Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 October

Ragamuffin War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This move was a partial revert of a previous move, but this was not apparent to editors, because the proposer did not mention it, and had indeed had the previous discussion archived a few days before making the proposal. This irregularity taints the RM, which should be reversed and relisted.Kanguole 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's no obligation to mention former RMs, so that alone isn't enough to make me want to overturn. The request had unanimous support after the usual listing period, so the close was easy and correct. --BDD (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I think it's a little odd that the RM proposer set up the archive almost right before opening the move request. I also don't think two support votes is a very strong consensus. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Back to Relist was Endorse without prejudice against a future RM - was Relist - While each RM should stand on it's on, the timing is suspect of the archiving taints the result regardless of the intention. Two votes also does not seem to be strong consensus compared to the numbers involved in the previous consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  More I think about it, the more I have to go relist. While BDD has a good point about precedent involving legitimate outcomes, I'm more worried about the opposite precedent. Blanking the talk page by archiving just before a move request doesn't seem like something we should encourage. Especially considering Amakuru's points below. PaleAqua (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot Stop and PaleAqua, this may not affect your position, but proposers count too—this request had three editors in support and none opposed or even neutral. I'm concerned of the precedent we might set if previous RMs being archived is held as enough to throw out a perfectly legitimate outcome. The old RM was a year ago. If it had closed a few days before, maybe we could say this was a case of WP:IDHT. As such, there was nothing wrong on the part of the nominator or closer. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To me it's not just that it was archived, it was that it has the appearance of being intentionally archived along with a bunch of other discussions on the name just a few days before the nomination. That said I have tweaked my vote. PaleAqua (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks I did realize that there are three supporters, including the nominator. But it still seems to me like the nominator intentionally archived the previous RM he intended to reverse. That being said, I do agree the close was made in good faith and would be acceptable if hadn't been for the nominator's action. I don't see how re-listing could do any harm. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened here was that the proposer archived the previous discussions and then proposed the move with exactly the same links that he had produced a year ago and which had been analysed and refuted in the discussion he had just hidden. Refusing to reward that sort of behaviour wouldn't be such a bad precedent. Kanguole 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning relist - a tough one this. None of the factors involved are sufficient to worry me on their own, but there are just a few too many "irregularities" on this one and if I were to close this it would be in the firm "relist" camp. The factors I'm considering are: (1) the proposer archiving the old RM just before opening the new one; that's no necessarily against the rules, but it does look like an attempt to prejudice the outome. (2) there were far fewer respondents to this RM than the previous one, which was just a year ago. (3) Three supports (including nom) is solid but not a ringing endorsement of the proposal. (4) The move was closed slightly early - it missed out on a full week of listing by 1 hr. 6 mins; not massively significant, but as I say I am adding the insignificant points together here! I think the most correct closure for this would have been another week's relisting, and if it remained as is by the end of that period, then so be it, the move goes ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does any venue besides PROD really follow one-week periods to the minute? If the other factors are still convincing for you, that's fine, but I personally can't put any stock in that particular argument. If it were closed at 00:01 UTC, maybe I might think there was something fishy about it. --BDD (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The MiszaBot parameter minthreadsleft = 0 makes normal talk pages look unused. I've set minthreadsleft = 3 & algo = old(183d) so that in future drive by contributors can easily see past discussions. Lecen was a bit aggressive in setting the archiving. However, archiving was needed, and there is no sign of gaming or of RM participants being misled. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't think that hiding the previous discussion before re-introducing exactly the same quotations that had been rebutted in that discussion has the appearance of gaming? Kanguole 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't appear to have benn deliberate gaming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since relisting isn't really a viable option at MRV, it appears the closer may be working with just what discussion we have here. Let me suggest to him or her a solution I might implement if I were closing rather than involved: endorse the close performed but state no prejudice against a new RM. In practice, this satisfies those who advocated endorsing and those who advocated relisting. Since no one thinks an overturn is appropriate here, this may be the best course of action. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is an option explicitly spelled out on the MR page. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: I meant relisting this discussion would not be helpful, referring to the usual method of dealing with tough decisions. Relisting remains an option for the original RM, sure. --BDD (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native American boarding schools (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Procedural nomination as closer, pursuant to discussion on my talk page. I closed the discussion as "move to American Indian boarding schools" per the detailed reasoning I explained on my talk page, but several people seem to disagree with the logic I employed. My final count was two opposes, two vacated opposes (since the only reasoning they stated was not applicable to the title I saw as consensus), and six support (four explicit support and two "no objection"s).—Darkwind (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse ( but allow immediate new RM ): While it would have been better to in my opinion to close as not moved with a suggestion to open a move request to alternate suggestion. That said the alternate title was quickly suggested by several of the commenters, and only two !votes were made before the first suggestion of it. Both of those commenters made additional comments after the suggestion was raised, one indicating support for the alternate name. PaleAqua (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think allowing an immediate new RM would be appropriate, even though this was not a no-consensus close and I find no fault with the close itself. PaleAqua (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It appears the editors complaining on the talk page didn't look much beyond the bolded votes. Of the six oppose voters, myself included, four of us primarily objected to using "Indian" alone due to potential confusion,and SmokeyJoe and I explicitly endorsed American Indian boarding schools. This title was a good compromise because it addressed concerns of supporters that "Native American" wasn't used to describe these schools, as well as the concerns of some opposers that the proposed title was ambiguous. Til Eulenspiegel's observation that these sorts of situations lead to back-to-back RMs hasn't exactly been true, in my experience. There are plenty of cases like this where consensus forms behind an alternative suggestion. Certainly it was not a procedural error on Darkwind's part to recognize consensus rather than force a new request. Finally, the article should not have been moved back to the old title prior to the resolution of this review. In the event of a no consensus decision here, the title should revert to American Indian boarding schools. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close (edit conflict – comments written before BDD's concurring response), so title should be American Indian boarding schools (since reverted by Til Eulenspiegel, improperly in my opinion): Per the summary on the closer's Talk page. My impression is that after some initial opposition to the proposer's original (different) suggestion was expressed, the tide had clearly turned in favor of the declared outcome, and the discussion had stabilized in that state. I was not a participant in the discussion since I did not think I had a clear personal opinion about what the name should be, although was watching it take place as a learning experience. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: By my reading, the last comment that appears to oppose the outcome that was ultimately declared (a comment by Uyvsdi) was on 28 September. All subsequent remarks in the discussion seem to explicitly or implicitly support the outcome. This includes three comments in a row at the end that express a clear agreement during 5–7 October. The consensus was declared on 11 October. Two weeks of waiting after the last direct opposition before closing seems sufficient to establish that the discussion had stabilized in that direction. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Slap Til_Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) for reverting the move during this review, move-warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The page move was reverted before I opened the review, but I still don't feel it was appropriate (as I noted on my talk page). In fact, the revert was what prompted me to escalate to a review. —Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe my reasoning was correct. There was no formal proposal to move from "Native American" to "American Indian". There was no clear consensus for this. If someone wishes to propose a move to "American Indian", I will of course not complain about the outcome. However this breach of procedure done by supposedly divining what people think is the best title is unprecedented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with those who stated that "American Indian" is better than just "Indian" myself. That is not the same as saying "American Indian" is better than the original title, "Native American". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to insist that "Indian" is the correct and most common term today then slap me with a trout for disagreeing, I would urge you to think twice before slapping me with a trout Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that the title decided upon wasn't the same as the one that was originally proposed. That sort of thing happens all the time (cf. WP:NOTBURO). --BDD (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I've ever seen anything like it. It is an abuse of procedure. There is no clear consensus for this title. I will link to this conversation from the Native American Project, because an ass-backwards decision in favor of 'American Indian" over "Native American" is being held upo by the usual bunch of cronies and I intend to continue this appeal as far as it will possibly go. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in other interested editors, such as from the Native American Project, is a good idea. Others' participation on the talk page, especially in a follow-up RM discussion is definitely a positive way to move forward. Unfortunately, this Move Review discussion precludes initiating a fresh RM discussion due to simultaneous related discussions being generally undesirable. Unfortunately, this Move Review was necessitated by your unilateral rejection of respect for the closer's closing per his reading of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse. The closer's call was clearly the right one. First, there's the little matter that "American Indian boarding schools" is the much more common name in the sources, while "Native American boarding schools" is uncommon (and anachronistic). Especially once that was pointed out, the majority of users supported this title. Until the point this move review decides otherwise, the article needs to be restored to where the closing admin put it, and yes, Til should be summarily trouted for unilateral move warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not open to being slapped by a trout by anyone just because I support the current term Native American and not the antiquated misnomer American Indian. Please save your stupid trout slapping for editors who specifically state that they are "open" to such experiences. I do not go for that. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By unilaterally rejecting the result of a reasonably run and closed RM discussion, you have been disruptive. There is a strong community consensus that the WP:RM process is the way to decide on questions of contested page renames, and that the result of the RM process is to be respected, subject to demonstrated consensus otherwise. Would you please reverse your page move, and leave any action on that front to the closer of this MR discussion, or to a later RM discussion? You have made your views clear. Now, you need to wait and see if other interested editors agree. I suggest that you may fine others more likely to voice their agreement with you if you do not appear to be disruptive or combative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with SmokeyJoe. Please reverse your page move. Also, unless you are Indian, it is not your place to determine what we are called. GregJackP Boomer! 14:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stated whether or not I am Native American. But I'm definitely not "Indian", because I am not from India. I can't bring myself to move the page back to "Indian" from the original location but I am still all for having a much wider discussion. Does the race of any of the participants in the discussion matter really? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am Menominee and Indian. You've made the comment that you support the "current term Native American and not the antiquated misnomer American Indian." "Native American" is a BS term invented by politically correct white people to label Indians. Unless you are Indian, who are you to say what we should be called, or what is an "antiquated misnomer"? GregJackP Boomer! 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it doesn't matter what an editor's ethnic and cultural background is. What matters are that procedures are followed, and the closing of that particular discussion was premature, since not even a rough consensus had been developed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I don't disagree that process is more important than an individual's background, but it is irritating and insulting to be told what one should be called. GregJackP Boomer! 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except Native people don't unanimously agree, and no one can speak for all Native people. We can only speak for ourselves. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Til, you're not being trout-slapped for your opinion, but because you started edit warring to get your way. If you revert yourself we can move the discussion forward; until then your edit warring will just be a distraction that seriously undermines your own case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow a near immediate relisting as a fresh RM to decide between Native American boarding schools and American Indian boarding schools, given unexpected strength of opinion. In the event of a "no consensus" outcome to this followup RM, Native American boarding schools should be considered default, as the term used in the early version of the page, and in the page from which it was spun out. No criticism of the closer, as the close looks, on its face, to be quite reasonable. It is not uncommon for a RM discussion to result in a consensus for something not originally mentioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse. The move to American Indian boarding schools was the correct move based on stated opinions and matches WP:COMMONNAME. The reversion was uncalled for and should be reverted. GregJackP Boomer! 14:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Strong oppose. The term "Native American" includes Alaska Natives who are not Indian (Aleut, Iñupiat, Yupik, etc.). Non-Indian Alaska Natives are part of the residential boarding school experience in the United States, into the late 20th century (Shadian 92)), (Nuttall and Callaghan 381). The term "American Indian" would unnecessarily exclude these non-Indian Alaska Natives. While the article Native American boarding schools begins with the lead sentence saying the schools started in the late 19th and early 20th century, these schools did not all close then; many still are still in operation today. Some have been taken over by tribes, but many are still run by organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church (Red Cloud Indian School), American Baptist Churches (Bacone College), etc. so the notion that the title needs to adhere to terms used 150 years ago is absurd. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
• Prefer Native American boarding schools: Per Uyvsdi and the issue of Alaska Natives. Each individual institution may or may not still have "Indian school" in its name, and that is fine for articles about individual instutitions, but for the generic concept, best to use "Native American" due to the highly controversial and still-hotly-debated use of the word "Indian." Some Native people are quite offended by the word "Indian," while others are fine with it and some even prefer it, as we can see here with GregJackP and Uyvsdi, both of whom I believe are of Native ancestry. (FYI, I'm white, and I don't even think I might have had an Indian ancestor, somewhere, LOL) "American Indian" is common jargon in legal circles, but "Native American" is still pretty standard in academic circles, particularly history. While (as Greg illustrated) some Native people find "Native American" mildly irritating, a bit PC, and sometimes kind of pretentious, you won't find people jumping up and down with accusations that it is racist. Personally, I've had Native folks mock me for saying "Native American," but I've seen folks be SERIOUSLY pissed off if I say the word "Indian" to the wrong person. For that reason, I prefer "Native American" as a category title and to title the overview article. That said, I also agree that there is a place to use the term "American Indian" when it is in its proper context and there is no need for people to go into WP:OR land and suggest we have to go into SYNTH territory to call the BIA the "Bureau of Native American Affairs" or something equally ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a choice between 2 titles per SmokeyJoe and Slap Til_Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) for violating WP:Canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This should have been presented briefly and neutrally and the comment "Wider range of opinions than the usual pro-sysop editors is requested" is out of line and clearly lacks good faith. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose close. per uyvsdi and montanab Pass a Method talk 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - BDD summarises it well. Vacating opposes on the grounds of not liking the standalone term "Indian" and including those who were happy to support the alternative proposal, a consensus was there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I like the term "American Indian" just fine; however, Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut peoples have been and are still part of the boarding school experience, and they are not American Indians—culturally, genetically, historically, or politically. Since this article is very definitely about the United States, it should include non-Indian Alaskan Natives. There's no reason to exclude them from the scope of this article. The current term "Native American" includes them. A consensus was *not* developed around the term "American Indian." -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

