taken in the same line as other votes. But yes, I had missed one vote in favour - the correct ratio should be 2:1.2, my mistake. 2:1 was the first time it was closed. Turnagra (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I thought Schwede66 has already !voted and was clarifying their position, though that makes it 3:2. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn(move) was Comment There is another RM currently open, Talk:Pākehā settlers#Requested move 9 February 2022. I'm still reading through the discussion so don't have a !vote here, (currently slightly leaning overturn). The "As an aside" part of the closes feels more like it should have been made as a comment either in the discussion or outside the closed RM. PaleAqua (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the discussion the supports have stronger arguments given the usage evidence provided. There are claims on both sides on the usage of Pākehā settlers vs European settlers, but only the support side backed with evidence. I also noticed the following discussion from following links for the WP:CONSISTENT arguments, Talk:European New Zealanders#"Pākehā" which appears to agree with the support arguments. PaleAqua (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved, and the proposer of the present RM) I’m conflicted. The close certainly felt like a super vote, and imo closed for the weaker reason, but there was sufficient reason to close against a move. To add to this, I would personally prefer to just move on, and work with the (imo) very easy compromise of my own RM.
There were essentially two arguments in favour of closing without a move: a) the current name is shorter, and just as good (WP:SUCCINCT); or b) the word pākehā has a stronger tie to NZ English (MOS:TIES / WP:TITLEVAR). To close, as Sceptre did, by reference to TITLEVAR, is rather odd, given that both titles were valid NZ English, and the RM’s suggested title was both the more WP:COMMONNAME in the literature (a fact not addressed in the lengthy closure) and presented an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY. Closure could easily have been made based on mere quantity of votes, and by reference to the simpler succinctness argument, but Sceptre chose to use this closure to make a point. To suggest here that the close was a quality-over-quantity decision is… confusing. — HTGS (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). When the proposed term is just as common (and probably more common) in New Zealand English than the current title, I don't see how the closer's justification based on MOS:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR holds up. And the closing statement reads as incredibly biased, which seems to be a disturbing pattern with this particular closer's decisions. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) basically per Rreagan007 and HTGS. Closing per MOS:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR is extremely odd as both the current and proposed titles are used in New Zealand English, and the term "Pakeha" has no closer ties to New Zealand than the term "New Zealand European" or just "European" for the ethnic group. --Spekkios (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved (uninvolved). This was a close call, but those opposing the move did a poor job of rebutting the evidence provided in the nomination statement. You can cite policy until you're blue in the face, but it means nothing if you don't present evidence that says why the policy supports your position. (FWIW I don't believe this was a supervote and this process would be better served if people stopped using that term every time they disagree with the close; a close can be wrong without being a supervote. Consider vote counting for example.) Calidum 21:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved} Well within the boundaries of a logical conclusion to the discussion. Mike Cline (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse I see "no consensus" here. Based on the discussion, it is likely that some other title would be preferred over the current one, but the specific move here doesn't appear to have consensus. Concerns about editorializing in the close statement can be handled at some other forum. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT vibes were strong in the discussion. The closer was right to ignore that noise and focus on the WP:TIES argument. RedSlash 03:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with closing per MOS:TIES is that both names meet MOS:TIES criteria. --Spekkios (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse<uninvolved>, as Sceptre's close was a reasonable summary of the discussion. Their aside is an aside, so I'm evaluating based on the non-aside portions of the closing statement. Participants did bring up MOS:TIES, WP:TITLEVAR, and the common use of Pākehā in New Zealand, and a healthy majority found those to support the old title over the proposed one. I think most reasonable closers would have landed on "not moved" or "no consensus", both of which would result in keeping the status quo title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's clearly no support for the move in the discussion with a majority opposing, sometimes strongly, and the close was reasonable. The move review nomination itself even admits the fact there was no support for the move by claiming the "comparable" amount of editors, though those opposing the move were more numerous and felt strongly against it. In order for this move to succeed, the nominator would have to show that those opposing were clearly incorrect on policy grounds, but since they offer a reasonable interpretation of policy, the close really must be endorsed. SportingFlyerT·C 00:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were incorrect because they failed to provide evidence in support of their assertions. As Caladium said, You can cite policy until you're blue in the face, but it means nothing if you don't present evidence that says why the policy supports your position.BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what happened here. SportingFlyerT·C 12:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At no point in the discussion was evidence provided by editors opposing the move proposal. It is what happened here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. Your opposition was more numerous in number and had a policy-compliant argument. The fact they didn't jump through the hoop you wanted them to jump through doesn't invalidate their argument. SportingFlyerT·C 21:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that editors on one side cite policy without providing evidence demonstrating why that policy applies, while editors on the other side provided evidence demonstrating why that policy does not apply? Consensus is determined by strength of argument, not head counting, and that means that participants need to cite policy, and they need to demonstrate why the policy applies. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical did not happen in this case. Those opposing the move explained why they opposed, their opposition was valid and grounded in policy, and as a result there was no consensus to move. You need to let this go and please stop responding to me, you're not going to change my reading of the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 23:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a hypothetical; it is what happened in this discussion. They explained why they opposed, but their explanations were based on assertions unsupported by evidence. For example, one editor stated Strong oppose per MOS:TIES we should be using NZ English for this article - in which the most frequently used term for this group is Pākehā, but they failed to present evidence that the most frequent term in NZ English is Pākehā, while editors who supported the move presented evidence that it was not the most frequent term in NZ English or in general. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a hypothetical. Most people in the discussion agreed "Pākehā settlers" is the correct term for the page in spite of the evidence you presented by saying it was indeed the common term. They do not need to disprove your statistics. Instead, you need to gain consensus for the move. SportingFlyerT·C 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to disprove my statistics, but they do need to provide some reasonable evidence of their claim; we are not a democracy that determines consensus by counting heads.
