Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August

Burma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (review move discussion)

The closing administrator User:Tariqabjotu did not fairly evaluate the opinion and the evidence brought forward by the supporters of the proposal. They appear to be in the mistaken belief that "[the] primary force behind moving this article is that Myanmar is the official name". The opinion of the users on the page was divided with both names finding equal weight over a multitude of sources. Instead of attempting to find a middle path or a compromise to enable consensus, the closing administrator erred by inserting a palpably opinionated closing statement. I request a review of this decision. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From closing admin I spent a lot of time reading and evaluating the move request and writing my closing statement. I have nothing else to say. -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold (note: I participated). The premise on which the review request is based - that where editors are divided on the question of COMMONNAME the closer should impose a compromise - is false. In such circumstances, if the closer judges there to be no consensus, the status quo should be retained. However, the closer didn't judge this. He judged Burma to be the COMMONNAME. Although I would agree that this is a bold call, it is also perfectly defensible and within reasonable parameters. In any case, it makes no practical difference to the outcome. The only valid basis for overturning would be that the closer put the evidence substantially to one side in determining that Burma is the COMMONNAME, which I don't think can be reasonably argued. Formerip (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold (I opposed the move). Tariq judged consensus accurately. Many of the supporters of Myanmar (not all, but a majority) supported moving because it's the official name, which goes against policy. On another note, it was nice of you to discuss this with Tariq before opening up a move review. Hot Stop 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Dissent I don't think either name is the right article name, so I don't know whether I am actually upholding this specific action. The article name should be 'Burma/Myanmar', with a category of articles created where there is no first preferred name. English is an international and national language, and naming regarding third places should not be overweighted in favor of the residents of one country over a second if there is not strong international consensus against the second. In addition, since this naming is already significantly topical to the country article itself, how the article name comes to be (for now?) can be encapsulated in both a short article header and inside the first sentence of the article (with the briefest additional section also). As regards the category idea generally, I give an example of Reversi/Othello as a different type. While the trademarked game has had numerous countries' nationals participating in a world championship for around 4 decades, the name for the game that it is originally a slight variant of and which itself has largely de facto changed to for an obvious legal reason now holds the article. This particular case also may have some kind of national bias foundation, as the game became popular in Japan following World War II using milk-bottle caps and was trademarked by a Japanese person after the demise of the original game's (British) trademark had lapsed. This was done without mention of the original game by the new trademark claimant, although it is not clear this was deliberate or from lack of knowledge as far as I know. The (relative) popularity of the game internationally is in good measure probably because of the efforts of the various country's trademark holders for Othello (and, therefore, also for the action of Mr. Hasegawa whatever one may otherwise think of him or of trademarked games that also have a non-trademarked close relative). And there may likely be other very strong reasons for just calling it a tie in article naming.173.15.152.77 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move request was about whether to move the article to "Myanmar" not "Burma/Myanmar". It would have been inappropriate for the admin to move the article to a location that was not the focus of the move request. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold (supported the article remaining at Burma) – The closing statement by the admin summarised the situation very well and was a very balanced explanation. I would just like to make the following points and I will try my utmost to avoid making additional comments on this page:
  • The closing statement shows the closing admin did fairly evaluate points made by those who favoured the move whilst at the same time clearly stating that points made by some of those opposed to the move were dismissed and almost led to the page being moved.
  • The primary argument throughout by most of those who supported the move was the fact Myanmar was the official name of the country, ignoring the fact we are meant to go with the common name.
  • The closing admin clearly referenced WP policy and explained the reasoning was in line with such policies.
  • I do not believe there was equal weight over a multitude of sources as suggested by the person seeking the review. The sources clearly showed that Burma was the more common English language name for the country. Whilst Myanmar is widely used, even some which use it also said that Burma was the better known name.
  • The closing admin clearly stated they did not take into account where the article title was, giving even more advantage to the “move” side, seen as the article had been at Burma for 5 years and that too could have been taken into account.
  • The fact that clear canvassing took place on the first day of the RM which unintentionally benefited the voting in favour of the move was not mentioned or factored in. Had such canvassing not taken place, there would have been less votes for the Move side.
  • There was not a clear majority view, but on numbers there were at least half a dozen people more against the move than in favour of it. In such circumstances the only reasonable options for the closing admin would be to endorse the current name or simply find as no consensus.
  • This review request seems to suggest that the admin should have chosen a third option, that only around half a dozen people even mentioned in a vote that involved more than 90 people. Such a third way would have been totally unacceptable and hugely controversial, along with violating WP policies.