• Relist with the two options. I originally approached Darkwind's talk page because I judged the consensus to be unclear. My interest is procedural and I don't have input on the rename. czar ♔ 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am biased (having supported "American Indian boarding schools" in the initial move discussion) but want to point out that many RM discussions are closed with a move to a title different from that in the original nomination. That's why it is called a discussion, not a ballot. However, I also believe that in this and similar cases, a new RM to undo the move should be allowed. —  AjaxSmack  20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC Mounted Division (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The first requested move failed to give due weight to the consensus and the strength of the arguments, while the second request failed to reflect the apathy demonstrated by the non-consensus. Both requests should have seen the article moved on these bases. I have raised my concerns with BDD but not with Gnangarra as I was not aware at the time of this review process. Is it possible for both requested moves to be reviewed together?Rskp (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: as original closer....The first move request closed based on arguments with the Official name as shown by Australian War Memorial being ANZAC Mounted Division[1]. as the other part move review process didnt exist in Jan 2012 the implied denial of process is invalid. As the second request also didnt establish to create a name that is anything other than the official name I see no reason for this review either Gnangarra 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not wish to imply denial of process - I was simply stating why I didn't question the first decision even though there was a the clear consensus. The War Diaries show places and units in block capitals. --Rskp (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw cmt on process Gnangarra 07:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. I would not have closed the earlier RM as it was done, but it's been over a year and half since that happened, so I don't think there's much use in worrying about it now. Focusing only on the recent RM, there was nothing exactly wrong with Rskp's arguments except for the fact that no one agreed with them. If I had to declare consensus either way, I would've had to say there was consensus against, but given the low participation, I felt no consensus was the correct outcome.