Take this actual hypothetical: we have a discussion about moving the River Thames to the River Timmy, and ten editors !vote "Support per WP:COMMONNAME" while two editors !vote "Oppose; ngrams shows that "River Thames" is the WP:COMMONNAME". The consensus of the discussion is "not moved", because despite the number of !votes citing relevant policy in support of the move their inability to provide evidence in support of their assertions means their !votes have very little weight. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another irrelevant hypothetical: those opposing would point out that not only is Thames the common name, but that "River Timmy" isn't used at all by anyone. That's not the case here, where several possible options exist for the name of the move, and a quick cursory search shows the preferred name is a viable outcome. SportingFlyerT·C 08:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Gregory Hemingway – No consensus to overturn, therefore allowing for closer's discretion. This is a rather unique case and it remains unclear whether COMMONNAME or GENDERID/IDENTITY is the guiding policy, and the closer more favorably weighed the arguments based on the latter. Opinions in this move review were also split along similar lines. While the concerns about a supervote had certain justification, it has been also pointed out it was a "tough closure, but reasonable"; if anything, it erred on the side of apparent self-identification. No such user (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a non-admin close (albeit by an experienced editor) that did not seem at all to attempt to determine the consensus of the discussion. The close introduced a lot of new material (such as reference to BLP) that was not in the discussion, making this close a classic example of a supervote. Finally, the close relies heavily on the dubious claim that MOS:GENDERID (a guideline) trumps WP:COMMONNAME (a policy). StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved). My essential concern is that the close uses language from WP:COMMONNAME that does not appear to be supported in the discussion or the article. "Ambiguous or inaccurate names ... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" cuts across the move just as much as it supports it; Hemingway used Gloria just as much as Gregory and Vanessa in her final days, and we legitimately do not know what the subject preferred and when. The closer said "her use of the name Vanessa does complicate things, but not so much as to preclude the result" which is not supported by the discussion. I agree, however, that finding the "least imperfect" option is preferable, so whether to overturn or sustain I have no view. Urve (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the ambiguity, but wish to cite a few sources to help clarify things:
From Valerie Hemingway's Running with the Bulls:
"He then boasted of how expert his cross-dressing had become. The reason I could not find my passport was because he had taken it and used it on both his trips to Ireland. He had traveled around the country impersonating me before throwing the passport away. I did not know how to react. This was absurd, so outrageous, and so improbable that I wondered if he was inventing it. But there was the piece of paper to prove that at least part of what he said was true." (295)
"If I had a sex change, could we still be friends? Could we continue living together as girlfriends, going out to lunch, shopping and to the beauty parlor? Wouldn’t it be fun?" (298)
"Twice there were notices in the Bozeman paper that he had been arrested for criminal mischief. Both times he was in drag and had become violent when asked to leave a public place." (322)
Hemingway's boat
"Their youngest child, Vanessa Hemingway, whose name he’d already tried on a time or two, in his trailer, along with the corsets and girdles, was ten." (516)
"With his wife’s identification, Gigi had gone into Sun Valley boutiques and tried on women’s clothes, smearing them with lipstick and makeup before he came out of the dressing stall." (517)
"“Let me show you that I’m a woman,” he yelled at the officers. “Are you going to make me put down my skirt? You can get hurt that way.” It took three policemen to subdue him." (524)
In short, Gloria used names of family members rarely (often in the context of ID cards), was born with Gregory (whether she liked being referred to that way or not), and chose being a woman with the name Gloria for herself most of the time and especially in her final days. If need be I can cite a few more instances where she spoke about being wanting to be regarded as a woman, such as her devouring accounts of Jan Morrison and Christine Jorgensen and speaking about wanting to be like them. It seems fairly clear that in her last days at least, we have ample evidence she chose Gloria (did she give the police the name Vanessa?). In addition, we have evidence her personal thoughts on the topic would be to start a fight if kicked out of public spaces for presenting as a woman or challenged on whether or not she was a woman. We have no evidence she had such strong feelings about the name Gregory, or such strong feelings about being a man (apart from confessed inability of conversion therapy to make her cis). Since we have such evidence she considered herself a woman, the question is more over which feminine name to use, and Gloria is more supported than Vanessa. TheTranarchist (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
These don't clarify anything because they're all about identifying as a woman. I agree she was a woman and we should use she/her accordingly. That's not the subject of this discussion. Urve (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! While they may not be a strict 1-1, they're related discussions. The fact she was a woman points to the fact she would've most likely preferred a woman's name, since names are gendered. That's not only my consideration, most trans people take on a new name that reflects their identity and the benefits of such are medically established (being called by a male name is often dysphoric). My point wasn't so much that she identified as a woman but an exploration of her names and the various weights they hold.
