Cala, Eastern Cape, Queenstown, Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, King William's Town, Maclear, Eastern Cape, Berlin, Eastern Cape, Lydenburg, Witbank, Machadodorp, Waterval Boven, Hectorspruit, Piet Relief

Closers: BilledMammal Park3r

These articles have been controversial since 2004. They are the former names of cities in South Africa renamed following the end of apartheid. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of these new names being adopted. Every major English language publication in South Africa uses the new names. I was under the impression English language sources were the main method to prove WP:COMMONNAME but that has not been followed on these articles. I would like an admin or a few to review these South African city names. There is yet to be clear reasoning as to why the names used in all major English language publications, government, and the majority of the population, are not the WP:COMMONNAME. I have done nothing but follow WP:COMMONNAME to the letter. All of my edits in regards to South African city names were reversed by Park3r and BilledMammal within a day without any contradictory evidence being provided. Park3r has also said "The reality is that South Africans of all backgrounds don’t often embrace renamings, perhaps because they are done after perfunctory consultations, and because the South Africa is increasingly anarchic and few people subscribe to government directions." This is patently false and hard not to read as completely racist. Racism on South African Wikipedia articles has been reported on before. However, nothing was done to prevent this from happening in the future. Even if we dismiss every single English language source, search results are almost always favoring the newer names. I have submitted requests similar to this before but there is yet to be someone who looks through the sources and explains why these new names aren't accepted on Wikipedia.

I find it strange that in small South African towns that are over 90% black, where the only change was a minor grammar correction (like Kala, Eastern Cape) , these still remain "controversial". There are more Black Africans that speak English than Afrikaners in South Africa, so the argument that we use the Afrikaner names because Afrikaners are the majority English speakers (which has been brought up before), is false.

This whole process is beyond frustrating and I apologize if I sound upset. I have been arguing this for months with no resolution. My main argument is just that these articles should be moved. But the fact that this controversy has been happening for the past 17 years should surely raise some alarms. There is blatant bias in these articles. Just want to make that point clear because I doubt there will be any consequences for the users who dislike majority rule in South Africa.

Apologies for the poor formatting, I tried to make it look as decent as possible. If you would like, feel free to correct the formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs)