The right decision was made by the closing admin and I hope that this matter will be put to rest swiftly after such an extended RM which was also listed as a RFC. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Although I fully believe the closing administrator made a well-intentioned decision, it was simply the wrong way to go. He missed an amazing opportunity to finally settle a longstanding, contentious issue in a manner that not only would have been in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but also would have made the majority of both sides happy. He could have been a hero by doing what I strongly believe was necessary, appropriate and warranted, which would have been to use both names in the title. Both Burma and Myanmar are the common names of that country. From a completely objective standpoint, no one could possibly conclude that one name is significantly more common than the other. There was an enormous amount of input, with strong arguments on both sides. Plus, the entire world - lay people, media and publishers - knows that the Burma-Myranmar name debate exists. Clearly, there was no consensus on either side. Therefore, the article title should either be Burma/Myranmar, Myranmar/Burma, Burma (also known as Myranmar), Myranmar (also know as Burma), or similar. There were numerous comments that very effectively justified the rationale for using both names in the article title. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note and with all due respect, I hope that BritishWatcher does not essentially hijack this discussion as he appeared to do in the Burma talk page discussion, where he posted about 40 comments. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for any of those alternative titles you mentioned. Those alternatives were barely even discussed, and it would have been completely inappropriate for the admin to move it to a title that was not what the requested move was proposing. The requested move was solely about whether or not to move the article to "Myanmar", not "Myanmar/Burma" or "Myranmar (also know as Burma)". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that most completely neutral, uninvolved editors reading that discussion will clearly see that there was no consensus, one way or the other; that there were strong arguments, balanced in number, for both sides. My point is that both sides need to come together and do what is obviously fair and correct: use both names. Wikipedia has guidelines, not rules. They allow for flexibility when it's warranted, especially when there's an extremely contentious issue that's been going on for a very long time. Again, the bottom line is that Burma and Myanmar are essentially equal in terms of common name standards. Btw, I have no doubt that if the current article title was Myanmar, the closing admin's decision would have been the same, maintaining Myanmar. I'll leave it at that and let other editors give their input. Thanks. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The boat containing alternative names sailed many years ago when it was decided that names like Derry/Londonderry were not acceptable (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names) -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Naming the article "Burma/Myanmar" or "Burma (Myanmar)" would blatantly violate Wikipedia naming conventions. To fully comply with Wikipedia policy, the article must either be located at "Burma" or "Myanmar", whichever name is the most common English name for this country. Other considerations like what the official name is, that a military dictatorship chose the name, or that it is the most common name in the non-English speaking world are basically irrelevant to this debate. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close (note: I opposed the move) - Let me first say that although I opposed the move, I am certainly open to the possibility that someday common usage in the English speaking world will change and necessitate a move of this article to Myanmar, but that day is not here yet. The closing admin gave a sound, lucid, thorough, and impartial closing. His decision was based on a thoughtful weighing of the arguments on both sides and on Wikipedia's article naming policies. In fact, his closing was probably the best, most well thought out closing I have ever read on Wikipedia, which makes this review completely unwarranted and bordering on an abuse of process. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close Consensus was fairly obvious and the closing admin has made a fair determination. (Note: I would have preferred a move to Myanmar.)--regentspark (comment) 20:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Flawed process The move review gives wide leeway to the choice of the closer, which in turn leads into a rehash of the original discussion like the above assertion that using official names is against policy. The result will be somewhere between endorse to no consensus defaulting to endorse. So why bother in the first place? Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a "Myanmar supporter" the process was done correctly. Going by Wikipedia policies for a move to have happened there needed to be shown with a clear majority that the English speaking world uses Myanmar over Burma oppose to the roughly 50/50 split demostrated. Also with the article supposedly written in "British English" the move would be a bit confusing as the United Kingdom is probably the biggest supporter of Burma in the English speaking world. Personally I think it is only a matter of time before the move will happen as the usage of Myanmar has grown over the years, but that's a bit of using my crystal ball and as seen over the past few weeks this time is not now. JoshMartini007 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With process I mean this move review. not the RM itself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close The closer did a good job summarising the views expressed. LK (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from move nominator - While I'm not going to request this close be overturned, I would like to see the closing comment be amended to indicate a no consensus. It also give undue credance to the ngrams I have called into disrepute. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the closing comment must indicate that there was no consensus, because that is a fact. I know we look at the arguments and do not count "votes," but I would urge the administrator handling this move review to please look at how many editors indicated Support and Oppose. There were nearly 100 opinions given (!) and the split was approximately half on each side, so clearly there was no consensus on either side. I would also add that a number of the Oppose opinions inappropriately stated political considerations as the reason for opposing the move, which violates WP guidelines and therefore should not have been considered. Any fair and objective assessment of the results will show that there was no consensus. A "no consensus" determination of course will not change the outcome (which is to leave the article title as Burma), but it will officially put it on record what really happened. Thank you. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What really happened was a majority of the people who took part (although by a small margin of about half a dozen) supported keeping it at Burma, and there were people on the move side who simply referenced the fact it was the official name of the country as justification, when WP policy clearly states commonname is what matters, not official name. The closing admin assessed the situation based on the points made, wikipedia policies and logic, agreeing that the article should be at Burma. Just because there is no clear consensus in terms of votes does not always means it must be closed as no consensus. Infact another country article was not that long ago moved when there was no clear consensus, and that result was reaffirmed by people here with it not being overturned. If this is all about basic numbers of the vote, then there is no point even having admins close RMs at all, it may as well just be a bot count at the end of a set period. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BritishWatcher, thanks for trying to convince all of us "what really happened" and how you can read the mind of the closing administrator. And teaching us how consensus is determined, as if we don't know. But here's the thing. Everyone can read that discussion for themselves to see what happened. They can count the Supports and Opposes, and they can read all the comments. It will be abundantly clear to any neutral editor that consensus was in no way achieved. And I'm totally fine with that, even though I was on the Support side. But the official result must reflect what truly happened. I have no doubt that the closing admin meant well, but he/she should have ruled that there was "no consensus, so the article title stays the same." --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "abundantly clear", I think. It could have been validly closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin is entitled to look directly at the evidence and policy and make a judgement as to whether all voters are interpreting it correctly. It seems like the closer has given particular weight to WP:COMMONALITY, which is a sensible thing to do in this context. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's stunning how some of you completely ignore not only the numbers, which were basically split evenly, but the clearly inappropriate and therefore invalid political reasons given by a number of editors who Opposed. Here are some examples of these wildly inappropriate comments, including one (of several) from BritishWatcher:

• “Oppose, per Suu Kyi, who as of July 3 was still showing grit in the face of the regime's continued thuggery on this issue: "The State Law and Order Restoration Council...didn’t bother to consider what the public opinion about the new name was. They didn’t show any respect to the people." Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• "It leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth that wikipedia would capitulate by appeasing a regime that is using clear threats and intimidation to try and prevent the use of the common english language name Burma. This article has been at this location for years and if it is changed will have massive implications for use of the name throughout wikipedia. Im not entirely sure this out of the blue RM to last just 7 days is a reasonable way of determining something with serious implications for 100s of other articles and usage in articles, not to mention the success for a regime intent on wiping out a name they dislike." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). The question boils down to what the consensus political belief or personal preference is. No point in pretending otherwise and generating long lists of who uses what name." --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Oppose. Clearly still known as Burma to most except for the totalitarian regime in charge." -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Oppose Heavens no. If we don't go along with the Ivory Coast government's request to use Côte d'Ivoire, we certainly shouldn't take directions from the Burmese junta.... I would argue that it is impossible to separate politics from this issue: the use of Burma or Myanmar is a political statement, and inasmuch as we must make such a choice, it's a clear one to me." --BDD (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that's proof. There are plenty of other examples. Some editors need to stop the hypocisy. And also note in the discussion how many of the Opposeds admitted that there is no consensus on the country name. And there are plenty of comments like these: "Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)" and "What would hypothetically have to happen for a consensus to occur? I know it's not a majority vote. Regardless of how the remaining votes go, it seems that there is too much support for both sides for the "c" word to ever happen. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)" If there's one thing that there was indeed consenus on, it's the fact that there was no consenus. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely selective posting, especially of one of my comments when i stated very clearly in the next post that the decision should be based on policy, not the situation with the regime. "We must go by what is the commonname, i believe Burma is still the common English language name despite attempts by a regime to prevent that being the case. Whilst the decision should be based on policy such as going with the commonname rather than the official name, it is impossible to ignore the political dimension to this considering just over a month ago people were being threatened by the regime for using the name Burma. BritishWatcher (talk)

