Jaggi Vasudev–No consensus to overturn close.There is getting on for 20,000 words of discussion here, but a good proportion of them are actually attempting to rehash the merge discussion which is not the point of a move review. The sole question here is whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the RM discussion, and after taking all things into consideration I cannot find any consensus that they did not. Many of the participants here and at the RM evidently have very strong feelings about the subject, but as at all times when editing Wikipedia page titles need to be judged dispassionately, which along with the requirements for NPOV, something which should be kept in mind should this ever come to RM again. For the record I am completely uninvolved with this topic area and didn't know this person existed until I saw the closure request atWP:ANRFC.Thryduulf(talk)19:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he repeated the vastly refuted points in closing this requested move.
I have edited the talk page but not the requested move discussion because it seemed that the page was obviously going to be moved. However this outcome was not expected.
1. "independent reliable sources – i.e. those not written by innerengineering, etc – typically write out the subject's name":Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the" independent reliable sources "referred him asSadhguru.[2][3][4][5]We cannot find any reliable English sources that referred him as "Jaggi Vasudev" in the story's title during this month or the even the previous month. Overall, search hits "Sadhguru" (80 million) are many much higher compared to "Jaggi Vasudev" (7 million).
2. "No real argument has been made here that there is some reason why this article should go against thethe manual of style entry":SeeWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.There is a clear absence of any other "Sadhguru" than this individual. No one else is referred as "Sadhguru", except this individual. No reliable sources have used "Sadhguru" and "Satguru" as interchangeable terms so far. The argument of "honorific" was completelyWP:ORand misleading. If there was really any honorific called "Sadhguru" then we should seeing other any notable individual being referred as "Sadhguru".
That was about the strength of policy related argument. Overall there were14 editors(including uninvolved ones like Marcocapelle, Amakuru, Arbor to SJ) who clearly supported the move, while there were only6 editors(all deeply involved in the subject area) who opposed the move. The difference between oppose and support count is high. It can be said that mass badgering by a couple of opposing editors must have discouraged many potential support votes.
I was thinking that I should wait for the reply from the closer, but it seemed that it would be fair to start a discussion here since the closer's contribution history is sporadic (50 edits since 30 November 2017).Qualitist(talk)10:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse(talk page watcher)(who participated in the RM)The closer has done an excellent job of articulating the community consensus for a discussion that was open for more than 5 weeks.
FYI, Since it has beenpointed,Some very reliable English + Hindi sources that referred him as "Jaggi Vasudev" in the story's title
Funny to read that every editor opposing this person's POV is "heavily involved", their factual evidence based comment are OR and everyone supporting is "uninvolved". As for me I am a Page Mover and regularly participate in RM discussions andWP:RMT,also I have never edited that page before this RM discussion. But hey, why let facts come in front of a good story. --DBigXrayᗙ11:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources are not recent but from 2 years, and each of them are at least 3 months old. Since this is all you could discover from 2017 - present, this was indeed my point that "Jaggi Vasudev" is not the common name. Here I presented reliable sources from this month alone that use "Sadhguru" as the story's title, while no one has used "Jaggi Vasudev" from this month or even the previous month. Hindi sources (which are way higher for "Sadhguru" ) are irrelevant since this is an English Wikipedia. By saying "deeply involved" I was saying that you edit this subject (India as a whole) too frequently, and in fact you have strong feelings about this individual, as shown by your own edits to the article.[6][7]This is not a requested move discussion round second, so it would be more better if you focus on the closer.Qualitist(talk)12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your last two sources( "22 Nov 2018", "8 Nov 2018" ) only makes a passing mention and that is not what I was referring. I was talking about "story's title", because "Jaggi Vasudev" is not used as a title of the story by any reliable source, not only this month but also the previous month. Why Wikipedia should use a less common name? It looks like you are now badgering this move review just like you badgered entire RM since you are working to make your petty comment looklonger than it is.You made your comments on RM and here, now let uninvolved editors judge.Qualitist(talk)12:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
notes from closer—couple comments:
did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he repeated the vastly refuted points in closing this requested move.– I don't understand this statement; if I'm doing something wrong please let me know.
Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the "independent reliable sources" referred him asSadhguru... All 4 sources you listed do spell out his name. That is all I said. (And one of them is not independent.)
PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't say "use a title if the subject is the primary topic for the phrase" – e.g.President Obamais not the title of that page. (Also that note doesn't address what I said: no argument is given for going against WP:HONORIFIC.)
re. Honorifics: there is a strange claim here and in the rm that Sadhguru is not an honorific. Aside from whether this question has anything to do with how the article should be titled, this is just plain false: it is an honorific; it's an alternate spelling ofSatguru.Am I missing something? Is like a nickname or something, having nothing to do withSatguru?Why do people keep saying it is not an honorific?Indian honorifics– should we fix that?
Arent we supposed to discuss the page move? If so, then we should rather focus on name used as title as well as the most common name reliable sources have used to mostly refer the subject which is "Sadhguru". Not all 4 sources spell out the name becauseIndia Postmade no mention of "Jaggi Vasudev". Even if the page was moved, we won't be omitting mention of his real name but only using title as "Sadhguru" like majority of reliable sources. Do reliable sources refer him as "Sadhguru" or "Jaggi Vasudev" when it comes to more common name? Answer is Sadhguru. Mention of "Satguru"is completely an irrelevant WP:OR since no reliable sources call this individual a" Satguru ". Which reliable sources call him" satguru "and which reliable sources use" satguru "and" sadhguru "as interchangeable terms? None. Obviously page move is not a vote, but when minority has made no sensible argument then we really need to consider that there wqs no impact of unconvincing argument.Qualitist(talk)17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all 4 sources spell out the name– ah, right – that one is the non-independent one. I think the rest has been addressed: it'sindependentsources we're looking at.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So first you misrepresent sources then call independented sources "non-independent"? So far how many recent sources have you discovered which use "Jaggi Vasudev" as title? I am still waiting.Qualitist(talk)23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—then call independented sources "non-independent"?– See at the bottom of the article there where it says "contact us at [email protected]"?
—So far how many recent sources have you discovered– I'm the closer, not a participant – I don't thinkIdiscovered any. The RM discussion stands on its own; I think there were plenty listed there.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should highlight your rebuttal when your closer is objected. Simply suggesting that argument might have been made without providing any diff is insufficient.Rzvas(talk)02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I think there were plenty listed there".What were they? No reason to believe that they could counter the sources provided by supporters of RM.Rzvas(talk)07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rename.To me, this is a close one between "no consensus" and "moved", but certainly not a consensus to not move, as the close suggests. Should disclose that I am an uninvolved relister, and that I have been interested in meditation subjects since the 70s. So I am familiar with this person's lectures, and yet I've only known him as "Sadhguru" until I relisted this RM. At least on the circuits I travel, he is commonly known by that name. While it is likely that the name "Sadhguru" began as an honorific for this individual, many sources have been shown to indicate that it has become a common name for him. And so far as can be determined, as another spelling of "Satguru", that particular spelling, "Sadhguru", has only been reserved for this individual. Therefore, the supporters' args with policy (WP:COMMONNAME) seem to outweigh the opposers' guideline args (WP:HONORIFIC) in this case. Not in any sense trying to reargue the RM here, just explaining my reasons why the close of this RM should be rethought.[page move logs]Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there18:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was noted in the RM that people who interact with him primarily by consuming his services would know him as "Sadhguru". Of course, as a closer I would not count that for much vs. "hey all these independent reliable sources use his name instead". BTW I can live with "Hey Erik you should have closed it as 'no consensus'" – in that case we leave it where it is (and where it had been for years before the moves). It was certainly not the most firm consensus I've seen.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The thing is, I can't in good conscience live with a "no consensus" close, although thatwouldmean that a follow-up non-out-of-process RM could happen sooner rather than later. The arguments for COMMONNAME still seem to outweigh anything from the opposition, so it still seems to me that the move request should have been granted. Forgive me, as I fail to see how you could have concluded that there was in any way a consensus to not move. What may be needed here from you is a detailed, explicit explanation of how you came to that conclusion.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there04:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Making a joke at an MRV?;>) What do those ngrams say to you, SmokeyJoe? They say to me, few or no books can be found that have been written about a fellow named "Sadhguru". And they also say that as a term, "Sadhguru" doesn't appear to be even remotely synonymous with the two "general" honorifics that did register. What do they say to you?Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there06:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joke? I’m deadly serious about this topic of love and beauty. What does the ngram say? I read: possibly a neologism or a unique SMALLDIFF name, but we mustn’t go there becuase these words weren’t in the RM. —SmokeyJoe(talk)09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What may be needed here from you is a detailed, explicit explanation of how you came to that conclusion.– I'm happy to elaborate or clarify or retract as appropriate if you have anyspecificquestions about my detailed explicit explanations that I've given so far.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where we seem to disagree is re. the strength of the policy arg COMMONNAME plus the guideline arg PTOPIC vs. the strength of the guideline arg. HONORIFIC. Still don't see how that can fly as a consensus to not move. Forgive me, but your close seems to be way off base. The only thing that makes me question my own bar is SmokeyJoe's endorsement, which I also cannot fathom.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there04:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed elsewhere in this MRV, COMMONNAME (note there it says "significant majority of independent...sources" ) and HONORIFIC both point to the close I made. PTOPIC is of course totally irrelevant to this RM (note thatSadhguruis still a redirect to the subject; that's all PTOPIC would say). I don't understand what you're saying. Do you feel I'm wrong to weighindependentsources more per COMMONNAME? Can you elaborate?ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where I think you've erred is simply in incorrectly assessing the strength of the COMMONNAME policy args in the RM. I don't understand how you could possibly come up with anything besides "moved", or at the very least "no consensus"? Just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose we're at a standstill and will have to wait and see what the MRV closer decides.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there09:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you aren't buying my discussion of how I applied COMMONNAME:) If there's anything specific about it I can address please let me know! (And like I said, I'd be happy to recharacterize this as no consensus; I feel like there is a global consensus about the issues involved, but even after subtracting out the SPAs there is clearly a high percentage of people that have issues with applying them in this particular case. It won't matter much, though; the current title is the longstanding one.)ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing specific other than we disagree on the strength of those COMMONNAME policy args in the RM. And don't change your close to "no consensus" on my account, because while I think "no consensus" would make more sense than your seeing a consensus to not move, the RM to me is a classic case of consensus to move the article title to "Sadhguru". I could be wrong, heaven knows it's happened before; however, this time I'm not the single, lost voice in the wilderness. There are others here who agree that the consensus was to rename to Sadhguru, which makes me think I just might be correct in this case.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there23:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnwhat a mess. There are basically only two arguments presented. The main argument supporting a title ofSadhguruis that it is theWP:COMMONNAMEfor this person, and that this person is the primary topic for this spelling. Nobody seems to dispute that the person is often referred to this way, and this spelling (as opposed toSatguru) appears to primarily refer to this person. The argument supporting a title ofJaggi Vasudevis that Sadhguru is an religious honorific and cannot be used.Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorificsis clear thatSadhguru Jaggi Vasudevwould not be an acceptable title, but doesn't seem to forbid a stand-alone title being a common name. While they're not quite fair comparisons, we have bothSaint Peterand14th Dalai Lamaas titles of articles, suggesting that there's no site-wide rule against religious titles in article titles. Articles are titledJesusandMuhammed(and more recentlyMirza Ghulam AhmadandMenachem Mendel Schneerson,but Sadhguru appears to be a title more akin to "Saint" than "Messiah", I don't see an inherent NPOV issue in using that title. Overall, the arguments forSadhguruare stronger, and there's a 2-1 numerical majority supporting that position.power~enwiki(π,ν)21:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: No! As noted in my close, another argument was thatSadhguruis *not* the common name inindependentsources, andJaggi Vasudevis.site-wide rule– WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also: wp:NOTAVOTE applies, especially with a number of SPAs.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent misleading POV pushing doesnt count as sensible "argument". It is completely absurd to claim that "Sadhguru" is not the more common name. All 6 opposes came from those who are deeply involved in the subject. OSE don't apply here.Qualitist(talk)23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ErikHaugen:It seems fairly easy through Google search to verify that this person is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the spelling "Sadhguru". There's no easy way to verify whether this is the COMMONNAME. I noticed after my first comment that at least one of the editors advocating for this change has been site-banned, andhighlyrecommend any commenters read the ENTIRE talk page and not just the RM section. Overall, "consensus" seemed to be that newspapers calling him Sadhguru in a title and then Jaggi Vasudev in the article doesn't mean that the common name can't be Sadhguru; I don't see "independent sources" mentioned anywhere other than the close.power~enwiki(π,ν)02:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—Suppose we determine that the PRIMARYTOPIC for the spelling variantSadhguruis this subject (i.e., we determine through consensus thatWP:SMALLDETAILSapplies here in this way). That would not mean that the title of the article should beSadhguru.Itwouldmean thatSadhgurushould redirect to this article. I hope that clears up why PRIMARYTOPIC iscompletely irrelevantto this discussion.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. It needs to be both the PRIMARYTOPIC for Sadhguru, and the COMMONNAME for the person. One is easily proved. The other is disputed.power~enwiki(π,ν)03:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