Gregory: No firm statements where she unequivocally identifies as a man named Gregory, especially in her later days. Since she would've been called Gregory all her life if she never chose another name, it's very reasonable to believe she chose another one because she didn't appreciate that one. If that weren't the case, WP tells us to give more weight to the changed name.
Vanessa: The name of her daughter, not regarded as common by the majority of researchers, with only 1 instance of it's use apart from years earlier when "trying" names. The fact she used the ID's and occasionally adopted the names of her female relatives leads one to believe this was not purely her personal choice. It does toss in a bit of ambiguity, but not a substantial amount (especially if we consider how often she used Gloria compared to Vanessa).
Gloria: Used most commonly (170/188 sources regarding "Gregory Hemingway") by other sources and herself. We have a few statements where family members said things like "Gregory--but he called himself Gloria." Most importantly, this was her final choice of name and as per MOS:GENDERID we can speculate all we want but should stick to the last reported self-identification. There was no reason to call herself Gloria in the police report, especially since it wasn't her legal name, apart from wanting to be called Gloria.
In short, we can't be exactly sure what her preference would have been. If she'd have survived, she may have decided to revert to Gregory once for all (unlikely though), or may have chosen Vanessa even, we can't know. Precisely because of the ambiguity, to best respect her wishes, the only thing we can rely on is what she said her name was in her final days. She used Vanessa once at a party before her arrest, it wasn't as common as Gloria or Gregory by far. She was listed as Gregory during her arrest (since prisons rely on legal names), but gave the name Gloria, which the police noted (not only the picture from the police report using Gregory "Gloria" Hemingway, but reports from the guards themselves saying she went by another name when they were asked about Gregory). Therefore, we have ample evidence that in the final situation where she could've been fine with just Gregory/her legal name, she explicitly chose Gloria (as mentioned, the presence of both speaks more to the requirement of having her legal name in the police record rather than what she wanted). TheTranarchist (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
This isn't the location to reargue the RM, but since your broguht up the evidence with this line: Gloria: Used most commonly (170/188 sources regarding "Gregory Hemingway"), I feel I should address it. You have misunderstood that evidence; the 170 doesn't refer to the number of sources that used both "Gloria" and "Gregory Hemingway", it refers to the number of sources using "Gregory Hemingway" that didn't use "Gloria". Only 18 sources used both. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! I apologize for misinterpreting/misusing those results, I've removed them so as not to present false info. I've been trying to rely more on the quality of sources than quantity of specific words, since searches are hard to tailor for specificity (IE: is G Hemingway the subject of the article or mentioned). In regards to google scholar results, here's a more in depth breakdown:
For reproducibility, I used the search terms ["Gregory Hemingway"] and ["Gregory Hemingway" AND ("Gloria" OR "transsexual" OR "transgender" OR "transvestite")]. I also limited searches to those after 2000 to best capture latest reports with more information.
From 2015-2022: There are 51 results for "Gregory Hemingway", many of these do not focus on her but instead on Ernest Hemingway and mention her only in passing. 16 of those results include "Gloria" or a synonym for trans (ie transvestite/transsexual/transgender). (31%)
From 2010-2014: There are 20 results for "Gregory Hemingway". 6 of these contain Gloria or a synonym of trans (30%).
From 2005-2009: There are 20 results for "Gregory Hemingway". 3 of these contain Gloria or a synonym of trans (15%).
From 2000-2004: There are 18 results for "Gregory Hemingway". 4 of these contain Gloria or a synonym of trans (22%).
These can probably be updated further if we were to go through every result and note its coverage and context. Overall though, we shouldn't be using quick eyeballing of term frequency on google scholar and should stick to verified sources on her self identification, of which we have several. Google search result frequency doesn't translate to a person's identification. A quick look at mentions of "Elliot Page" vs his deadname on google scholar shows 162 vs 1640 references respectively. However, that's not a reason to change his name on page. TheTranarchist (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
For future reference, the normal approach is to strike any removed comments, rather than delete them, in order to the chain of discussion clear. The rest is evidence that could have been brought into the move request, but should not be brought here. I will, however, note that Elliot Page came out as trans at the end of 2020; your search include results from before that date, which should be excluded per WP:NAMECHANGES.
