The result was a pretty clear "no consensus", but closer read more into it than was there with "consensus to not move". A local majority overriding a centrally discussed consensus guideline supported by 6 of the participants is not a consensus. Please overturn and change to "no consensus" or leave this to an experienced admin to close. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The final vote referenced by Dick was 15 opposed and 6 in support. And not to rehash the argument in the RM, but nothing in our policy on article titles says to defer to our style guidelines, and a supermajority of participants in the RM concurred with that point. Calidum 04:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Also see a consensus for the status quo, so yes, it was a good close. I was not involved in either the RM or the VP RfC discussion of one year ago. In my opinion, this RM has tested that change to the MOS, so maybe as it turns out, the change should be reverted back to the "widely accepted" standard? or at least revisited, and this time on the MOS talk page? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there08:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC) 15:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what’s crazy? That VP RFC had about 12 participants, and the RM in question had 21. There’s a clear disconnect between what MOS editors think and what the community as a whole thinks. Calidum 16:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it would appear. I think it's okay to seek more uniformity, since many style guidelines seem to be doing just that on the issue of possessive (more generally genitive) singular nouns. And yet here on Wikipedia, it's not just 12 editors sitting around a table smoking cigars who decide the standards, it's a huge community that sometimes makes the US Congress look very decisive. Not knockin' it, just sayin' these things take time (sometimes a lot of time). Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't track at all. WP:VPPOL is our broadest venue for settling WP:P&G questions of all kinds; it is not an MoS-connected e-locale in any way. We host or at least announce major MoS-related RfCs there for the specific purpose of ensuring that these discussions cannot be dominated by MoS regulars. By contrast, and RM on a maths topic is going to primarily draw in maths editors (a bloc vote); few people ever respond to RMs that are not within one of their "pet" topic areas, except for some RM trawlers who care a lot about WP:CONSISTENCY policy (like me). The fact that more people turned up for the RM than the VPPOL thread demonstrates nothing other than that most editors don't care much about style quibbles, while topically focused editors engaging in the WP:SSF will pile onto an RM on one of "their" articles in considerable numbers. The exact same thing would have happened if this had been about football or the [US] Republican Party or Star Wars or anything else with a devoted camp of editors. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although I am involved, I think that this closure is right as there was consensus for this change. I know that I had closed and then reopened this, but with more oppose votes for moving to support's now than when to I closed it, I can even more see a consensus for this. I respect the other editors position on this, but I feel that this closure was right. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Reopen the discussion or leave it as no consensus for now. Per WP:CONLEVEL policy, is not is not permissible for a wikiproject like WP:MATH to try to make up its own rules against site-wide guidelines. COMMONNAME is not a style policy. Never has been, never will be. Every suggestion in Wikipedia's history to make any style issue of any kind into a policy-level matter has been overwhelmingly rejected, and style matters are left to MoS, at guideline level. All of them. Always. MoS is cited every single day at RM. Every. Day. This would not be possible and these guidelines would not exist at all if COMMONNAME were a style policy. WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines would not be cross-referencing MoS pages. Style-related naming conventions like WP:NCCAPS would not be based on MoS, but vice versa. The actual fact is that MoS has standards for when to apply style, based loosely on the COMMONNAME principle, but more stringent: apply a style that disagrees with MoS's default when and only when reliable sources do so consistently. Thus we have an article at Deadmau5, because pretty much no RS ever refer to him as "Deadmaus"; we do not have an article at SONY because RS routinely spell it Sony, recognizing that it is not an acronym and that the capitalization is just marketing. In this case, RS do not consistently use the same spelling. Publishers with a standard for using 's, following major style guides like Chicago Manual of Style, do so; publishers with a house style of reducing 's to just an apostrophe, for names ending in s, do that. The idea that there's some kind of global standard to do the latter is a ridiculous fantasy that is directly disproven by major style guides (the ones our MoS is based on) like Chicago and New Hart's Rules.
The closer patently supervoted. WP:CLOSING is not counting "votes", it is examining the policy- and sourced-based rationales, and properly declaring a failure of consensus to emerge when on fails to emerge. It takes an overwhelming actual consensus (which clearly did not emerge in this case) for an article-level suggestion for an exception to overturn a system-wide guideline. This close was an utter procedural failure, just pure vote-counting and siding with mob rule. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course...
The idea that there's some kind of global standard to [reduce 's to just an apostrophe, for names ending in s] is a ridiculous fantasy...