point remains – that wasn't really relevant to the RM, and if everyone agrees this is the PT forsadhguruthis does not in any way imply that we should move the article.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—I don't see "independent sources" mentioned anywhere other than the close.– Independent sources are the gold standard on Wikipedia. Specifically as it relates to titling decisions – what to "call" something –WP:COMMONNAMEis quite clear about independent sources:as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.I hope that clarifies why I have been talking about independent sources this whole time.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their own sources seem to use Sadhguru, independent sources tend to use both approximately equally. Overall, I see this as closer toLordeinstead ofElla Yelich-O'Connorthan an argument to useRebbeinstead ofMenachem Mendel Schneerson.If it were purely up to my whim, I'd have both of those (and this article) to the given name. But the question isn't about my whim. It's what the consensus about how site policy is regarding names, and site policy is very lenient towards allowing people to use chosen names, even if absurd. I noteXXYYXXas an example with a current open move discussion.power~enwiki(π,ν)03:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RegardingLorde– see my comment below about calling myselfTh3 P0P3– independent sources call herLorde,so COMMONNAME would suggestLorde,and HONORIFIC even agrees with that.independent sources tend to use both approximately equally– exactly, and many of those use both, so HONORIFIC comes in to play. All this analysis is in the RM, I think.allowing people to use chosen names– sure! as long asindependentsources also use it, Per COMMONNAME.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and independent ENGLISH sources refer to Sadhguru as Sadhguru (and to no one else as Sadhguru). Just because non-independent sources do so as well does not dilute the relevance of this fact. I think you're trying to make a distinction of no difference between Lorde and Sadhguru. The fact that Sadhguru and Satguru are spelling variations of the same word in Hindi does not matter. Languages evolve. English seems particularly prone to borrowing words from other languages and using them differently. Heck, look at the differences between varieties of English. In this case a particular spelling of a Hindi word, an honorific in that language, has evolved into a name for a particular person in English, that person's most COMMONNAME in English in fact. COMMONNAME applies here, an opinion supported by a consensus of the RM participants, one supported by policy, guidelines and conventions, and one you dismissed in your supervote close. --В²C☎17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point: there's a pretty good case to be made thatSadhgurushould redirect toJaggi Vasudev(which it does currently). The distinction between Lorde and Jaggi Vasudev is thatindependentRS regularly use Lorde without mentioning her given name. Definitely COMMONNAME applies in both cases:) – I've gone on at length already about how I've applied it in this close.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Sadhguru should at least redirect to this article, that blows the HONORIFIC objection to using it as the title out of the water, because the same objection would apply identically to use of the alleged honorific as aWP:PRIMARYREDIRECTas does to its use as a title. I don't think this was stated explicitly in the RM discussion, but it's certainly implied by all who discounted or dismissed the HONORIFIC objection and relied on COMMONNAME. Also, while Lorde is used more often in RS without mentioning her given name than is the case for Sadhguru, that's a difference in degree, not in kind. --В²C☎19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't blow the HONORIFIC objection out of the water; why would the HONORIFIC objection apply to redirects? What are you talking about?that's a difference in degree, not in kind– Right, but COMMONNAME is all about degree. Hence the name.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)21:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is an alternative title (if it's not an alternative title - a name, term or phrase someone is likely to enter to search or link with to find or reference the given article on the give topic - it shouldn't be a redirect). With some notable exceptions, most of the same rules/expectations that apply to actual titles also apply to redirects. If Sadhguru is really a common alternative English spelling of the honorific Satguru, a notion rejected in the RM discussion and ignored by the closer, then it should redirect toSatgurubecause we don't refer to people with honorifics on WP. On the other hand, if it's not a violation of HONORIFIC to redirect Sadhguru to the article about the person, because that name is used more often as a name to refer to the person than as an alternative spelling of the honorific, then HONORIFIC also cannot be an objection to using that name as the actual title. --В²C☎21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; no idea where you got that idea. I don't think there's any policy/guideline suggesting that there is such restriction on redirects. As you said, if it's a "term or phrase someone is likely to enter to search" – maybe it's ok for it to be a redirect. In any case, not really relevant to this RM.