I will add a request that you don't WP:BADGER this discussion; 54% of the content on this page was written by you, which is far too much. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close. I've put twelve or so paragraphs into explaining at length why the discussion, taken alongside past and current practice, and actually reading the policies in question, leads me to the inexorable conclusion towards moving. I'm happy to stand by it. Were I to close it differently, I'd be applying a local consensus in direct conflict to a wider consensus.It also disappoints me that the OP seems to have a misunderstanding on the interplay between policies and guidelines. Save for the legal policies, policies have never had automatic right over guidelines (WP:RS vs. WP:V is the most famous example). All of our policies and guidelines are supposed to work harmoniously (again, see WP:RS vs WP:V), and if they don't, then eventually one will budge in favour of the other. Often in times of conflict, policies take precedence, but in this case, this one guideline takes precedence over this one policy. The assumption that COMMONNAME and GENDERID are in conflict in this case is erroneous; Jayron32 (i.a.) pointed out that COMMONNAME quite rightly allows us to make exceptions to the "use the common name" strapline in common-sense situations, and trans topics have long been held to be one of them. By comparison, GENDERID is much more rigid in its application. Sceptre (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clear supervote. The opening line of the close The only relevant point in this discussion, really, is whether Hemingway was transgender or not. gives the game away, the reason we have different policies for modern-day trans people is because of WP:BLP, and any claim that BLP principles can live long after someone's death is completely unsupported by any policy. BLP doesn't apply to long-dead people, so this framing taints the entire close. Also, this statement One should remember that around the time of Hemingway's death (especially in the Southern US), press treatment of trans issues was sensationalist at best, and also that in 2001, homosexuality was still illegal in Florida is precisely the kind of statement that WP:RGW is supposed to prevent. Iffy★Chat -- 23:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, WP:RGW applies to unverified edits. The fact the news sensationalized and pathologized her was noted by other publications at the time and her daughter and takes all of two minutes to verify (for a specific example, see Valerie Hemingway's quote: "He had tried to rid himself of the cancer, but in the end he knew no matter how hard he tried it would never be eradicated. Although I didn’t voice it, I was equally of the opinion that the problem could be solved and that I would help him do it. Furthermore, I was relieved that he did not have other women, as I had suspected." Her being trans being seen as a "cancer" that can be cured despite what she said. Nothing pathologizing whatsoever about that...). Furthermore, the illegality of marriage was noted since the fact she married as a man was brought up, in flagrant dismissal of context. In fact, BLP and gender guidelines explicitly apply to article titles regarding people's names (especially those recently deceased). See WP:NCBIO: "This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about individual people. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming, Wikipedia:Article titles, and, for articles on living or recently deceased people, also in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, which explicitly also applies to article titles." TheTranarchist (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
I should point out that I was also trying to bring to a close the related issue of which language to use in the text of the article. 2001 is not too long ago that the concept of transsexuality is not too dissimilar that we can make these sorts of assumptions (and by the point you go under the knife, the issue other whether someone is transgender or not isn't really arguable), but long ago that the manner of coverage has to be taken with a grain of salt. GENDERID does not readily allow itself to exception. There is nothing in Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words […] that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. which allows for deviation. Sure, Hemingway's transition may have been stop-and-start for years, but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand. Was Hemingway transgender? Yes. Hence GENDERID applies, and we follow it. Her latest public expression of her gender was as a woman named Gloria. Even in pre-Lawrence Florida, she was afforded that respect by her arresting officers. The only matters for debate, then, regard the text of the article, for which the conclusion "use she/her and Gloria, but he/him and Gregory may be acceptable when used in quotes" isn't a controversial one.In contrast, COMMONNAME does allow exceptions, and deadnames are long held to be an acceptable exception from its strapline (I strongly doubt that "Elliot Page" was the COMMONNAME for at least a few days after he came out, let alone seventeen minutes afterwards).And you're right that BLP does not strictly apply to dead people, but nor does a person's death mean that the ethical and moral considerations of BLP suddenly vanish into thin air. For example, Leelah Alcorn wasn't notable until her death, but–outside of quotes–we don't use her deadname. For people in living memory, it's accepted that the degree of sensitivity we afford to living people still applies, but fades over time. For example, even without GENDERID, changing parts of Sylvia Rivera to refer to her by masculine terms would still violate said sensitivities, a point that was raised on the talk page about in 2007. An interesting thing to note – which I didn't bring up in the close because it didn't change the result – was that the article was originally at Gloria Hemingway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and used feminine pronouns, and stayed that way for several years before being somewhat unilaterally changed. Had this occurred after the famous "tipping point" in 2014, I doubt it would have stuck for long, especially in the case of rapidly evolving guidance on these matters. Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually true - the article was originally at "Gregory" and was moved to "Gloria" without discussion in 2007. It was then moved to "Gregory", again without discussion (this time by me) in 2012. But then there was a move discussion in 2015, at which it remained at "Gregory". This was after the 2014 "tipping point". StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want to bring back that move discussion a brief analysis of that discussion and the points raised:
"Gregory is far and away the most common name in reliable sources" and "Most sources use Gregory and what little notability s/he has is for Gregory Hemingway."
No mention of how often Gloria was used, since in terms of notability her being trans was a big part of that and is referenced 170 of the 188 texts referring to Gregory Hemingway often in sources. Newspapers ran wild with the news. That point's meaningless.