And yet, the idea that there is a global standard to always use 's for names ending in s is just as much a ridiculous fantasy. There is no standard way to do that, and so there is still wide adoption of "use whatever sounds good to the listener". "My boss's day off", "the glass's half-emptiness or half-fullness", "Decartes's stuff was right on!" However, "my glasses's nose pad broke off", "Achilles's heel" and "Stokes's theorem" are examples where the 's just doesn't sound right (to me). So the global standard is that there is no global standard for singular genitive nouns, and so the application is very subjective. You, for example, have come down hard on the side of 's, but you might have just as easily chosen to come down hard on the side of apostrophe no s. I remain on the side of the global un-standard of "whatever sounds best", and I think that the year-old MOS guideline change should maybe go back to being on that side as well, and that RfC decision needs to be revisited to see if there really is consensus to make our own standard where no global standard exists. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. No one has suggested such a standard; rather, the suggestion is to follow our MoS because the RS usage isn't consistent. The opposing side, however, are trying falsely to argue that s-dropping is a standard (either in mathematics, or in English in general) but we know for a fact that various sources do not drop it. It's more common to do so in mathematics sources than otherwise, but WP doesn't care. This is not MathematiciansPedia. Our title policies and style and naming conventions guidelines would just be deleted as trash if they were not applicable any time a bloc vote of specialists wanted to do something different to mimic style in their hand-picked journals. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for giving the impression that you had suggested anything other than for us to follow our MoS. It was I who suggested that the MoS might be too limiting and, well, arbitrary. That is a discussion for another venue. In this venue, we have only to decide whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. To endorse that close, we must agree that it was just that: reasonable and consistent. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm being argumentative! Sometimes it's just engaging to debate. Anyway, I agree with what you're saying in the abstract, of course. The problem is that people are responding here as if the standard is "majority vote" (in the RM or the MR), when it is not. The actual policy arguments – what a closer needs to assess – are firmly on the side of overturning or at least remanding for further discussion. WP:CONSISTENCY is a policy and one of the WP:CRITERIA. While WP:COMMONNAME is part of the same policy, it is not a naming criterion, it's just the first name to check for how well it works under all applicable policies and guidelines. If we pick something with "Stokes" and a possessive(there are alternatives, like "Stokes theorem", "Stokes–Cartan theorem", etc.), the style question that remains after that is an MoS matter, and the rule is clear, and so is the rule to not make an exception when RS usage is mixed. That doesn't mean "RS usage in one particular field", though the usage is mixed there, too. People are mistaking "a majority of maths sources, many of which are quite old and pre-date the shift in English usage toward a simple 's standard as now found in many major style guides" for "all the sources, or close enough that I'm gonna WP:WIN". It doesn't matter how many people make this mistake; a proper closure has to discount this fallacious view, and actually go with the proper WP:P&G analysis, even if it's bucking the majority vote. WP is not mob rule. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Debate is what we do, so no need to apologize for that. My counter to the mob rule thing is that I've seen it work too many times on WP when it shouldn't have, but then, so have most of us. In this case, I still say the MoS is too limiting and that consensus can change. The MoS tells us "He is the girls's father" is correct when "He is the girls' father" sounds so much better (plural noun, bad example) about several good-sounding examples of singular nouns; however, it does not include examples like "Stokes's" that just don't sound right. And the latter the way it sounds, that is, whether or not it sounds good, is the more widely accepted standard outside WP according to the article on the apostrophe. This RM appears to be evidence that the MoS' (or MoS's (that sounds better)) style guide for genitives should be revisited, especially since the decision to change it is only a year old, and the SQ before that seemed to be more in tune with widespread usage outside WP. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 12:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The common name policy does apply to style decisions. Always has, always will. The manual of style is great for telling us how to parse ordinary prose and also as a default option for title decisions when source usage is unclear. But for article titles where there is a substantial majority of sources favouring one version (as is clearly the case here), then that's what we go with. If the section of the MOS referenced above says otherwise then, as Paine says, it should be revisited. Going against the sources will rarely ever achieve consensus in RM discussions. — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More fantasy. COMMONNAME says absolutely nothing about style matters, RM looks to MoS and the NC guidelines based on it (WP:NCCAPS, etc.) for style matters, and WP:AT policy and the naming conventions guidelines defer to MoS on style matters in dozens of places. Amakuru's position is literally impossible, because it would make WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONLEVEL policies completely inoperable. Every single pop-culture topic, for example, given in some kind of bombastic style (usually over-capitalization, but often strange letter substitutions) would mandatorily be written that way simply on the basis that fans and entertainment journalists tend to do so (and non-pop-culture sources don't tend to cover such subjects at all, producing a majority of sources doing something stylistically strange). Yet WP does exactly the opposite, and goes with what MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:TITLES, etc., say to do, unless RS about the topic consistently (not just in the majority) use the divergent style. Thus we have an article at the title Deadmau5 not "Deadmaus", but we have an article at Kesha not "Ke$ha"; it's very difficult to find any RS that use "Deadmaus", yet very few RS took Kesha's "$" marketing seriously. This is not COMMONNAME, this is MoS's own rules. The fact that COMMONNAME arguments are frequently mistakenly made in such RM discussions is meaningless. Experienced closers know that COMMONNAME is not a style policy and that the real rules are in MoS, and apply them. Finally, COMMONNAME isn't even one of the WP:CRITERIA, but CONSISTENCY is. COMMONNAME is just the default first choice to test against the criteria and against all other applicable policies and guidelines; if that choice doesn't pass them, we try the second-most common. But this doesn't even apply to style questions in the first place. COMMONNAME is not and never has been the difference between "Ockham's razor" and "Ockham's Razor"; COMMONNAME is how we chose between "Ockham's [r|R]azor" and "Occam's [r|R]azor", with the capitalization question left to MoS and its derived NCCAPS. In your anti-MoS zeal to attack the guideline with the style-inapplicable policy COMMONNAME, you're actually attacking a superior policy, CONSISTENCY, with a policy subordinate to it and to all the rest of the CRITERIA (and to other P&G). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and WP:SLAP the nominator here for this time-wasting quibble. There is not a snowballs chance that more discussion soon with turn the consensus to a decision to move. Impose a standard six month moratorium dating from the close of this MRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested a consensus to move. It's a pretty clear no-consensus discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While WP:MOS is important, it is still essentially descriptive and based on consensus. This discussion proved that the consensus for MOS:POSS is not quite as clear as it may seem, and probably needs to be revisited. Combine that with the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and the opposes have it. The close was entirely correct. Bradv🍁 04:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Dekimasu's justification for closing the discussion was that it was clear no consensus would be formed. While there was a fair bit of opposition, the issue being discussed was relatively complex and the discussion was closed less than three days after the move discussion was formally opened, so I felt it was premature to close the discussion at that point. Furthermore, there were still some avenues of discussion that had not been resolved: in particular, outstanding issues related to Wikipedia policy (namely WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME); an analysis of Google search results, the method and outcome of which had been given a lot of significance in a previous discussion; and editors who had expresses a willingess to change their position if certain things could (and had been) demonstrated. To close the discussion without resolving those outstanding issues on the basis of how much opposition there was effectively treated the process as a vote. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note IP, before move review, do you discuss with RM closer? Hhkohh (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Hhkohh — I did query it on the WikiProject talk page and was directed here by the RM closer. The instructions for listing a move review led me to believe that by filling in parts of the template provided, the RM closer would be automatically notified. 1.129.104.76 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP, as RM relister. When Tvx1 tagged discussion as RM on December 9, bot will list this discussion in WP:RME. That means this discussion has run more than 7 days at that time. Hhkohh (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:MR is not RM 2nd round. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer. I replied to an expression of dissatisfaction with the close at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One earlier today, noting that reopening the discussion was unlikely to change the result. The IP did notify me upon opening the move review. The page history explains some of the IP's concern: the discussion had been proceeding for ten days and is formatted as such, but the tags had only been placed there on the 9th. However, the discussion was open long enough to make it clear that further discussion would not result in consensus in favor of enacting the proposed moves at this time. I did not feel it would be productive for us to belabor the point.