Except that the most commonly used name cannot be demonstrated. Both sides have claimed to use the most commonly used name. What do we do when it is not clearly demnstrated that one name is not the most common? -^StormRider 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some editors need to stop the hypocisy." - Considering your attacks on me for joining in with discussions in the way you are making a number of posts in this debate and others now, i could not agree more. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I did not participate in the move discussion. The closing admin made these statements:

I see greater evidence that "Burma" is more widely used in English language...

WP:CRITERIA encourages us to choose a name that is recognizable and natural for readers, to choose something they are most likely to look for.

I do not believe there was sufficient evidence to have adequate support in the first claim, considering several comments that showed various forms of evidence that Myanmar might well be used more in English-speaking countries. I also don't believe the closing admin has not applied WP:CRITERIA correctly. People who are familiar with the name Burma are probably just as familiar with the name Myanmar, if they are familiar at all with the country, so this isn't really a compelling argument either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jethrobot, and I'm not sure the admin was correct in stating: "The primary force behind moving this article is that Myanmar is the official name." That would be akin to saying that the primary force behind keeping the article was that Burma is the "legitimate" name - it's only looking at some of the arguments. In truth, most of us who supported the move to Myanmar do believe it's equally as recognizable as Burma at the very least. You can read as much in the comments. Now, of course, the closer could argue that the people who believe this are mistaken... but there's no need to pretend that commonality isn't part of the Myanmar argument. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated, Baron. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold per WP:STICK. Warden (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold (I didn't participate in the move discussion) this is English Wikipædia and 'Myanmar' is not recognised by the English-speaking world. 78.150.102.108 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN and the international English-speaking journalism community at large would beg to differ. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the Washington Post in among the US publications that appears to prefer Burma. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in recent times. The Washington Post is inconsistent but uses Myanmar more often than Burma by a wide margin. If Burma is the more common name, it's in spite of American media. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:SET. In my locality I get 18 for Myanmar and three for Burma. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to my 85 for Myanmar and 3 for Burma. I thought narrowing the search to the Washington Post would give a standardized answer. But the Washington Post has different results in different localities? How bizarre. -BaronGrackle (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Fair close. Whether someone else would have closed differently is not the point, the point is that there no no clear failure in this close. Yes, the closer is given wide discretion. (My personal general preference, to favour the first non-stub version, is ambiguous here. Was Manning’s new page a stub? The next edit 11 days later it moved to Myanmar and it endured there for a while).

  The current title should now be considered the default. It should not be moved again with anything less than consensus support. I recommend a semi-arbitrary period of 6 months before allowing a fresh rename discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem. As someone who favors Myanmar, I still say that 6 months is way too short a time, if nothing in the country changes! -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Funny. I still think six months is about right, but that's whether or not something changes. Something will always change, and even everyone in the real world unexpectedly makes the decision to changes to Myanmar, it will take time, months, for the change to permeate reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007–2012 global financial crisis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The admin (User:RegentsPark) closed the RM and did not move the page despite a consensus that the current title is not suitable and general agreement on a new title. When he first closed the article, the admin ignored the consensus that the article should be moved because there was moderate disagreement over what the alternative title should be (most users were willing to compromise and accept more than one alternative). In talk the admin provided his own unique reason for keeping the title (the dates should cover all possible dates). No one else mentioned this rationale, which means the admin was imposing his own view not interpreting consensus. After complaints, the admin put the discussion "on hold" and had us summarize our arguments. The admin requested sources that used the alternative title, and these were provided from very reputable sources. No sources were provided backing the current title. In this new discussion, no one supported the current title, yet the admin once again closed the discussion and refused to move the page.