• I see two issues here. For Port Elizabeth/Gqeberha, the topic has been discussed and is controversial. The others, while not completely non-controversial, would probably go through if an RM was filed (as opposed to an "out-of-process" or BOLD move made unilaterally). The last RM for Port Elizabeth was filed by Desertambition, so this user should be able to navigate the RM process. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this is probably still be the wrong forum (as there is no WP:RM discussion to review), but after WP:AN punted we can hopefully handle the issue here anyway. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not notice the RM at Talk:King William's Town before Vice regent's comment below - that one might benefit from review here. I did note the one for Cala - as it was a procedural no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination there is no point in reviewing that. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The move request for Kala looks uncontroversial because I made arguments on other pages. If you read the RM, it shows that there were no sources provided. Just feelings. At the time, I saw it as pointless to write another argument opposing it. But that article is just as controversial as every other renamed place in South Africa. Desertambition (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see some WP:AGF errors here by Desertambition. Many of the listed articles have never undergone a RM, which means there is nothing to review (Talk:Maclear, Eastern Cape, Talk:Berlin, Eastern Cape etc). Secondly, the RM at Talk:Cala, Eastern Cape was closed by Polyamorph, the RM at Talk:King William's Town was closed by Buidhe, but I see no attempts to discuss this with the respective closers.VR _talk 23:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for that VR. I understand this submission is not perfect but hopefully you can understand my reasoning even if I did not submit it exactly how I should have and have every exact detail. The fact is this issue remains and it affects every renamed city in South Africa. Desertambition (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that you are upset that wikipedia is using apartheid-era names for South African places, instead of indigenous ones. I'm very sympathetic to this line of argument as the apartheid was a horrible, horrible period. But I'm afraid this might be a policy issue, not a MR issue.VR _talk 23:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by policy issue? The government officially changed the names in South Africa. The media uses the names as well as the English speaking black majority. From my understanding this constitutes WP:COMMONNAME. The main disagreement is on what the policies even are. There has been no consistent application of guidelines. Desertambition (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Desertambition: WP:COMMONNAME means the name used in "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". This means looking at sources like books, newspapers, journals etc published both inside and outside of South Africa.VR _talk 00:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  VR Not that I think you're disagreeing but just to illustrate my point, these are all foreign English language media reporting on name changes in South Africa: BBC, NPR, The Irish Times, and CNN Desertambition (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with 力 that the RM at King William's Town will benefit from a review. I'll start that by first posting on the closer's talk page. If they agree to change their close, or re-open, then there won't be a need for review.VR _talk 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.VR _talk 00:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. The proposer needs to open RM's, rather than continue to ask that the pages are moved out of process. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem like you're in a position to act neutral when you are directly involved with this controversy. Why close this discussion when nothing has been decided? Clearly this needs more than RM's that have failed to create a consensus. Desertambition (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Controversy"? And nothing regarding most of them can be decided here, for that you need RM's or RFC's. Further, I would note that just because they have failed to create a consensus in your preferred direction (in any of the six? recent RM's, most of which are not listed here) doesn't mean that the consensus is incorrect; it could just mean your position is incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, these are objectively controversial pages and you are pretty involved in it. Given that one side has provided verifiable sources and the other has not, it seems this discussion is still very relevant. Also just incorrect to imply that I am the only one with this opinion. There are other users who support these changes, just look at the Port Elizabeth talk page. Move requests were closed without consensus being reached or reasoning being given besides "it's not the common name". We can't keep putting it off and pretending like there's a consensus to keep the old names. You should know given the fact that you went through and reversed almost all of my good faith edits without providing any sources. Desertambition (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The discussion at Talk:King William's Town has been reopened – the right move, in my view. I don't think there's anything else we can do here: our job is to look at specific closures to determine if they correctly evaluated consensus, so we can't just direct that articles be moved to different titles. You're welcome to start new RMs if you feel that would be helpful, and if they're closed improperly you're free to bring that issue here. As for this MR, I think a procedural close would be in order. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge you to reconsider that decision. King William's Town is not the only city this is relevant to. This controversy will continue and a consensus has yet to be reached here. I am just frustrated that no one can explain why the sources are not accepted for these city names. The situation is the same for all of them. It seems silly to make an RM for every single renamed South African place when it is clear some users will not accept these new names at all and are determined to make sure they never become the working title. We are still debating name changes from 2004 because we have never had an in depth look at the names like this. Especially given the history of racism and bias on South African Wikipedia articles, it seems important to create some sort of consensus here. Desertambition (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of concubinage in the Muslim world (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

With 8 votes in favor, 8 votes explicitly against and plenty of alternative proposals, there was clearly no consensus for the page move (opposing users: Grufo, Andrewa, Iraniangal777, buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy, Usernamekiran – diffs: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8). Furthermore, the close depended on the closer's own argument that “concubinage” should be preferred because it appears to be “the primarily used term”. Choosing a title on the basis of what term appears to be “the most used” was itself a disputed subject, and arguments from WP:QUALIFIER (“Natural Disambiguation”) were part of the move discussion. Grufo (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). During the RM, overwhelming evidence was presented that "concubinage", not "sexual slavery", was WP:COMMONNAME. This included a table of 22 scholarly works on this topic (anchor), all of which favored the term "concubinage", and an additional 15 sources (anchor). Every single table of google scholar results showed "concubinage" as more widely used than "sexual slavery": see table by Toddy1 and table by Grufo himself.VR _talk 19:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (not previously involved) due to lack of a valid rationale. "Choosing a title on the basis of what term appears to be “the most used” was itself a disputed subject" - well, in that case, those arguing against are flatly against prevailing usage (WP:COMMONNAME) and can be disregarded. The closer pointing this out was also not a making a novel argument (as many participants in the discussion did explicitly mention this). The discussion is long, messy, and hard to understand from a quick look (many comments seem to go off on tangents, or oppose the original proposal while supporting another, or ...), but if the new title is the one which most adequately matches usage in the sources and other practical concerns (there are other suggestions which would fail WP:CONCISE or other criteria), then this seems like a correct application of WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not assume that WP:NOTAVOTE was applied and skip reading the discussion. As shown in the discussion, whether “concubinage” is more used than “sexual slavery” (or related periphrases) as a qualifier is a point not everyone agrees with (me included). The reason why many editors opposed the use of “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” was exactly that it did not constitute WP:COMMONNAME and a valid WP:QUALIFIER. “Natural disambiguation” (WP:QUALIFIER) defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in fewer sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one. You and I might discuss about which side is right and which side is wrong, but this review process must ultimately establish whether the conditions for the close were met (“the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period” – see WP:RMNAC). I would say that the answer is clearly no. --Grufo (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grufo, I don't think you're interpreting WP:QUALIFIER correctly. Also how many people besides you invoked the WP:QUALIFIER argument during discussion? VR _talk 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All comments that argue about whether “concubinage” can naturally refer to “sexual slavery” in the English language are invoking the WP:QUALIFIER argument, either implicitly or explicitly. As for the correct interpretation of Natural disambiguation, all I did was interpreting this:

Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.

as

“Natural disambiguation” (WP:QUALIFIER) defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in fewer sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one.

You can point out were the mistake is if you want. --Grufo (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Please do not take the move review as an opportunity to reargue the move discussion (which is already long enough by itself). Concerns about WP:QUALIFIER do not seem to be seemingly valid at a first glance, as that is in a section about disambiguation, and the title does not seem ambiguous, either before or after the move. In any case, I think a reasonable closer would have found the argument about COMMONNAME to be more convincing than a seemingly dubious one about ambiguity when that is clearly not an issue. Whether "concubinage" or "sexual slavery" is more appropriate is clearly an issue of following the sources, hence COMMONNAME, hence why I endorse the close. Please don't make the move review longer than the original discussion... Sometimes it might just be the best option to drop it and move on to something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DISCARDed says "discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious" and would apply to 3 oppose !votes. Lambrusquiño's vote seems to be based on personal opinion only. usernamekiran admitted their vote was based on "original researchc". The vote of Mcphurphy (now indef blocked) was based on an erroneous google search that, when corrected during the RM, actually showed "concubinage" to be the more popular term.VR _talk 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the opener of the move review my vote goes for moving the title back to pre-RM title and close the move with a motivation that reflects the truth of the discussion (“no consensus”). --Grufo (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) The closer stated on his talk page that:

...discussions aren't a vote-counting exercise, and definitely are not run via FPTP. The process of closing any move discussion is pretty much the same – is there a consensus to move, and what title should it be moved to? – but this is one of the discussions where those questions can't be tackled at the same time. There was a clear consensus for a "history of X in the Muslim world" move, and then a weaker, but in my opinion still persuasive, consensus for the use of "concubinage" on its own; while I accept and sympathise that using "concubinage" on its own is a form of euphemism, there wasn't anything in the discussion that rebutted the argument that it was also the term used in most sources.^{03:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

I think that is a very good summary of what the closer did, and why they made the closure they did. I cannot fault their logic.