Usually less is more in a close, but it is worth noting that many of the objections referred to WP:TITLECHANGES (either explicitly or by stating there would be no benefit from the change), indicating that they did not find the argument based upon WP:COMMONNAME compelling. WP:COMMONNAME was brought up in the original post on December 2, not over the last three days. Note also that the "names" in question here are actually the same name, but formatted differently. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hhkohh, thank you for notifying me of the move review. Dekimasuよ! 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Obviously correct close. There was no chance that the discussion could be turned into a consensus to move in a finite time. Better to let it go, take a breath, and try again in a few months with a better proposal. Who is "PM". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @SmokeyJoe — "PM" is User:Prisonermonkeys, who is me. I forgot my password a few months ago. Ordinarily I would create a new account and pick up where I left off, but I have been having lots of problems with a now-banned editor, User:GeoJoe1000. He has been incredibly abusive and comes back every few weeks or months (check the history of my talk page) because he blames me for getting him blocked. I'm concerned that creating a new account will just give him a new target to lock onto and the cycle of disruption will begin again. 1.129.104.76 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, but I can’t see the value of raising this topic yet again in a couple of months. This was not the first time it was raised with it gaining mostly opposition.Tvx1 09:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to agree with Tvx1, this has been raised multiple times and PM seems to be the only editor in favor of renaming the articles. Time to let it go. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Since we are only here to evaluate the close, then I certainly would have closed it the same. PM, it is important to note that six (6) months from now, those articles will still be here, and you might find a new reason(s) to support your nomination by then. WP:CONSISTENCY for example, is a policy that was never cited and only very briefly discussed. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paradisus Judaeorum – Having read through the RM, AfD, and this discussion, I find a consensus to endorse the closure of the AfD. People argued that the move should be overturned as the move was improper and forum shopping. However, as said below, AfD discussions are allowed to be closed as move if there is a consensus for doing so, and the broader participation at the AfD showed that consensus had changed since the no consensus RM decision. Overall, consensus is that reading a consensus for both keeping the article and moving it was correct. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This MRV is to review the decision/result of the AfD, not the previous RM. So "endorse" here means that the reviewer agrees with the AfD result. If editors want the page move reverted to the previous title, then "overturn and revert page move" would be used to denote that review choice. Review of a deletion discussion that resulted in keep means that "overturn and delete" may also be used. Other choices are listed here. Please note whether or not you were involved with the previous RM or the AfD.
Following a no consensus to move at Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum#Requested_move_7_November_2018, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews was closed as keep and move. I find this problematic on several levels: first, the AfD was a clear forum shopping by an editor who failed to get his move at RM so he tried again at AfD and is already using the move as a reason for major rewrite/deletions (despite 'keep' outcome: [1]). AfD is not a forum for moves, and using it in such a way only leads to continued disruption in the article (I expect to see more warring about what the 'keep and move' really means with regards to article's content). It is unlikely that editors who argued for keep want to see major deletion/rewrite, yet some of those who want to see such changes may argue that move requires such changes. This weird closure is omly an invitation for some people to continue disruption. I believe that the AfD's outcome could lead to a new, dedicated RM where consensus for the move could be re-evaluated without waiting the suggested several months (since the last RM ended just a move ago), but should not be used to overturn a prior RM itself because doing so while acknowledging that the majority was also for keep is creating a confusing situation in the form of 'keep but not really'. So I suggest that the move is undone and a new RM restarted to properly judge consensus for move, without confusion of AfD. PS. I am not starting a discussion on the moving admin's talk page as he himself in closing note suggested this venue as the one for further discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved) Endorse move, though given state of article (extensive quotations of 17th century hate speech and WP:OR of such hate speech) - Overturn and delete (or draftify) would be preferable in my eyes - the references in article are useful, but a significant chunk of content requires WP:TNT. Accusing other editors of misconduct (forum shopping) without notifying them is not appropriate. The AfD was on notability grounds of the anti-Semitic slogan (which Piotrus, in the prior move discussed, argued was distinct from the two-word term and various 16th century "poems" (or per RSes - anti-Semitic tracts)). The prior move discussion did not address notability of the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan. Editors who argued for the move (as well as several delete (or "move or delete") !votes - Icewhiz, Dweller, Shrike, Catrìona, יניב הורון (Yaniv), and !votes for merge (or move + merge) - K.e.coffman, .E.M.Gregory, Andrew D.)) did so on the basis that the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan was not notable (in an article that was WP:REFBOMBed with passing references from WP:PRIMARY sources - some of which are virulently anti-Semitic tracts). Editors supporting the move, however, noted that much of the material in the article could be kept under a new title - Paradisus Judaeorum - while also noting a rewrite was required. Thus - the content was deemed partially salvageable under a new title. The consensus at the AfD was clear. AfD is the correct venue to discuss notability of a topic - and once opposers of the prior move discussion asserted that the chosen title was a distinct and separate topic from "Paradisus Judaeorum" (furthermore asserting that a separate article could be created on "Paradisus Judaeorum") - AfD was the correct venue to address the rather serious notability concerns of the chosen title. I will note that the initiator of the move review here argued that the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan was notable based on an article written in 1937(!) by an anti-Semitic Polish politician who advocated at the time for the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews - most of the AfD participants viewed this as questionable and PRIMARY. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Refactored comment to make clear. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck's sake, calling a 17th century (or 16th) satirical poem "hate speech" like you insist on doing is ridiculous. It's almost childish. There is not a single source that refers to the phrase as such. You, and only you, made that up, as part of your POV pushing on this article and topic. Which part exactly is suppose to be "hate speech"? Be specific. My Latin is rusty, so maybe it's the "luxus foeminarum" part. (That's sarcasm folks).