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spelled out, but it's like any other objection to a title. If there is a BLP objection, for example, to referring to someone in a certain way in a title, then we almost certainly can't use that in a redirect either. Basically, if a title is unacceptable for a particular reason, then it's almost certainly not acceptable as a redirect either. And just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it needs to be the title, of course, just that that reason is not valid to reject it (as redirect or as title). --В²C☎22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're just making up rules:) We make redirects all the time that we wouldn't use as titles. That's why we make redirects:) misspellings, names that aren't the common name, etc, etc, etc. You know all this, though. Anyway this isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)03:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.My reading of the discussion is"no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move". The closer's call is within admin discretion.reaffirming theunderlined-SmokeyJoe(talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)I think "consensus to move" is definitely not a correct reading. In support of not moving, with no or poor consensus, no one made a case that the status quo has a real problem and that something urgently needed doing. The page should be left at the long term stable title, as it was beforeUser:Anthony Appleyard's 04:17, 6 August 2018 move on the basis of ghits. This is a case for: Wait six months at least, and if you still feel that the community got the decision wrong, start a fresh proposal with a better rationale that covers all the unresolved issues in the discussion ofTalk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Requested_move_20_October_2018.--SmokeyJoe(talk)23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I didnt came here to verify if the action was within admin discretion or not, since page moves needs no admin actions either. It is to verify if the closer was done properly or not, and it was completely improper since the closing editor inaccurately claims that "Satguru" is the alternative name for "Sadhguru" without providing a single source and thinks that passing mention equates to use of the term as page title per their comment here. Closer seems nothing more than a supervote at this stage. We are not here for righting great wrongs.Qualitist(talk)23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are vetted at RfA on their experience and ability to recognize consensus, and they deserve that little bit more respect in calling a rough consensus. If this were aWP:NACI would not be giving a happy comment. "Satguru" / "Sadguru" / "Sadhguru" are all interchangeable close-enough homophone transliterations. --SmokeyJoe(talk)00:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin gives you no special privelege in closer. Which reliable source calls "Jaggi Vasudev" a "Satguru" or "Sadguru"? They all call him "Sadhguru". This is exactly what I said, that the argument for "oppose" was petty and misleading.Qualitist(talk)00:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin gives a special privilege in calling a rough consensus on a controversial discussion. SeeWP:NAC.Calling a rough consensus is a fairly advanced skill, mixed with a fair bit of arbitrary discretion. Which reliable source calls "Jaggi Vasudev" a "Satguru" or "Sadguru"? I'm talking from my reading of the discussion and google searches, particularly google image searches. They all return the same pictures. --SmokeyJoe(talk)01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin gives you no special privelege to right great wrongs. I didnt asked for Google images but "reliable source" (seeWP:RS), which in fact you are misrepresenting because "Sadhguru" shows images of this individual, while "Satguru" shows more images ofGuru Nanakand few others.Qualitist(talk)01:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right great wrongs? What is the great wrong? I don't think the discussion includes a clear distinction between "Sadhguru" and "Satguru", but if you feel there is one, and that it is important, make the case more clearly in a fresh RM in six months. --SmokeyJoe(talk)02:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the discussion is "no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move".
Yes, I can see a possible case for no consensus; however, please explain how the policy of COMMONNAME, for which I think a very strong case has been made in this RM, can be overwhelmed by the guideline of HONORIFIC? The closer has not yet been able to explain this, so perhaps you can?
...if you still feel that the community got the decision wrong...
Actually, it seems to me that the community got the decision right; it was the close that was not synched to the community's decision.
If this were aWP:NACI would not be giving a happy comment.
Which seems to make the case that the close is even worse having been made by someone who should have known better?
"Satguru" / "Sadguru" / "Sadhguru" are all interchangeable close-enough homophone transliterations.