The admin has not acted in a neutral manner. He requested that pro-move users provide citations for proposed title (which were provided), but did not request them from those who supported the current title (and none have been supplied). Part of determining consensus requires evaluating the strength of arguments, but the admin has abused this authority by making his own argument and deciding that it is stronger than the others. The admin refuses to discuss the issue further on his talk page (and never engaged in discussion with me), so I have made this request. This issue is also discussed on ANI --Bkwillwm (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While I agree with Bkwillwm's every word, I do not accept the validity of reopening this RM here for debate. It is my view that another review would be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and I do not intend to contribute to it. Furthermore, I believe this is a matter for AN/I, if not for ArbCom, as the issue has grown to extend beyond the future title of the financial crisis article. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment Bkwillwm makes several incorrect statements in his/her comment above. (1) I asked editors to summarize their arguments for "their preferred title". All titles, including the current one, are included in this statement (though, to be honest, I only meant the proposed and current titles. (2) I merely evaluated the arguments presented on the talk page and based my close on various arguments presented that the crisis spans more than 2008. It is incorrect to say that this was not an argument in the move discussion. It was clearly raised as an argument by at least two editors and supported by at least one other editor. I did respond to Bkwillwm on my talk page, however that's not really an issue for the move review. --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Frankly, the claim of non-neutrality is a bit baffling. Why exactly, if the existing title were my preferred one, would I reopen the discussion when I could simply restate my reasons and keep the discussion closed at that very title? There must be some convoluted thinking behind this claim but I don't get it. --regentspark (comment) 20:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sorry if I misunderstand you, but my point regarding your "reopening" of the discussion was that no one supported the current title in the re-opened discussion, yet you still went with the current title. This is easily confirmed by looking here. 2) Your argument when first closing the discussion was "a messy title is better than a neat, but possibly inaccurate one." You generally were making the argument that we should have a broad title to cover all possible dates. Other editors were arguing that the financial crisis continued 2007-present. They were saying that you could make a positive statement that the financial crisis lasted five years. You argued that we could not make a negative statement that crisis had ended. Those are two different arguments. As an admin, your job is to implement the consensus not supply your own argument. By the way, we argued that the "financial crisis" had ended but recessionary effects continued. Users against the move seem to be confused about the meaning of "financial crisis" (bank failures, equity market crashes) versus a general decline or lag in output. This point was crucial to the argument, but you don't seem to have understood it and countered "leave that to academia!" The definition of a "financial crisis" is germane, but you supplied your own arguments that it wasn't. Once again, you were acting as a discussant not as an impartial admin. 3)You replied to me on your talk page, but did not participate in a discussion. You gave me one non sequitur response then told me to stop posting on your talk page.

Also, just wanted to add that when you first closed the discussion you stated "I agree that there is a general consensus that the current title is less than perfect." So you clearly understood the consensus and ignored it. You supplied your own rationale for not making the move, which is not part of your authority when acting as an admin.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bkwillwm, the definition of a financial crisis is germane only to the extent that reliable sources use it. WP:OR means that we don't make our own interpretations because that's what academia and peer review is supposed to do. My request to keep the economics out of the discussion was merely to point out that using various economic metrics to figure out when the crisis started or ended is not the business of Wikipedia. I explained that in my response to you on my talk page (which, I agree, was testy but you were accusing me of not acting in good faith in a situation where I could, and still cannot, see a single bad faith reason for my reopening the move request. Regardless, I was wrong to be abrupt and I apologize for that.) I also did state the current title is less than perfect but I also added that the proposed title appeared to be inaccurate (based on the discussion). That only means that we should continue to look for a better title. --regentspark (comment) 21:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OR issues, please review the talk page. Discussion of the definition of "financial crisis" only arose because the primary anti-move user (User:Fred Bauder) was arguing that continued recessions meant that the "financial crisis" was ongoing. Fred did not have sources supporting this assertion (His sources only claim that economies are lagging, not that they are in a financial crisis). Fred's claims are OR, and other users provided sources explaining why his OR claim that a recession meant continued financial crisis did not match established sources. Users provided citations for the definition here. You wonder why we think you are not impartial? You are accusing us of OR despite our having provided sources while you side with Fred who has clearly made OR claims.

"That only means that we should continue to look for a better title." Exactly. Couldn't agree more. The best way for us to do this would be to continue the discussion you closed. You could have/should have raised any concerns you had about alternative titles before closing it. Locking in the current title despite the consensus against it was a bad move.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (“no consensus”). Rename Financial crisis of 2007-2008 as the first non-stub version title, until there is a consensus for another name.