Neither are there any sources which refer to it as a "anti-Semitic slogan" (except maybe that one cherry picked Janicka source you managed to drudge up somewhere). You made that up too. Guess what, this may be a shocking revelation to you but the idea of there being such a thing as "hate speech" is a pretty recent invention. Which is why, again, no source makes such an absurd characterization. And for fuck's sake again, the individuals who designed and organized the Museum exhibit under this label are Jewish. The designer, Moshe Rosman is Jewish. The lede historian on the exhibit held under the name is Jewish. The program director, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, is Jewish. There are academics and representatives from the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and Jewish Historical Institute on the museum's staff. Hell, Antony Polonsky, whom you insisted we use on an article as an academic source until you found out that he doesn't quite fit in with your POV at which point you started inventing absurd reasons to remove him, he was also the chief historian for the museum.
Yet here you come and try to convince us that all these Jewish academics and scholars are pushing "anti-semitic hate speech". And they're doing this because.... why exactly? Gimme a fucking break. The truth of the matter is that it's actually you who holds an extremist POV, one which is not shared among mainstream scholars regardless of their ethnicity and religion. You are trying to exploit the lack of knowledge about the topic and the general gullibility of average Wikipedians to push your extremist POV by engaging in this hyperbolic scare-mongering. You're hoping that if you just call something "anti-semitic" people will feel compelled to support you or at least not oppose you. But it's all bullshit. This whole hoopla started because the Museum of the History of Polish Jews held an exhibition under the title "paradisus Judaeorum", which somehow offended your feelings because part of this exhibition noted that compared to Western Europe, Poland was a pretty good place for Jews... in the 16th century. And since removing ANY positive material about Poland in regard to Polish-Jewish relations (and of course consistently adding ANY negative material about the same) from Wikipedia has been your consistent WP:AGENDA for the past year+ (briefly interrupted by your topic ban) you first tried to POV the article by misrepresenting sources, and when that didn't work you went running to AfD out of spite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting viewpoint. Actual sources:
"anti-Semitic phantasm" per historian of literature & cultural anthropologist Elżbieta Janicka.[2]
A "17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" per Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (Cultural and historical anthropologist, religious studies scholar, professor at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences at Warsaw, Poland).[3]
Antony Polonsky makes it quite clear that the 1606 text is "anti-Jewish" and that the writer "uses the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum to express his conviction that Poland is ruled by Jews and that they enjoy excessive privileges". Polonsky also notes that there was supposed to be a question mark in the museum - which was omitted by the Polish design team. In response to "Q: The content of the 17th century text which the notion Paradisus is taken from is not problematized there. It is not explained that the text is antisemitic" Polonsky says: "A: Audio-guides explain that, and I think this is clear" - so while there is a provocative title (perhaps to engage the audience? press?) it is corrected by guides in the museum.[4]
Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (who was the curator) also notes - "To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.”".[5]
Per Kamil Kijek (historian and sociologist - presently at University of Wrocław,[6], was a USHMM fellow - [7]) - "The criticism pertaining to the somewhat unfortunate name of the gallery dedicated to the history of Jews in the 16th and 17th centuries (until Khmelnytsky Uprising), “Paradisus Judeorum,” is justified. The name “Paradise for Jews” is given without quotation marks there. Visitors to the Museum do not have an opportunity to learn from the exhibition that its title is taken from an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change (Tokarska-Bakir, 2016, pp. 49–58).[8]
The anti-semitic context of the 1606 phrase really is not a question. Nor is its anti-Jewish use in 1636 by Szymon Starowolski,[9] or its use by Jesuit Walenty Pęski in 1672.[10] This was even used by Polish nationalists in 1940 - to describe the situation of Jews in the ghettos of the General Government as a paradisus.[11].Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the one thing missing from these citations, even the first one which is the one I mentioned above, is the absence of designation of "hate speech". It's a text from the sixteenth-freakin'-century. The phrase is four hundred years old. At various points it's been used variously by various people with various intent and context (here is some examples of the same phrase being used in a positive way [12], [13], [14], [15]). That's kind of what happens to a piece of text that is so old.
And yes, the - unknown - author meant it in a negative way. The author was complaining about the fact that 16th century Poland was a "paradise" for Jews. What makes the author anti-semitic is not the assertion that it was, but that they thought this was a "bad thing". The author also complains about numerous other things. Privileges of the nobility. Peasants had it bad. Women were loose. People were free to wonder around. Butlers were drinking. There was too much marketing. People bought farmland for glory or something. Out of the 21 two-word lines of this 16th century poem only one references Jews.