Part of me wants to say no prejudice against a third RM, but I really can't see it making a difference for now. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close: The (recent) proposal had no support and two boldfaced 'oppose', despite a relisting that extended the review period more than another week. The opponents referred to prior comments and cited a current official use of the existing name. I see no way that could have resulted in a declaration of a consensus to accept the proposal. It's rather late to complain about what happened a year and a half ago, so there's little point in questioning the handling of the earlier move discussion. Even the person filing this complaint seems to agree that the recent discussion "demonstrated ... non-consensus". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are two reasons for revisiting the first move review.

1. The two opposing votes don't refer to anything else but the first move review, and I thought it was important to point out the weaknesses of that review.
2. The second move review relies on lack of a consensus to deny the move, so I wanted to point out that there had been a consensus reached at the first move review.

It may not be useful to focus on the year and a half when no complaints were made. A quick look at my userpage will show that during that time I've been quite busy editing, and creating Wikipedia articles, a number of which have reached GA, and other editors who were involved in the first move request may have been similarly preoccupied with other work. Further, although I continued to have misgivings during that period, I wasn't sure how to proceed and didn't really have the time to investigate possibilities.

I think its important to point out that this move review is to do with a requested move to an already existing REDIRECT. So there are no major problems regarding linked articles etc. It boils down to the block capitals, drawing unwarranted attention and potentially, confusion to the mounted division, which rightly should remain with the ANZAC. --Rskp (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with the arguments against the move, is the claim that the division calls itself by the block capitals. This is wrong. The War Diary of the division refers to itself as the "A & NZ Mounted Division." [2] --Rskp (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not wrong the war diary uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, A & NZ and stated above and ANZAC see pages 2/29/36 and there may be others just did a quick check [3] Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Just to clarify, at the top of each page of the Anzac Mounted Division's war diary "A & NZ Mounted Division" is written by hand. --Rskp (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three instances out of 41 pages of one war diary, is a very slight indication, when compared with each and every page of the same war diary being titled "A & NZ Mounted Division," by hand. Too much emphasis has been placed on the shoulders of the Australian War Memorial typists and not enough on what the mounted division and the men called their division, and most historians. --Rskp (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (no consensus). Some Acronyms, laser, are never capitalized, others, AIDS, always. There will be very difficult border cases. This apparently is a difficult border case. It is not enough for the proposer to be right, the proposer has to persuade others to agree. This was not achieved. He is welcome to try again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. This is clearly no consensus for the most recent move discussion. I also think that it would be improper ( almost akin to a super vote ) if the closer had closed the second discussion based on the first one, it has to be based on the strength arguments presented and how they align to various policies etc. PaleAqua (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions. SmokeyJoe agrees my arguments are right. Why should this move be stopped because other editors are busy? Can PaleAqua demonstrate what policies my strong arguments do not align with? --Rskp (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I didn't say that. Perhaps I should have said: It's not a question of whether the nominator is "right", but of whether others generally agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• SmokeyJoe Apologies. However, I didn't think I was misrepresenting you. I thought "It is not enough for the proposer to be right" implied you thought the proposer was right.

All this is about moving an article to its REDIRECT. This is not a major move with extensive implications, and would end the potential for confusion between the mounted division, and the army corps. The issue of general agreement was not considered important when the first move request was rejected. Now it seems to be the only reason held against this review. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at the slightness of the implications of this move, from an article to a redirect, and the opponents' lack of clear ideas, the circularity of their arguments, its not really surprising that there is so little interest from Wikipedia editors. I certainly wouldn't waste my time on it, if I didn't understand the full implications of this move, working as I do within the Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles, and realise its importance to the understanding of that campaign. --Rskp (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]