I became aware of this move discussion through dialogue with Yaniv256 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#managing_repeated_.22no_consensus.22_decisions.

As I noted there, I believe that as a consequence of the formal “no consensus” conclusion, the title should be moved back to Financial crisis of 2007-2008 (the first non-stub version, which I believe Fred Bauder chose, 19:11, 17 September 2008). This is according to a generalised reading of WP:RETAIN:

(from WP:RETAIN)

“When no [page name] has been established [as the default] and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the [page name] used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default”.

I believe that this default position has the best advantage in in terms of calming upset editors, which is the best step in promoting calm discussion.

The title Financial crisis of 2007-2008 may very well be less satisfying to more editors than the current title. However, I still think it should be considered the default due to the benefits of having a fair default position that cannot be gamed, except that it encourages editors to write new non-stub articles.

I think it is fairly obvious that the title discussion will continue. However, I see no need to rush. If fact, I predict that in five years the title will be something not yet considered, that the content will be entirely rewritten, and that very few of the current references will not have been replaced. In the mean time, the lede section should continue to explain the ambiguities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apply commonsense with regard to hyphenation described by policy/guidelines. Recommend that anyone unhappy with this title initiate a fresh RM discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. There certainly was no consensus to adopt the proposed title. Nor was there clear consensus on any one of the new proposals that came out of the discussion (though consensus seemed close). The title has been unstable for a long time for both topical and stylistic reasons. WP:TITLECHANGES suggests we "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" (that would be Financial crisis of 2007-2008) and go back to work on it. Jojalozzo 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten of the users supported a title change to "Global financial crisis of 2008" and only two opposed (Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#Four-way_RfC_summary_table). I am very aware that "consensus" is not guaranteed by winning a vote, but, IMO, you have to have a very strong argument for not interpreting an 83% vote as a consensus (e.g. that many of the majority votes were simply dittos or did not express an argument while the minority actually made arguments). I have not heard a good reason why this vote (and accompanying arguments) do not reflect a consensus.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A close of "Consensus to move to Global financial crisis of 2008" looks defendable to me. I suggest a new RM discussion, where the only two options are "Global financial crisis of 2008" and the original "Financial crisis of 2007-2008". Note that while polls are evil, multi-option polling is especially evil. I think it is clear that today's title "2007–2012 global financial crisis" is not supported by a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo and SmokeyJoe, you haven't provided any arguments backing your position. Saying it "looks defendable" doesn't really cut it. Do you at least see the irony in voting to back an admin's decision that he could ignore votes when determining consensus?--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked again and I do not see that the closer ignored anything. Maybe you'd like more explanation. While "Global financial crisis of 2008" looks defendable, so does a "no consensus" close, and it is within admin discretion to have chosen between the two. That said, the multi-option discussion was a bit confusing (despite some valiant efforts), and a better focused new RM discussion may be fruitful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close I realize this is a difficult area, however there is expert opinion regarding this matter available, see "3. Since we last met, the global recovery has continued to face a number of challenges. Financial market tensions are high. External, fiscal and financial imbalances are still prevalent, having a major impact on growth and employment prospects and confidence. Clearly, the global economy remains vulnerable, with a negative impact on the everyday lives of people all over the world, affecting jobs, trade, development, and the environment." G20 Leaders Declaration, Los Cabos, Mexico, June 19, 2012. I also don't understand the reluctance to date the crisis from 2007 when there is good authority for a discrete starting point on August 7, 2007, "Three myths that sustain the economic crisis". User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer starting in 2007 but I think ending in 2012 is inappropriate since a) no one thinks it will end this year and b) there are sources that have it ending in 2009. If we accept the sources that have it continuing, as you suggest, we still have no sources for it ending in 2012. Jojalozzo 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good example of Fred's OR that continued economic problems and discussion of financial issues justify a dating of the financial crisis that does match sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to "Financial crisis of 2007-2008" It's clear from comments on the talk page (see here[1]) that there is consensus that the current title should be changed. Endorse change to "Financial crisis of 2007-2008" per talk page comments, or by the argument 'no-consensus, revert title to first non-stub title'. LK (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]