Personally I wanted the move discussion to continue for a few more weeks, because I hoped that it would bring more editors into the discussion. Five editors commented on the first day of the move discussion, five more editors commented in the next week, six in the week after that, then three the next week, and one in the last 5 days (5,5,6,3,1), i.e. a total of 20 editors made comments. There is a list at Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world#Move without consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (involved). There was no consensus for the move. It should have been closed as "no consensus". (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). The closer clearly and accurately explained the main points of the (protracted and complex) debate, and reached a reasonable result. Correct application of WP:NOTAVOTE. No such user (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you endorse the mover's motivations I would like to ask you one thing, No such user. Do you think the discussion had reached any form of consensus among the participants? Do you agree that “there is a consensus to move to a "History of X in the Muslim world"-style title”, as the mover said? Could you provide a diff for each “consenting” user to confirm the mover's opinion? --Grufo (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved): The move closure seemed thoughtful and well-reasoned. Kudos to the closer for working through lengthy discussion. While the move was not to the title that I originally proposed in the RM, I was convinced both by the emerging consensus and Sceptre's closing logic. They correctly surmised the different threads of consensus that emerged from the discussion, including the favour first for a "History of X" format, secondly for "X in the Muslim world" over "X in Islam" (which, while WP:NOTAVOTE, still had a significant weight of votes), and finally for "concubinage" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the historic practice in question in the given context and in the sources referenced (based on the weight of the evidence, as well as, notably, despite their personal reservations), while also providing the enlightening comparison to other subjects where a term may be euphemistic, but still appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). A very tricky close well done. There was consensus that this move would improve Wikipedia, and it has. It will not be the last word, but it is progress, and is within due process. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrewa: You opposed the move in the first place, why did you do so if you thought that the move would “improve Wikipedia”? --Grufo (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think it would. Please don't put words into my mouth. And give it a break. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure was a tough and reasonable one. Trout the nom for being just a little too avid, both in the RM and here. One repetition might strengthen an argument; two or more repetitions begin to weaken it. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). After reading over the discussion and the closing, the closer's reasoning seems sound to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Several parts of the proposed title were discussed independently (the "History of [X]" format, "...in the Muslim world" vs. "...in Islam", and the usage of "concubinage" as a term), and I feel that the closer's reasoning was sound in identifying the consensus for each sub-question. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer closed a contentious discussion while consensus was unclear, and three new users had arrived the previous day. Closer is describing the article as a "conspiracy theory", despite sourcing to AP, NYT, NPR and similar. Closer is not neutral.[1][2] Furthermore, the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China COVID-19 cover-up allegations was at a new title which the article had not had any chance to adjust to prior to the AfD. My initial response at the AfD was confused by this. The response of User:GreenC appears to also have been influenced in this manner. In light of the fact that these two responses were influenced, one cannot exclude the possibility that others were as well. The AfD is therefore tainted by the improper close.Adoring nanny (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the afd is over, which is leaning towards deleting (merging/redirecting) the article altogether.VR _talk 17:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Extraordinary Writ below.VR _talk 18:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. Given the high probability that the AfD will close with consensus to redirect, I don't see how it would be a profitable use of volunteer time – our scarcest resource – to argue over the validity of a closure that will almost certainly be overcome by events. See WP:NOTBURO, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the AfD is tainted, as I explained above. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really you need to give people more credit. My vote was most influenced by the work/promise of FormalDude and the Draft page, not by the page title, though that was a good tell. -- GreenC 18:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in any event there's nothing we can do about that, particularly since this discussion is unlikely to be closed before the AfD. If you have a problem with the AfD, you can take it to DRV in due course, although I don't think that would be very productive given the very clear consensus that has already formed at the AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as above. There is no benefit to this MR. The AfD is a clear WP:SNOW by any stretch of the imagination. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I missed the earlier drama because my wife doesn't let me check Wikipedia. When the closer calls the subject a "conspiracy theory" and nominates the article for deletion, it really calls into question their neutrality on the subject. When other editors rush to close a move review on procedural grounds when the close is clearly contested, one can't help but wonder their motive. If editors believe the close conformed to policy, then let the review proceed, as it should. LondonIP (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging participants from RM discussion: Hemiauchenia, ProcrastinatingReader, Mx. Granger, RenatUK, Zxcvbnm, Ched, Francesco espo, Masem, Jr8825, Forich, Crouch, Swale, Tanjeeschuan, Loganmac, CPCEnjoyer, ScrumptiousFood, Usernamekiran, Citobun, FOARP. LondonIP (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as WP:SUPERVOTE. The closer claimed that opposing !votes were based on mere "personal opinions on China", completely overlooking the high quality sources cited. The closer's subsequent nomination of the article as a WP:COATRACK at AfD and their characterisation of the cover-up as a "conspiracy theory" demonstrates their lack of neutrality. This discussion is about the improper close of an RM, and the subsequent AfD is non neutral and its result is moot Gimiv (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging participants from RM discussion: Hemiauchenia, Mx. Granger, RenatUK, Zxcvbnm, LondonIP, Ched, Francesco espo, Masem, Jr8825, Adoring nanny, Forich, Crouch, Swale, Tanjeeschuan, Loganmac, CPCEnjoyer, ScrumptiousFood, Usernamekiran, Citobun, FOARP.