"Secondly, I don't think the exception in MOS:IDENTITY applies, since it is very difficult to work out what Hemingway's "latest expressed gender self-identification" was - there has been considerable controversy over this, as outlined in the article." and "in this situation, it seems that Hemingway generally preferred Gregory"
At first the argument was we can't know what her latest self-id was. Then that it doesn't apply. I don't think I need to repeat there's no real evidence in her final days she preferred being called Greg or being regarded as a man and plenty she called herself Gloria and considered herself a woman.
You questioned whether or not she was a trans woman: "Yes, there is dispute about that. It was the subject of a court case, but there was an out-of-court settlement. Valerie is quoted in the article as saying he developed an "alternate persona"" and "What I mean that if there is a dispute about whether a person is really a trans woman, and that person generally used his or her birth name, AND the birth name is used in the vast majority of reliable sources, THEN the article can use the birth name."
I mean, I'm pretty sure a big part of WP:GENDERID is we use their self-id, I don't see a mention there of "if people continue to use a person's deadname and say being trans is pathological then ignore the person's self id." For another look at the amazing NPOV espoused by Valerie Hemingway, I refer to my earlier quotation wherein she believed that Gloria being trans was a cancer she was sure she could help cure even though Gloria didn't believe it could be cured. I also refer to my comments in the original move request raising the point that she was trans enough for herself and her doctor and getting bottom surgery and there's absolutely no scientific evidence for pathologizing or doubting the validity of her trans identity apart from bigotry. And in terms of her marriage, that doesn't reflect on the validity of her gender but the laws at the time which meant she could not get married as a woman. There's no real question of whether she was a trans woman, just whether people respected her for it.
The fact that if policy trumps guidelines in these situations then WP:GENDERID is completely useless and citation of WP:COMMONSENSE is used even then. Before and after that discussion, multiple people raised concerns over ignoring gender guidelines and respecting her.
In short, the arguments raised then for the move request are 1) whether or not she was actually trans (she was), 2) if she was more notable as Gregory or Gloria (very notable as both, her gender identity was frequently a source of media frenzy), 3) if sources use Gloria or Gregory more (170 articles of 188 the articles using Gregory also use Gloriabut this only applies if solely using COMMONNAME). Apart from claiming COMMONNAME should override GENDERID, the main argument currently used (despite all the exceptions throughout WP policy), all of the reasons for opposing the move request in the first place have been proven false. In short, this whole argument has always boiled down to whether we should stick to a narrow interpretation of a policy or respect trans people (according to WP policy/guidelines). TheTranarchist (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Endorsement of move/Comment (involved) A brief recap of WP policy and guidelines:
(GUIDELINE) WP:GENDERID: "Why does Wikipedia refer to people according to their gender self-identification?"
Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and on 9 April 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution urging that special attention be paid to neutrality, verifiability and human dignity. As Wikipedia's article on the subject explains, "gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender." We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value. To do otherwise — to refer to transgender or non-binary/genderqueer people by names or pronouns which disregard their gender identities, i.e. to misgender them — is deeply offensive and causes harm``
I believe that both WP:GENDERID and respecting her in death were both points raised in the discussion. Not to mention respecting trans people's identities out of basic dignity seems a re-occurring theme in all guidelines relating to trans people's names. Handy how those can all be ignored. In fact, while not explicitly drawing the connection, I did bring up the point that being misnamed in death happened often and was something many trans people fear.
From (POLICY)WP:POVNAMING: "The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. "
Also, does (POLICY)WP:AT (an overriding policy, a distinction you like to make) not say:'
In the opening, "This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page does not detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. "
(POLICY) WP:COMMONNAME: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. "
"When a subject changes names as part of coming out as transgender, it is often impossible to continue to use that person's former name without misgendering them and thus causing harm as discussed in #Self-identification and #Transphobia."
"Wikipedia follows reliable sources with regard to facts, but sets its own editorial policies. Where there is no doubt about an individual's expressed gender identity, there is no question of fact, only one of style."
"Why does Wikipedia update the name used in a trans person's article even if most sources still refer to the person by their pre-transition name/pronouns? In 2006, after the IAU determined that Pluto was not a 'planet' but a 'dwarf planet', most sources still referred to it as a planet — but Wikipedia updated its articles to describe it as a dwarf planet. Wikipedia is not static, it keeps its information up-to-date. (Refer also to the two questions above, and to #Self-identification.)"
(POLICY) WP:NAMECHANGES: "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." {{strike|(I think we established that of the 188 articles on google scholar using "Gregory Hemingway", 170 use Gloria Hemingway as well)}.
(POLICY) WP:MOSAT: "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. "
(GUIDELINE)WP:NCBIO: "This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about individual people. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming, Wikipedia:Article titles, and, for articles on living or recently deceased people, also in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, which explicitly also applies to article titles."