Yet somehow, you think that the article should be... deleted, because the article quotes the Latin version of the entire poem. How is that a legitimate justification for deletion? How does that even make sense? You're free to start a RfC as to whether the article should include the text of the poem or not. But here, you've just invented a nonsensical excuse for your "delete" !vote which otherwise does not make sense (since the topic is obviously notable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek Three of four of those sources (I couldn't get to the third) say nothing about any version of 'the phrase Paradisuse Judaeorum/paradise for the Jews is positive' (or the opposite.) All of them simply use the phrase -- which again supports the notability of the phrase and says zero about the notability of the parable -- and the fact they use it does NOTHING to support the idea it is positive (or negative). It is original research to assume that because they use it without designating it as anti-semitic proves the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valeree, yes, these were instances for where the phrase is used in a positive way. Icewhiz provided instances where it was used in a negative way (like by 1940s nationalists or whatever). My links demonstrate that he just cherry picked these instances out of all the times the phrase has been used over its 400+ years history. I am not proposing that we use the sources I provided in the article itself, for the exact reason which you bring up. Icewhiz claims this is a "antisemitic slogan" (sic). Yet you have prominent Jewish historians using this "antisemitic slogan" in an affirmative way. Hence, it's Icewhiz who's full of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a URL link for each of the multiple sources I cited above - well and above what is required for a talk-page discussion. antisemitic and anti-Jewish are generally synonymous, and are a type of hate speech. Presentation of an anti-semitic slogan as something else (an issue in the present article - as some editors are edit-warring the well-sourced antisemitic out of the lede and body) is a WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE issue (not grounds for deletion). Inclusion of long antisemitic primary tracts - NPOV/PROFRINGE - and WP:NOFULLTEXT issue. The present contents of the article - are in the WP:TNT zone. However, if we are to return to notability policy - WP:GNG requires
"Sources"[1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
As such - antisemitic WP:PRIMARY sources - beyond the reliability questions, do not count towards notability as they are not secondary. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued insistence that the historians, curators and directors of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews are knowingly and purposefully trying to spread a "anti-semitic slogan" (sic) is, well, it's just bonkers. And the fact that you keep on with this insinuation, really just reveals how extremist your own POV is in regard to this topic. There's plenty of instances where this "slogan" is used in a positive way (here, again: [16], [17], [18], [19])
Other "issues" you bring up are BS as well. WP:NOFULLTEXT applies to "lengthy" primary sources. This isn't lengthy. There's no "fringe theories" being promoted, except perhaps by yourself. And aside from the UNDUE section on the Museum, the article is well sourced and balanced. It is certainly NOT in "TNT territory". That's false assertion is just your way of trying to force through your own views after having failed to obtain consensus to delete the article or to turn it into a WP:COATRACK about some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As one of the editors who voted "delete or move" I concur: (1) the 4-clause slogan was not notable per Icewhiz and (2) for the article to be successful at its current location, it has to be rewritten. I would also not object to redirecting. Catrìona (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you endorse the AfD closure, isn't that correct? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion and well explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an end run nor a forum shop, as it was a valid AfD nomination. AfD has a higher standing that WP:RM, AfD has always had the option to rename, and anyway, process questions do not limit WP:IAR (the rename demonstrably leads to a better product) or WP:CONSENSUS (evident in the better participated discussion, as the closer noted). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (uninvolved) Agree with the closer that "A more difficult question is whether there is consensus to move the page to Paradisus Judaeorum." In the RM the choices were to move or not to move; however, in the AfD the choices were to delete or not to delete. And while there was a clear consensus not to delete, whether or not to keep the article as is or to rename it and edit to conform to the new title was less clear. Tough choice yet definitely correct. The upcoming situation will be interesting when further options are considered by editors. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 12:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. - the move to be undone and a new RM restarted due to the confusion and immediate undiscussed rewrite [20], [21], [22] of now moved article by the initial nominator. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella participated in the AfD as a "Keep". Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted I initially voted "keep" believing that the article should be under its original title (full proverb) and guessing that if moved, the article might be rewritten entirely. It seems that I was correct. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most (if not all) of the move !voters noted that a rewrite (ranging from cleanup to major re-write or event TNT) would be necessary (but that retaining references and some of the content would be useful). Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Move" !voters didn't advocate for the removal of every citation [23], [24] specifying the entire poverb and didn't endorse almost complete rewrite of the article nearly instantly [25] after the article has been migrated to the current title. I would like to point out again that "move" nominator and rewriter is the same user (Icewhiz).GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The vote was in regards to deletion not to changing of the title.The article should be kept and a new RM started in due time--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MyMoloboaccount was invovled in the AfD - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify, this MRV is to review the decision/result of the AfD, not the previous RM. So "endorse" here means that the reviewer agrees with the AfD result. If editors want the page move reverted to the previous title, then "overturn" would be used to denote that review choice. To write "endorse", and then to write "the move to be undone" or similar is very confusing. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - AfD and RM are two different things and shouldn't be mixed up. Especially since there already WAS an RM on the article. This is rewarding disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING, on top of being against policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek was involved in the AfD diff.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz is trying to prejudice the closing of this MR by sniping at people who disagree with him with these little snippets of small text underneath their !votes which is just a continuation of his extensive WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviorVolunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I was not involved in either the RM or AfD discussion.) WP:FORUMSHOPPING at its worst. Consider sanctioning Icewhiz under WP:ARBEE for his disruptive behavior at this article and related articles. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 01:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction him for what, exactly? This isn't forum shopping by any stretch of the imagination. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why this is FORUMSHOPPING? Icewhiz's deletion request did not recommend a move, rather deleting the article. AfD is the appropriate venue for when a subject is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I voted in the AfD, against deletion of the article on "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews". The decision was not to delete the article. Regrettably, an additional decision was gratuitously made, to move the article to the inappropriate, subject-restrictive title, "Paradisus Judaeorum". The result was flawed as to procedure, and misleading as to the article's subject matter. At the time of the AfD, I suggested, among other things: "Write, if you wish to, a separate article on 'Paradise for the Jews', an expression which may or may not have been cognate with the principal saying under discussion here." I stand by my suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Correct reading of the consensus the AFD could have many different outcomes per WP:AFD including "renamed/moved to another title" So I don't understand those who oppose the close how it can be "out of process" as there was clear consensus for move -- Shrike (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This unusual sequence of events is well explained in the AfD. The AfD had to consider the notability of the term as it was and found it was not notable, but that there was valuable, well sourced material, that related to a broader term. Hence participants tended to !vote for delete or move in some combination. The closing admin had no choice but to follow the consensus. Process was correctly followed ... therefore endorse. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (note I commended in both previous discussions). Consensus in the AfD was clear that the longer term was not notable and that the sources demonstrate notability for the shorter term only so the article should be moved. If the nominator here regards the AfD was forum shopping (it should actually be interpreted as a relisting of an RM that failed to reach a consensus), then I do not understand why MRV is not also forum shopping? Do we really need discussions in three separate venues in quick succession? Are we going to ANI after this one? Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Dweller and Thryduulf hit the nail on the head. The consensus of the community got it right. "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" is not notable. The sources demonstrate notability for "Paradisus Judaeorum". (I participated in the AfD, but I disagree with the silly notion that doing so in any way lessens my ability to judge whether the closer correctly evaluated the consensus -- whether the consensus agreed with my !vote or not.) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (note I said Move at AFD) I think the available sources for the longer phrase are limited, while the available sources for "Paradisus Judaeorum" are more extensive. Given the limited sourcing for the longer phrase, I think it is best dealt with as a section in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article. And some of the existing text and refs could be used as a base for such an article, including that section. As such, I support move both at AFD and here. Regarding the "forum-shopping" claim, the reality is there are a lot of people (myself included) who pay more attention to AFD than RM, so raising the issue at AFD was appropriate as a way to get the attention of a larger audience. SJK (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (I voted to move at AfD) The original title was NOT adequately referenced in the supporting citations at all. The topic was notable however, so I voted to move to this newly titled page, which more accurately reflects the reference material. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (previously voted "move"). I'm unaware of a policy for dealing with cases where people vote (overwhelmingly) for an option not listed by an OP (eg. "move" in a deletion discussion). However, considering the democratic nature of Wikipedia, I would respect such a vote even if it was unexpected and even unintended. As for double jeopardy - since the second discussion brought new evidence to the table - an in-depth analysis of the sources - jeopardy doesn't apply. François Robere (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an appropriate close and reading of the community consensus. However the community consensus was not correct. As I pointed out at both discussions there are ample references of the kind used in proverb articles to support the proverb part of the article. The discussion was complicated by the feeling that the proverb is utterly anti-Semitic. If that were true it is unlikely the proverb would have been used in the POLIN Museum exhibit, which has a Jewish program director. Piotrus, the history and culture of the Jews in the Commonwealth is almost completely absent from Wikipedia. An article covering the golden age of Judaism in Poland, omitting both the proverb and the term Paradisus Judaeorum, should be here. There are historians of the period who have written in English. As Gershon Hundertpoints out, there is resistance in the Jewish community to this history, but writing such an article might avoid some of the controversies that plagued this one. After the dust has settled and the context is adequately covered in Wikipedia might be the time to reconsider the proverb. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD and RM are two different things. For a record, I voted against the deletion in the AfD.--Darwinek (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Paradisus Judaeorum is a more common term and used sometimes in a positive fashion.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the outcome, could I ask the "Endorse" preferring editors to keep an eye on the article and share their expertise/knowledge to its development, please? Most of you are focusing on the title itself without further analysis what is actually happening after the move [26]. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I was not involved in either the RM or AfD discussion.). There are can be problems with treating an AFD as an RM ex post facto. One, not all participants may have been aware that they were participating in what would be taken as an RM. Two, votes like "move or delete" are incoherent and amount to "if I can't have the title I want, I want the article deleted". Srnec (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read them as delete the article, because it's not notable, or move the content to a title that is notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't titles that are notable, but topics. If the article was about a notable topic, then it should be kept. Delete is not an option. You cannot say, as you just did, "delete [the content] because it's not notable [but] move the content to a [different] title". To clarify why I said "overturn": I don't dispute that (a) Sandstein's close was reasonable, since it clearly was, or (b) an AFD can sometimes result in a move, which it clearly can, but I think that (c) this AFD was contaminated by impermissible votes like "move or delete" that cannot be taken simply as good-faith votes for a move. By "overturn" I mean simply move the article back and open another RM on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator of this discussion, I hope it is clear that my opinion is for overturning. Again, I am recommend that a new RM is started instead. There is indeed consensus for a new, wider RM - but due to confusion of how to interpret various AfD votes, I don't think there consensus for move in the AfD is as clear as some people suggest. If there is clear consensus for move, well, why not confirm it through a proper RM rather than confusing AfD? It is easy to start a new RM, ping everyone who participated in this and prior discussion, and then count simple 'for move' and 'against move' votes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfD was the correct forum - as the "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" fails notability standards - specifically WP:GNG (not covered in depth in secondary sources) and WP:NOTDIC. That the content of the article could be re-purposed with a re-write to something else ("Paradisus Judaeorum" - a notable two word term), does not make RM the correct venue. Refactoring of articles, as WP:ATD, is quite common in AfD discussions - e.g. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E are commonly re-purposed to the event, non-notable entrepreneurs are re-purposed to their notable founded companies (and vice-versa). The view endorsed by the AfD participants wasn't that the article was notable, but rather that it could be repurposed into something notable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"AfD was the correct forum - as the "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" fails notability standards" - yeah, except that AfD actually disagreed with you there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One thing I'm seeing here is that overturners are not always clear on their preferred outcome. This is a review of the AfD, which decided to keep and move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Do overturners want to delete? or to revert the move? Just as AfD sometimes dispositions to move an article, this MRV can, in a case like this, decide to "overturn and delete". So it would be more helpful if commenters were a bit more detailed about their preferences. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 06:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty clear that all overturners want to revert the move, not a delete. You may want to ping people so that they clarify their votes. This further illustrates potential confusion through the use of AfD for a RM, which is why I said that the proper outcome should be 'keep and a new RM', not a 'keep and move'. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "it is what it is" I've heard people say. And it is rare for AfD to deliver a page move, and even rarer for that outcome to result in a move review. We are experiencing an ultra-rare event and difficulty in the overlapping; however, I think the process will probably live through it. I second your sigh. Sighs have been moved and seconded – all in favor say "sigh" ;>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It will all be ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sighs have it. Motion carried. Paine 16:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. The closer faithfully assessed the consensus, which leaned significantly in favor of the resulting move. The participation was far greater than in the last move request, so there is no compelling reason for a do-over.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) Paradisus Judaeorum is notable, parable sources support that notability rather than demonstrating notability for the parable valereee (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we all assume good faith on the part of both sides? Yes, this is an ongoing disagreement among multiple editors over a controversial issue that may involve emotions, but that doesn't mean anyone is intentionally acting in bad faith. The fact it's messy doesn't mean anyone is at fault for that messiness. valereee (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I for one ignored all the arguments about antisemitism and focused entirely on the GNG arguments. Others did too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry that in an attempt not to single anyone out I seemed to be including everyone in, that wasn't my intention. valereee (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems that there is a consensus that there is a viable article topic here... but disagreement over what that article’s topic should be. Disagreement on what the article should be about. Everyone is trying to coatrack their concept of what the article should be about under the existing title. I think this is a mistake... a better way forward is to first write the article you want, and then figure out what to call it. So... I offer the following suggestion:
Temporarily uphold the current article and title... if for no other reason than to maintain references... but halt editing.