To the above mass-ping, mass-pings don't work if you don't sign them, so that didn't work. I noticed this on my watchlist, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close I would agree with fellow editors that the presumptive AfD consensus does render this discussion moot. If the AfD results in any decision other than keep or no consensus, then the article will cease to be an article, and its title will no longer matter, so whether this RM was accurately closed will have no practical effect. It's not really relevant whether the AfD is tainted or not, not only because it can't really be proven, but because even if it could the course of events cannot be reversed, and there would be no editor appetite to try. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: events can be reversed by procedurally closing the AfD pending the outcome of this MR. There is no good policy based reason to reverse this MR. LondonIP (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect any eligible closer to actually either close this or the AfD 'procedurally', since anyone who actually closes in that matter is likely to face too much criticism from one 'side' or another. In reality, since neither will be procedurally closed, and since that AfD was started earlier, it will close first, and that will render this MR moot. That's ultimately another basis for my 'procedural close' sentiment, as any likely course of events will render this MR moot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. It was a very poor close that showed obvious bias (see WP:Supervote) as mentioned above. The closing editor has enough experience that they should have known better, and promptly putting it up at AfD was beyond the pale. I'm very disappointed in this type of behavior. — Ched (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Overall I agree with your assessment of the closer behavior, Ched, but I would ask you, "is the closure decision within the realm of a reasonable conclusion of an uninvolved editor?" I believe that's how Move Review is supposed to work. If you believe it is outside of that realm, then I respect your opinion. If you believe it is within that realm, but should be overturned for other reasons, I would ask you which policy is applicable. Or if I'm mistaken about Move Review, I would be happy to learn that as well. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable decision of an uninvolved editor would have been not to close the discussion yet, per WP:WHENCLOSE. The discussion had been going for 8 days. It was closed on the 16th, after 3 new users showed up on the 15th and 16th. It was therefore not yet stable. Impossible to know how it would have ended up if it had been allowed to run longer, as it should have been. In any case, the ongoing move discussion would have precluded any AfD for the moment. I would have been similarly surprised by a do-not-move close at the state the discussion was in at the time, for the same reason. The closer's behavior makes it all the more strange. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other constituent part of WHENCLOSE is when no new arguments are being made, only the same ones repeated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant excerpt from WP:WHENCLOSE is "the same editors repeating themselves" (emphasis added). That wasn't happening.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen the closer didn't summarize the discussion and claimed all the "experienced" editors were in agreement, which wasn't true. The AFD is off the rails, and the consensus of that discussion is worse than reopening this discussion, and giving Jr8825 a chance to propose a move to Chinese government response to COVID-19. There aren't any X gov response to COVID-19 articles on Wikipedia, but it would make sense to start with one for China, where it began. Of course the most notable thing about the Chinese government's response was the initial cover-up of the early outbreak, as reported by many RS. Francesco espo (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Francesco espo: Oh aye? Jr8825 • Talk 15:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (came from AfD) Procedural Close per Writ, while I feel the RM was more of a no consensus than a move, there is not much of a point to evaluate this when the AfD is very likely heading towards some form of WP:ATD. Though if the AfD does get closed as a Keep/NC, then reopen the RM, as the new proposal brought up about the "government response" article has some popularity in the AfD, and seeing if there is a consensus to take it there would be useful. Jumpytoo Talk 04:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse (involved) there is certainly a lot of concerns about this article but it doesn't seem like there was enough evidence to have it as the more POV title per WP:POVNAME, yes people pointed out sources like the BBC may use this but it doesn't seem like much was shown but there did seem to be a weak consensus to move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-open or alternatively Overturn to no-consensus - This is a clear WP:SUPERVOTE from the closer, and a total breach of WP:AGF. What the closer believes the motivation of the !voters to be should have no bearing on their close, yet in this case the closer has simply said that everyone who was against the move was motivated by hatred of China, rather than their clearly-stated reasons (i.e., reliable sources have reported on the Chinese government's cover-up of the outbreak of COVID-19 in late-2019/early-2020 and substantiated that it occurred).

The closer also cited WP:COATRACK as a reason for their close, but this was not raised by anyone in the discussion. The proposed name-change does nothing to address it: how could it when WP:COATRACK can only be addressed either by deletion of the article or ordinary editing of the article?

Since the closer questioned the experience of editors !voting against the move, let me point out that whilst I am certainly not the most experienced editor on this encyclopaedia, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and have a reasonable number of edits and article-creation stats to my name. I also have experience of closing RMs, and would never close an RM with an attack on the motives of one side of the discussion or an argument that wasn't even raised in it.