Getting back to a policy all of these agree on, WP:VERIFY, I'm pretty sure we verified her last identification was as Gloria, she considered herself a woman, and even if we weren't looking at her final identification she went out as Gloria often, was worried about losing her medical license if that was too published, wanted to live as Valerie's girlfriend, and in general was a trans woman her whole life (yes, people are trans before they medically transition, it's the reason they do not the other way around).
Finally, why doesn't the MOS apply here? And why should we ignore it when it clearly says:
MOS:GENDERID/MOS:IDENTITY: "Specific guidelines apply to any person whose gender might be questioned, and any living transgender or non-binary person. In summary: Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources."
As mentioned repeatedly by multiple people in the discussions, if policy-trumps-guideline applied in cases of gender identity then the guidelines around gender identity would be completely useless (especially as they explicitly challenge the COMMONNAME convention), so WP:COMMONSENSE applies.
In short, what part of WP policy (all of which say refer to specific guidelines when need be) or guidelines leads one to the conclusion that the guidelines for gender should be ignored? What part of "WP articles about trans people should follow WP guidelines about articles about trans people (which were created to ensure trans people are treated with dignity in regards to their gender)" is "a dubious claim?" TheTranarchist (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Addendum: In terms of WP:SUPERVOTE" (especially since consensus was split 50-50 and the question was over which guidelines to apply):
"It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. "
"A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one)."
Not to mention, to say BLP was suddenly brought up is disengenous when multiple cited policies/guidelines linked explicitly to the BLP policies on gender and vice versa. The topic of deadnaming and respecting her in death was also mentioned in the discussion/previous ones. I'm amazed whether or not news pathologized trans people is considered a contentious claim (especially when backed by other publications, her family, and briefly reading almost any account of Gloria's life). Overall, the question is whether to follow WP guidelines on gender identity (which are very explicit and clear about respecting anyone's gender identity), or whether to use COMMONNAME (ignoring the exceptions raised often in policies saying use specific topic-based guidelines when applicable), so the editorial answer seems fairly clear-cut. TheTranarchist (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Overturn (involved). When editors disagree about which policy or guideline is controlling - as they did here - the closer cannot supervote by deciding for themselves which should be controlling, but as that is what the closer did here, by personally selecting what they believe to be the better policy, the close needs to be overturned. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "decided for myself" which is the controlling policy. It's pretty clear from even a cursory glance at both pages that MOS:GENDERID overrides WP:COMMONNAME, and the encyclopedia has operated pretty successfully on that principle for years (was "Elliot Page" the actor's COMMONNAME seventeen minutes after he came out? Of course not, don't be silly). One singular RM cannot override a wider and stronger consensus. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP concerns applied there but not here. I note there was no consensus to extend those BLP concerns to deceased trans individuals in an RFC last year. You also cannot point to a policy or guideline that states that MOS:GENDERID is controlling over WP:COMMONNAME, and without that there is no wider and stronger consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that states that GENDERID is controlling over COMMONNAME is COMMONNAME itself. From COMMONNAME: Ambiguous or 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. This has long been held to apply to deadnames, even pre-MOS:GENDERID. And if you're talking about the SOPHIE RfC, I don't think that applies here. The first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID that says refer to any person, not refer to any living person; it applies to deceased trans people just as much as living trans people. The SOPHIE RfC was instead focused upon the second paragraph, which talks about the inclusion of deadnames (which does only apply to BLPs); there is no real dispute to inclusion of Hemingway's deadname in the article text where appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues here. First, that paragraph of MOS:GENDERID refers to gendered words, not names. Second, that sentence from WP:COMMONNAME uses "often", rather than "should" or "must". Third, the closer shouldn't use their personal opinion on which name is more accurate or less ambiguous; they should base that on the discussion, and your statement The only relevant point in this discussion, really, is whether Hemingway was transgender or not shows that you did the former, not the latter.