Go to your user pages and draft the article you think is viable... supporting it with sources.
Call others in for comments and suggestions, and incorporate those suggestions you like into your draft (at this stage, since “your” draft is still in “your” user space, you can reject suggestions that would change the focus too dramatically).
Read the drafts made by others and offer your suggestions.
Work with others to Merge those drafts that essentially cover similar ground (consolidate drafts)
Discuss the most appropriate titles for the resulting new combined drafts (you may find that the current title is not actually the best.)
Finally, discuss Deleteing the current article, and replacing it with the various new articles.
I like your thinking. The AfD reviewed the sources brought by those in favour of "keep". The AfD result implies that a) the old title isnt notable b) the current term is notable. If one or two non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources can be found, we could work on a second article on the narrower topic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: I agree that part of the problem here is that there are several potential "topics" involved here. One is the original 16th century poem and its history. I think it's notable and a good part of the rationale for moving it to the shorter "Paradisus Judaeorum" was not that the poem wasn't notable but rather that the full title - characteristically long for pieces written in that time - was too long. Second potential topic is the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" which has to a significant extent become detached from its origin in the poem and has been used in various way by various people for four hundred years, in both a "positive" and a "negative" sense. My opinion is that these first two topics can be combined into a single article, which is what the present article does, but I can understand it if people feel differently. Third, we have the topic of the actual situation of Jews in 16th century Poland that the phrase refers to. This period has also been called "Golden Age of Jews in Poland" (there's currently a disambig page Jewish Golden Age which includes this as a red link) and that too is a notable topic on its own. Finally, we have the topic of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews exhibition which came under this name and the supposed "controversy" (sic) - which really just consists of a couple polemical pieces in a single issue of a fairly obscure journal. That is best covered in the article on the museum itself POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, with an eye towards WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.
I like the idea of people working on these articles in their user space and refraining from making controversial changes to the existing article in the mean time (or agitating for its out-of-process deletion) but I also know enough about how Wikipedia works to know that as soon as I write these words and hit "Publish changes" someone might go running to the article to make last-minute-changes-to-reflect-their-POV before this "no editing for now" agreement takes place. WP:GAME and all that. (Personally I think the article could use some clean up on some of the UNDUE parts regarding the Museum but I'm happy to leave it be for now, if others are willing to likewise act in a reciprocal manner).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
QUESTION: In his decision to keep the article, "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews", but to move it to a different title, "Paradisus Judaeorum", Sandstein wrote: [27] "As has been pointed out, AfD is not the forum for renaming discussions..." So why did he move it? Nihil novi (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"renamed/moved to another title" is a "common outcome".
Another answer is "per WP:Consensus expressed in the discussion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. When more than one question is raised, I wonder whether, for clarity in discussion and resolution, they would not be better addressed in step-wise fashion, rather than in one free-for-all. Nihil novi (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nihil novi, is that directed at me, or more generally at this whole Move Review process? I agree that these Move Review discussions are compromised by the free-for-all style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general observation. I appreciate your and Dekimasu's insightful comments, to the extent that I understand them. (My participation on Wikipedia has been on the editing rather than on the administrative side—hence my limited knowledge of some procedures, which you have helped me understand better.) Nihil novi (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original closer. Even as the (uninvolved) closer of the RM discussion, a notification would have been nice. I had no idea this discussion was taking place. I do agree that at first glance this has the appearance of forum shopping. However, it is not necessarily bad form to reinitiate a move discussion after a no consensus close, and I generally agree with the AfD closer that consensus was more clear in the AfD than in the original RM discussion. This is not really a question of AfD being a "higher level" process than RM. Rather, the AfD took place after the no consensus RM close, and WP:CCC and all that. Thus I would be inclined to endorse the closure of the AfD–while noting that MR is for determining whether the closer acted appropriately, not for determining the "proper" outcome of any given discussion. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu is well justified in his complaint of non-notification.
Maybe I have peculiar hierarchical views, but the "higher level" comment reflects the reality, that RM discussions defer to AfD discussions, and not vice versa, and the importance of that is to counter the argument that discussion and deciding a page rename question at AfD so soon after a RM was improper. At AfD, the participants minds are supposedly focused on more important matters of topic sourcing, not mere name-use.