As the closer also essentially stated that people voting against the move did so out of dislike of China, I will also point out that I lived and worked in mainland China for five years (as well as a year in Taiwan), studying the language and culture of the country, and still visit the country regularly (or did before the pandemic made doing so virtually impossible). FOARP (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the closer believes the motivation of the !voters to be should have no bearing on their close

Seriously? I think we're beyond what anyone believes by now. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that has at least one eye, an arm and willingness to look at edit history of the individuals what the motivation is.

I really wonder why you would defend someone who creates drafts with conspiracy theories and attempts to push them as articles, perhaps ignorance is a bliss.

Thank you for your story as well, a few tears were shed at the sheer beauty, but I fail to see how it is relevant. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes exposing personal details is not a good idea and my observation is not necessarily about you, but on this particular topic I've seen disinformation originate from Chinese activists, but even more so from Taiwan. Some disinformation campaigns also target Chinese citizens (i.e. see G-news). Among others, Falun Gong's propaganda arm The Epoch Times targets the West. —PaleoNeonate – 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No G-news or The Epoch Times articles are cited in this article. Instead we have AP, CNN and BBC sources, which will find their way into whichever article this is redirected or merged to. Many of these high quality sources refer to the Chinese government's efforts to hide information related the early outbreak and origin tracing as a "cover-up", so a non-consensus close was all but inevitable. LondonIP (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that they were, especially that they are unacceptable sources for WP. —PaleoNeonate – 00:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say overall it is the interpretation and SYNTH of these sources that is at issue here. For example: "On 11 January, Zhang's lab published the sequence on virological.org. Three people stated that this angered the Chinese CDC, and the Shanghai government temporarily closed Zhang's lab." compare that to what the cited articles actually say: "It was not clear whether the closure was related to the publishing of the sequencing data before the authorities." [3] The second source cited for this sentence does not even mention the closure at all. [4] I stand corrected, it does, but it does so only citing anonymous rumors.This juxtaposure and composition has created the SYNTHetic conclusion deciding for the readers that the sequence release and the closure are connected. It does not name the individuals who feel this way. I genuinely have no idea where that statement came from. That's POV SYNTH. It tells the readers what to think, rather than describing to them the facts and conclusions present in our sources. That is unacceptable and it is just one instance of many in this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the AP source cited immediately after that text:[5] On Jan. 11, a team led by Zhang, from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, finally published a sequence on virological.org, used by researchers to swap tips on pathogens. The move angered Chinese CDC officials, three people familiar with the matter said, and the next day, his laboratory was temporarily shuttered by health authorities.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, on wikipedia, we should avoid citing single sources which only reference anonymous sources themselves. This is covered in WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NEWSORG. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but it probably matters not because the article shall (hopefully) be deleted, as it should have never made it past the draft stage. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - Despite ignoring the !vote of some SPAs I would still consider the discussion as no consensus, or at least no strong one. This is moot though, considering the AfD. The claim that the deletion discussion was tainted by this is implausible. —PaleoNeonate – 22:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close Given that an AfD was started and that the likely outcome of that would render this moot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. No prejudice to reopening if the AfD ends up being closed as keep, but right now it's looking like either a redirect or some kind of merge is the most likely outcome; let's not waste time with unnecessary bureaucracy. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: the AfD discussion has been closed as "merge", making this discussion moot. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

River Butcher (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Close depended on closer's own new argument. The RM should be reopened to allow discussion of this new argument. Disclosure: I was involved in the RM discussion. My !vote has been variously interpreted! Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While Andrewa's position is based on Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome (as evidenced by his comment on the closer's talk page), Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus explicitly states closers should "giv[e] due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." Under that more lenient standard, the close should stand, so I suppose this comes down to which instruction we should follow. Calidum 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is entirely the point. The matter of name changes due to gender transition has been thrashed out at length and the consensus has consistently been that the use of former names of trans people is to be used as sparingly as possible. If RSes aren't deadnaming someone, then it would be a BLP violation to do so on our own back. Sceptre (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, this misses the point completely. MR is not the place to rediscuss the move as you are doing. It is to discuss the close. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't miss the point at all. The wider consensus in this matter is crystal clear. To do any other close would be an impermissible BLP violation. Sceptre (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good point to make if the RM is reopened. But not here. We are discussing the close. You are presenting another new argument concerning the article name, but again that should not have been considered by the closer, and perhaps was and perhaps was not. Here we just discuss the close, not the correct eventual result. The time for that discussion is if and when the RM is reopened.