I don't really see any issues. 1) Please see Unisex name and Given Name#Gender for a brief overview of the fact that names are gendered. 2) It does say often, it doesn't say shouldn't. It also says if "the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Is there absolutely no problem using a trans person's deadname without evidence they would have preferred it? If you want a bit more evidence COMMONNAME doesn't apply, please see WP:GENDERID#Common name. 3) It wasn't a personal opinion, it was based on her most recent self-identification in accordance with WP policy/guidelines and human decency. If Hemingway was trans, strict guidelines exist for her name, so that was indeed a very relevant point. TheTranarchist (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Names can be gendered, but that guideline talks about words, not names. The rest appears to be rearguing the move discussion or referencing essays, and isn't relevant here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Names are words, but anyways she called herself Gloria which is what matters. This very review is rearguing the move discussion, it's a question of WP policy and style and whether the closer's decisions were justified on that. I've disambiguated my comment citing the various policies and guidelines, all of which seem relevant. TheTranarchist (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). The first remark in the close ("the only relevant point in this discussion, really, is whether Hemingway was transgender or not") is clearly false. Answering that question would not on its own tell you what Hemingway's "real" name was. Srnec (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). Reading over the entire discussion, there was clearly no consensus for this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (periferally involved since I move-protected the article). The opening statement of the close, quoted by Srnec above, clearly indicates a supervote. Favonian (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Good, tough closure. And reasonable! See where community consensus overrode the local lack of consensus in the RM, as well as the longer-term previous consensus. Not sure how I would have closed it, but it's certain that this RM closer's choice of outcome would have been a definite possibility. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 01:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. <uninvolved> Clear WP:Supervote. And, the closer appears to care far too much as to make them Involved. No comment on correctness of the closing statements, except that the close should contain no new points. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to take a minute to explain, in even more detail, why I closed the discussion in the way that I did.If a person is transgender, then the relevant parts of MOS:GENDERID applies. If the matter of Hemingway's transsexuality was up for debate, then the result would be a "no consensus". But it's not; the reliable sources from both the article and the discussion talk at length about Hemingway's struggle with gender dysphoria from the 1970s onwards, her efforts to transition in later life, and, most importantly, Hemingway identifying as a woman when she was arrested less than a week before her death and her subsequent placement in a women's jail until arraignment. The first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID says:Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words […] that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.There are no exceptions there; it clearly applies to any trans person, living or dead, at any state of transition. Nor can the Manual of Style be overridden at the behest of less than a dozen editors. At such a point where the expression of a trans person's gender identity can be suitably confirmed by reliable sources, then any further discussion is moot; as long as GENDERID remains a part of the Manual of Style, then we must refer to them by the gendered terms that match their latest expressed preference. The rest of GENDERID is concerned about the use of notable deadnames, either in quotes and in the running text of the article, but there is still nothing in (the spirit of) MOS:GENDERID that can be read to allow for deadnames in article titles. The balance of the discussion as I was closing it was thus:
Seven support comments all citing GENDERID;
Five oppose comments that believed the progress Hemingway made on her transition wasn't enough to engage GENDERID;
Two oppose comments who cited Hemingway's use of the name "Vanessa" as making the GENDERID murky;
One (rather rude, IMO) oppose comments that was entirely based on attacking the user behind the move request.
In addition, as I mentioned in the close, how COMMONNAME should apply was also actually split down the middle.Apart from the last bullet point above, I did (of course) assume the best faith possible in those users, but ultimately, I found those five comments in opposition to be in contradiction with the spirit, if not the letter, of GENDERID. This is understandable; it's a specialised policy and many editors who aren't aware of transgender issues may not be aware of the nuances involved (including one editor, who rather strangely, said that a diagnosis of GID doesn't mean one is trans). But they still, by and large, disregarded highly relevant policy that was brought up in the move discussion at length, so they could be discarded as contradicting policy as it currently stands. Sceptre (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that you are mischaracterizing or misinterpreting my oppose to the move. The problem was not that the "progress Hemingway made on her transition wasn't enough to engage GENDERID". The problem was that there is evidence that the subject of the article made some attempts to transition and present as female, but then would reverse course and then choose to de-transition or present as male. This makes it impossible to determine exactly what this person's last expression of gender identity was or what they would want the title of their article to be. Transgender people can and do Detransition, or sometimes are simply unsure about what there preferred gender expression is. It's also possible that a person can identify as both male and female at the same time or within a short time span. There is no clear evidence of what this person's preferred gender identity was at the end of their life, and because they are unable to tell us now because they are dead we will never be able to know for sure. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm mischaracterising your opposition, then trust me, such mischaracterisation is because that's the good faith interpretation of it. The spectre of detransition is one that causes a lot of concern trolling in the wider debate regarding trans issues, and I honestly don't think that was your intention. Rather, my reading of your comment was that your analysis of the issue took you to the conclusion that Hemingway's transition wasn't stable or far enough along to definitively say that GENDERID applied. But that's not what GENDERID says; it says in cases where someone's gender may be questioned (that Hemingway falls into that category can't really be disputed, even if you think her transsexuality is), we go with their most recent expression (i.e. at her death, in a women's jail in Miami, as Gloria Hemingway). Once you find that GENDERID applies, then there's only one conclusion you can make. Sceptre (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't agree that guideline vs policy makes a big issue here. Guidelines and policies are just crystalized consensus with a wider audience contributing than the local discussion. So I don't agree that just because it's somethings a policy and somethings a guideline automatically determines which is stronger. GENDERID seems to be the key here, and Sceptre's comments seem to make for a reasonable breakdown of the discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) To my eye, the closer did a decent job of of evaluating