Absolutely agree that "MR is for determining whether the closer acted appropriately, not for determining the "proper" outcome of any given discussion", and I wonder whether anything should be actively done to counter the recent trend of re-arguing the facts at MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree. My main point is that IMHO the closer of the AfD should have (re)started a new RM. Using AfD to decide whether there is a consensus for move or not is problematic because not all people who commented in AfD felt the need or even realize there is a side discussion about a move going on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by the "closer acted appropriately" vs. "determining the proper outcome of a discussion" thing that's been said. MR is absolutely not about the closer in any way shape nor form, it's about the close of the discussion at hand, in this case, it's about the AfD close. And we are here to determine if that close was reasonable. So it appears that we are indeed here to determine if the outcome of the AfD discussion was correct, and not to determine anything at all about the closer's behavior. Am I missing something? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 12:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "determining whether the closer acted appropriately," I mean whether the closer accurately gauged the outcome of the discussion, not whether the closer should be chided. "Determining the 'proper' outcome of a discussion," with scare quotes around "proper," was a reference to the tendency of editors to attempt to right great wrongs and relitigate the discussions themselves at MR. Dekimasuよ! 04:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while perhaps procedurally anomalous, the discussion showed a consensus to move the page away from its incendiary title, which implied Jews were profiting while peasants experienced "Hell" (newsflash: Jewish is not a socioeconomic class). Whatever hand wavy way someone explains this is not anti-semitic, it is going to come off that way inevitably, and it was an incendiary title, a point that many people agreed on, including people who had been arguing against the proposer of deletion.--Calthinus (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: It's hurtful to see you think that I would do that -- actually I deeply respect your work on Wiki as a whole. Personally I think this is different as the other three titles you mentioned are known as slurs and described as so, while this page is taking the stance that the view is not necessarily anti-semitic-- meaning that can be interpreted as giving it credence. This is a thing we will just have to agree to disagree on. We each have only one vote anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, the Jews were indeed a separate social and economic class in the Commonwealth at the time of the proverb. In their role as managers of the landed notabilities' flour and lumber mills, operators of the notabilities' taverns and town businesses, collectors of the taxes, and traveling merchants, the entire production of the peasants passed through the Jews to the nobility. It was about the only way the Jews were allowed to make a living. In return the nobility provided protection. That is what the proverb means. It was paradise for the Jews because they were allowed to live there free from persecution. The rest of Europe was expelling Jews if they were lucky and massacring them if they weren't. "Paradise for the Jews" because they were allowed to stay alive. Icewhiz, I can see it could get twisted into anti-Semitic use in later times, but at the time of the proverb it meant we were allowed to live. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma: Not later - it was anti-semitic at the time . The use of paradise meant it was "too good" [28] or "an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change".[29] Jews had a wretched existence elsewhere in Europe (and in Poland - not so great - but comparatively much better than elsewhere) - the cleric writing this (which is why there is heaven and hell) - was advocating for a change - for the relative safety in Poland to be modified. It is factual to say Jews were relatively safe in Poland (until 1648) - it wasn't quite a "paradise" - and by saying "paradise" - the writer was advocating for a change (back to "normal" conditions for Jews at the time). All this is neither here nor there in terms of notability/title of course - the 4 clause phrase is simply not notable - it is not really discussed as a phrase - the 2 word term is.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma -- no, Jews were an ethnoreligious group that did have different economic behavior than other ethnic and religious groups but still had considerable internal diversity, and indeed in the period in question, countless Jews lived their whole lives in poverty.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original poem was xenophobic and antisemitic, but it became forgotten as the proverb endured - and the proverb, just like the 'Jewish Paradise' phrase, moved beyond pejorative, xenophobic associations and became neutral, if not positive, synonyms for the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Seriously, if they were antisemitic they wouldn't be used as such references by museums, academic publications, and press (including Israeli and Jewish-American). You think some of them might have balked at using an anti-semitic term, huh? The entire anti-semitic accusation is really just 2-3 scholars making this claim, and they didn't manage to convince anyone (hence Polin Museum still using this proverb in its exhibition's title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The point about the POLIN Museum and other latter-day venues and authors apparently using the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" (Iudaeorum?) in a laudatory sense seems an excellent one. But I don't know whether the text, "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews", of which "Paradisus Judaeorum" is part, should be called a "poem". Wikipedia editors have seemed unsure what to call it. In Polish, it has been termed a paszkwil, which is a defamatory, calumniatory, libelous screed. Given this screed's mixed critical reception over the past 400 years and currently, I think I would just call it a "screed". Nihil novi (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi: Paszkwil (pasquil - article need a split and expansion) refers to the original, mostly forgotten poem (several lines of verse). The phrase you cite above is commonly described as a proverb. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Polish or English standard short title, for the complete verse, which could serve as the Wikipedia article title? E.g., "1606 Pasquillus" (the original Latin—the verse was written in Latin), "1606 Pasquillo" (Italian), "1606 Pasquinade" (French), "1606 Pasquinada" (Spanish), "1606 Pasquille" (Dutch)? Nihil novi (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1606 Latin poem is called Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone (I couldn't find if it had a Latin name). But that name refers to the poem only, not to the better known proverb. Two academic in-depth works that nearly everyone seems to ignore are about the proverb. I am not aware of any in-depth work about either the original proverb or the term 'Jewish Paradise' (despite claims by several editors, nobody actually presented any in-depth works supporting notability of the new title, not that it seems to have been an issue for most people...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the works being a directory style collections of saying from 1960, the other being a 1937 paper by an antisemitic politician who advocated for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland. AfD participants rejection the notion that these were secondary reliable sources. As for "Paradisus Judaeorum"/"Paradisus Iudaeorum" - multiple academic works are available - as evident in even a cursory google scholar search. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move as a straightforward reading of the consensus at the recent AfD (I participated.) I note that the article continues to be highly problematic because many of the references are patent hate speech.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify for us "obvious/patented hate speech" references, please? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:TNT. This may not be a popular opinion, but I feel that the article has been sucking time that could have been spent elsewhere. Wikipedia has been doing just fine without this page, until it was created a few months ago. Since then, the following discussions have occurred:
Multiple other user Talk page & article Talk page discussions.
The AfD.
This move review.
There does not seem to be an end in sight. Wikipedia is better off without this page, while suitable content has already been added elsewhere. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's delete everything that's controversial and generates much discussion. Then at last! Wikipedia will be one boring read. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed too, filibustering is a thing in RM, MRV, and DRV. Maybe we should follow arbcom’s antifilibuster style: Each person posts only in their section, from which they may respond to others, and each person is subject to a word limit, after which they can link to a longer statement in their userspace. In communication, concision is important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand all the administrative jargon ("RM, MRV, DRV") but I can certainly endorse the final sentence. (In a previous employ, I suggested that, in the interest of reducing the number of needless emails, email authors should be required to pay for sending them, out of pocket.) Nihil novi (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi... RM = requested move, MRV = move review (this here forum) and DRV = deletion review, just different subjects for discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'm guiltier than most. My loving daughter once told her friend, "Don't ask my dad what time it is, he'll describe the inner workings of a clock." Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All because one user is creating a storm in a teacup, and a number of others seem hijacked by political correctness. WP:NOTCENSORED. The article is not a problem, certain editors are, and I am afraid I have lost a good amount of respect for certain editors in this debacle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big part of the problem here is that the vast majority of editors, most likely acting in good faith, certainly didn't hear the saying in real life, in Polish. In Poland, the saying has nothing to do with antisemitism (literally ZERO) and holds a positive end towards the Jews altogether. That's why the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw used the proverb for one of its exhibits. It never even crossed my mind that the saying could be described as an antisemitic rant. Never. Sadly the meaning of the poverb has been presented here in a much-twisted way, backed by 1 or 2 bizarre sources and a view of one persistent editor. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