  That's the procedure, and that is also crystal clear, and that is the point you seem to be missing. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. The guideline cited in the closer's close does not mandate the outcome she closed it with. The applicable policies were cited in the RM and if the guideline is relevant, it should have been a !vote, not a close. Iffy★Chat -- 18:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per nom and Iffy. My understanding of the second policy quoted by Calidum is that closers should weigh the arguments made with due consideration to the community consensus. (I am mostly uninvolved, but for full disclosure, I made a collateral comment on this RM here.) Havelock Jones (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. <uninvolved> Closer's usage of the DEADNAME guideline was appropriate, since closers are supposed to take any and all community agreements (consensus) into consideration whether or not they are mentioned in the RM survey/discussion. This closure was and is a reasonable decision. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing WP:DEADNAME mandates is that the article reflects the current gender expression the person uses and that former names should only be used if they were notable under that name. Nobody claimed that the previous title misgendered the person in the RM or that the person was not notable under the previous title, so the only question at this RM was whether a name change had actually happened. Iffy★Chat -- 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how the principle of DEADNAME/NAMECHANGES being "use former names of trans people sparingly" can be read to say "the article title has to continue to use a deadname even if reliable sources don't". Sceptre (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is irrelevant here. It's a good point to make if the move is reopened, as is the point to which you were replying. But here is not the place to discuss the article name. Just the close. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a good point to make here and now, friend Andrewa. We have a RM already relisted ready to close, except that a WP:BLP guideline, which should have already been mentioned, has not been presented by any of the involved editors. Perhaps they don't know about it or perhaps they don't use the guideline enough to note its relevance? What if you were to come across an open RM that you recognized did not take into account a policy or guideline (community consensus) on what you perceive to be a BLP issue? You don't want to see this fine encyclopedia burn up like a huge, hungry forest fire over such a critical issue, so you don't want to just leave an opinion, you want to close the RM and immediately fix the perceived BLP issue. That is what I say makes this RM closure not only reasonable, but necessary, so if we err we do so on the side of caution. BLP issues are held to stricter rules than normal ones, so if this closure is overturned, the new title should stay in place until this BLP issue is ironed and well-pressed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that BLP should have been raised and discussed. I did not do so because I was unsure of its relevance, in hindsight a mistake on my part, but I still think it's unclear. So perhaps we even need a specific naming convention to avoid article names that are offensive to living article subjects. (I would strongly support one.) But even if one existed, here would still not be the place to raise it. Rather, we should take the opportunity to reopen the RM. That's not what MR is for, but I think we could invoke wp:SNOW and wp:IAR and now move on to the proper place to further discuss the move. If we end up there with consensus that a name offensive to the subject is unacceptable, then that's a good basis for a specific naming convention to that effect. It will be a tricky one to write... hold onto your hats! The fact that the RM was already relisted is irrelevant... we can relist as many times as uninvolved editors think is helpful. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. WP:Supervote. The closer treated “DEADNAME” as decisive, but “DEADNAME” was only introduced in the closing statement, it was not given as an argument in the discussion. The closer therefore introduced an argument and closed on the basis of that argument. This not OK. Instead, the “DEADNAME” argument needed to be introduced t the discussion. This applies to any policy link. Policy lines are not trump cards, and especially not MOS guidelines, but need to be mentioned and discussed as to how they apply. In this case, there is doubt in the discussion as to how the MOS guideline applies, vis a vis source use, and source-typing of the sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Minimally WP:SLAP the closer. SUPERVOTE closing, even if the close is apparently the best outcome, if it is not the reflection of the discussion, it is an insult to the participants, and an invitation to other prospective closers to similarly SUPERVOTE close discussions. WP:SUPERVOTE is not concerned with whether, after lengthly examination, the close is the best, but whether the closer has summarised the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, albeit grudgingly. Trout closer for introducing a policy not discussed in the RM - if tempted to do that, just cite the missing policy yourself as a normal !vote and let someone else close. That said, the main question was whether this was a misinterpreted tweet or a name change, and per the LA Times article introduced at the end of the discussion, it appears like a genuine name change. While a strict reading of "the rules" suggests that the closure be overturned and relisted due to the procedural error, I think the odds of any outcome other than move are zero after a secondary source confirmed it, so just leave the move as is per