the policies and guidelines invoked by the two sides in the move discussion. While of course the closure cuts forthrightly against the argument frequently posed in the discussion that COMMONNAME trumps GENDERID, it can hardly be said to be doing so on the basis of mere preference. A longstanding community consensus exists about how to handle trans people's names onwiki. COMMONNAME is quite explicit that we usually defer to neutrality and accuracy concerns in these cases. A novel WP:IAR-type argument that we ought to make some unique exception here because many sources do labors under the admirably idealistic but unworkable assumption our role as editors is merely to assiduously cleanse the encyclopedia of areas we disagree with guidelines on via recourse to some imagined higher authority. Perhaps, we might be tempted to think, they are mere scribal errors of a careless hand in our sacred texts. But quite often a guideline clarifies widespread community consensus about how to handle a specific situation that policies inevitably can't cover in exhaustive detail for lack of space. A naïve pseudoscientist might conclude WP:MEDRS contradicts WP:NPOV, since after all it fails to give due weight to the mass press's endless reams of questionable health coverage. Our reliable source guideline, our fringe theories guideline? Poppycock—those, after all, are just guidelines. We should not accept such dubious, novel arguments that go against prevailing practices, here as there. Per WP:CONLEVEL, the opinions among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. So it is with Gloria. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn <uninvolved>. After reading the arguments in the RM and some of the article to get an idea of the context, I believe that there is not a consensus on if GENDERID is the overriding policy in this specific case. The mover should have used their statement as part of the RM and not when closing as this appears to be a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. --Spekkios (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseuninvolved: Sceptre, an experienced closer, weighed the PAG-based arguments and found one to be the stronger argument. That's good closure. Reviewing the discussion, this wasn't a case of clear-cut debate about what policy/guideline is controlling, since COMMONNAME has an inaccuracy exception, as mentioned by participants and the closing statement. Firefangledfeathers 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). This was a tough decision but ultimately the closer made the correct call. WP:UCRN is pretty clear that "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." I also find the WP:RGW arguments from those who opposed the move to be unpersuasive and quite frankly inappropriate. Calidum 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
In their close, Buidhe misread the !opposers of the RM as only relying on pageviews. In fact, most !opposers explicitly argued that the poem was primarytopic by both pageviews and significance. When I raised this at their talkpage, they said that the !opposers presented no "concrete evidence" of significance - but several references to the poem's lasting impact were made. Meantime, however, none only one of the !supporters presented any evidence of primaryness for either pageviews or significance, instead relying on things like WP:ASTONISH without support. There was not enough factual or policy-based argument to find consensus to move. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC) (Apologies to Crouch, Swale - I'd forgotten they'd made the pageviews argument on primaryness. Post amended to reflect.) Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) I pointed out that the other topics get a comparable number of views (8,915 views for the poem but 3,999 for the 2015 film and 1,733 for the 2010 film) and I'd say there was a weak consensus that at least there was no primary topic by the 2nd criteria. Also while its not a vote 10 editors (including the nom) supported and 2 argued the sound was primary instead (edit: to clarify of the 10 supporters for moving the poem away from the base name 2 of them argued the sound was primary as opposed to having no primary topic, that is to say there was only 10 not 12 people wanting the poem moved from the base name). There were 65 opposers and while it does seem they had valid arguments they were somewhat weakened by the views I presented for other topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Just for the record, I only count 5 opposes, not 6. Correct me if I'm wrong. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, while the view count clearly meets the more likely than the others combined part of usage its debatable the much more than any other is met (though I think that rule is dubious anyway). And while discussions are not votes it seems like both sides has valid points (even though perhaps the oppose side may have had the edge in strength) so going with the majority viewpoint that the poem isn't primary seems reasonable IMO especially when 2 said the sound was primary but my !vote for endorse is on the weak side. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Both support and opposes had reasonable arguments on usage and long term significance, so a close that implies no primary topic is quite reasonable and within closure's discretion. PaleAqua (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Good and reasonable closure per PA above. No problems; nothing to see here. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 20:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) Reasonable arguments made on both sides, but with editors agreeing with one position by a margin of 2-1, the close was proper. Yes, I know it's not a vote, but as a practical matter when both sides are reasonable positions and there is a 2 to 1 margin, the close shouldn't have gone any other way than how it did. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are often difficult to assess when the strong arguments come late in the discussion since those who !voted earlier may not end up seeing them. At Talk:Chinese whispers#Requested move 28 October 2020 most of the information suggested there was a consensus in favour of moving until the 2nd to last comment which countered most of the previous arguments. When this happens it may be helpful to relist but I don't think that was really necessary here. If this had have been closed as "no consensus" and it ended up at move review I probably would have leant towards overturning though so I still agree the close was correct. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Twice/Archive 2#Requested move 20 September 2020 where around double opposed the move but there (unlike here) there wasn't an article on the generic meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) It is close between "consensus to move" and "no consensus". But the arguments do support a move. The main argument not to move is "page views"; the other arguments against a move are (in my opinion) fairly clearly rebutted. The "Howling is just a dict def" and the "Howl (poem) has more long term significance than the concept of howling" arguments are somewhat in opposition to each other, and I don't think either one has consensus. The supporters have arguments as well, primarily WP:ASTONISH. When there are plausibly equal arguments for and against a move, the outcome should not be "no consensus and status quo ante", but "put the disambiguation page at the base title". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that when its close between no consensus and consensus to move I'd certainly suggest a no primary topic is sensible though since the poem is a level 5 vital article there were certainly reasonable arguments against but even without a debate over primacy it seems sensible when its a 2:1 ratio with reasonable arguments on both sides there is a consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:力 (powera) above. It was close, but correct. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