WP:NOTBURO. SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the result, but not the close per SnowFire. First off, the previous moniker "RB Butcher", used as article title, is gender-neutral, was chosen by the subject themselves in July 2021, and I just do not see how using it constitutes "deadnaming". That being said, the title was "RB Butcher" only since July, when it was moved by Oliviadc2 without discussion either, also citing only the subject's tweet. However, this was a textbook supervote, no immediate BLP issue was at stake, and I find this is yet another instance of WP:CRYBLP. The closer should have just voted in the discussion. Ultimately, I think the end result is "correct" and denying it would just postpone the inevitable, so reopening would not yield much, but I just can't endorse how it was achieved. No such user (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the closer violated a norm by citing a rationale that was not raised in the discussion in their closing statement. I'm leaning towards endorsing the result, per SnowFire and No such user. I agree with them that the move is entirely inevitable here. Though my confidence in that is partly based on looking up some sources that were not raised in the discussion, so I'm not entirely opposed to the relisting option, since I do think the discussion was slightly underbaked in terms of its scrutiny of sources. Colin M (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but endorse outcome. Close was a supervote even if the rational might have been strong as comment. While I would lean towards relist here, it seems pretty likely that even if not now, the page would soon have to be named so endorse outcome per WP:NOTBURO. PaleAqua (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn / relist - that close was so bad and anti-policy; if it had been unanimous that would be one thing, if it had been a SNOW we might've overlooked it. But there were legitimate arguments to be made. A trout sometimes is sufficient but here I think it's worth drawing a line in the sand. Red Slash 17:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome but not the close. If the old name of the article ("RB") was an obviously gendered name and/or the subject had clearly indicated it was/should be treated as a deadname then the close would be absolutely correct. However as the old name is a gender neutral name chosen by the article subject and about which (as far as I've been able to tell from a quick look) they have not expressed a clear preference regarding future usage (this tweet is the clearest statement I have found, but "old name" is ambiguous regarding which former name and feels to me to be more likely referring to their birth name), so the article title could be argued to be out of date rather than a BLP issue (comparable to using a maiden name after a person has married). This means there was not a need to introduce a new argument and Sceptre should have commented rather than closed. However I am endorsing the outcome as the River title is unambiguously up-to-date and all indications are that it will be used going forwards, so restoring the previous title would be disruptive as well as pointy. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for a more thorough discussion and policy based close. LondonIP (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist both procedurally and on outcome. First, this is such a blatant example of a SUPERVOTE using a novel argument (one which does not hold up to scrutiny) that a red line needs to be drawn somewhere, and, second, given the fact that the opposition to the move was policy-based and coherent (i.e. the need for sources independent of the subject to show the new usage is the COMMONNAME; given that the old article title is not a policy violation); and that the other support argument was weak and not persuasive either (to the participants of the discussion, or to me looking at it right now). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (uninvolved). It is not appropriate for a closer to base their decision on something that was not brought up during the course of the discussion. The nomination should be reopened so that it can be discussed further. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (uninvolved). The closer raised two arguments for the move: (1) the name change is related to their gender transition, and (2) WP:DEADNAME applies. But neither of these were explicitly mentioned in the move discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist without overturning there is clearly consensus here to relist, and I agree with those arguments. However, I oppose moving the article back while discussion continues. The article has been at this title for a month and keeping it there another week cannot possibly create a new BLP violation. Reverting the title (at least hypothetically) could. If the re-listed discussion closes as no consensus, the move should be reverted then. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) - While procedurally unusual in terms of the introduction of WP:DEADNAME as a guideline by the closer, the priority in cases of BLPs, as mentioned by others here, should always be to eliminate sources of potential BLP violation as quickly as possible. In this case, while it is odd that this was only brought up at close, it is more odd that it was not brought up earlier in the RM discussion and more quickly resolved. In the absence of any other editors calling upon the appropriate guideline, the intervention by the closer was timely. Given that yet more editors agree that the result is correct, but disapprove of the closing, I agree with those citing WP:NOTBURO. If the outcome is correct in terms of safeguarding the encyclopedia, continuing to idly discuss procedural matters would be wasteful, consuming yet more time and energy from both editors and administrators. I say move on. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]