Not to compare a mere guru with a deity, however the two terms "god" and "God" sound exactly the same, and yet they have very different meanings, don't they? Countless such examples exist.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there05:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the discussion. Capt.a.Haddock’s analysis was convincing both to me and to other participants, strongly backed up by DBigXRay, with much better source analysis than any opposers who too frequently refer to ghits, which are unreliable, and certainly don’t distinguish quality sources. Sources admit Sadhguru is an honorific, which is to say, not a real proper name. Evidence is presented that it is a mere transliteration variation of Satguru and Sadguru, and it is a very subtle variation, t -> d -> dh in the middle of a word is an accepted accent variation within English around the world. COMMONNAME? Jaggi Vasudev has a perfectly good COMMONNAME claim, no one challenged that. —SmokeyJoe(talk)21:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More... the discussion is was too contested and complicated for a NAC close. No NACer should have touched it. On HONORIFIC, I read that as a red herring, both at the RM and here. Honorifics are generally avoided, but that is not a deciding factor.Saint Peter,for example. It does not take much analysis to work out that Sadhguru is a honorific. Contested was whether it is meaningfully distinguished from Satguru and Sadguru. Also contested was whether quality sources use it for introduction without need for “Jaggi Vasudev”,and how “quality” sources relates to “independence” of sources is not settled. Also complicating is how different people read source introductions, because bothheadlineseand repeated subsequent shorthand use with the same document, has to be downweighted. —SmokeyJoe(talk)00:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another note from closer– I gave more weight toWP:HONORIFIC/WP:UCRN(e.g.Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)) than to the vote count. I'm a believer inWP:LOCALCONSENSUS.IfSadhguru Jaggi Vasudev,Jaggi Vasudev,andSadhguruare used more or less uniformly acrossindependentsources, then the argument was made that you go withJaggi Vasudev.Evidence was supplied, no coherent rebuttal seemed to get much support, etc. That's how I think closes should be done.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have failed to find a single source from this month or past month which use "Jaggi Vasudev" as the title of the story. Evidence doesn't means misrepresenting search result and badgering to right great wrongs. Thats what all 6 opposing editors did who are deeply involved in the subject. 6 oppose against 14 support after mass badgering is opposite to your assertion that rebuttal didnt "seemed to get much support, etc." (what "etc."?)Qualitist(talk)00:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source article title vs. in-article text isn't an important distinction. (AFAICT, that was stated in the RM and nobody disputed it?)seemed to get much support– I'm referringspecificallyto acoherentrebuttal to the argument that HONORIFIC has something to do with how we title this page. A!vote count on the overall question is a separate matter entirely.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)20:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and renameto the proposed title. The two arguments seemed very weak and made up againstWP:COMMONNAME.Inaccuracies within oppose votes also show that they agreed that "Sadhguru" is more common name but falsely claimed it as a honorific despite the name is used only for this very particular subject. Use of Hindi language sources to counter arguments favoring English wiki naming convention seemed like grasping at straws and lack of policy based argument by opposes. Overall the oppose' argument was incoherent and unconvinving. The difference between support and oppose count also speaks volumes.Rzvas(talk)00:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Couple questions:
—The two arguments seemed very weak and made up againstWP:COMMONNAME–common name talks about determining the "prevalence in a significant majority ofindependent"sources – are you saying here that you think that distiction is weak? Should we change COMMONNAME to not prefer considering independent sources? Or – are you suggesting that the conclusion thatindependentsources use "Jaggi Vasudev" is itself weak and made up?ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—falsely claimed it as a honorific despite the name is used only for this very particular subject–verycompelling arguments were made that this is a minor spelling variant of an honorific that is used for several people. One editor,@Born2cycle:,did argue that spelling variants could potentially render honorifics as not honorifics. (e.g., suppose I call myself Th3 P0P3 – maybe that is not an honorific, and could be the title of my page if it catches on per COMMONNAME.) However, this argument wasrather thoroughly counteredin the RM: e.g. noting that this spelling is occasionally used for other Satgurus, etc, etc.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment that improperly used Hindi language sources to counter naming convention for English Wikipedia deserved to be ignored perWP:NHCyet you simply imposed such ignorance in the closer since oppose votes were entirely depending on such non-policy based argument. Disingenuous arguments like "current news articles stillroutinelyreferto Jaggi Vasudev ", where posted enough times[8][9]when it cited only two sources from last year and anyone can tell those sources are not "current". Let us not argue against the established fact that proposed title is a common name where as the present name has low amount of significance. No argument seems to have been made to establish that there is one another person who is also referred asSadhguru.You need to take some time to evaluate the validity of oppose argument than citing mere existence.Rzvas(talk)02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do use non-english sources sometimes (although not to determine common name) – what usage of Hindi sources are you referring to? I don't think my close relied on anything inappropriate in this area. The RM did link to references that usedSadhguruto refer to someone else; e.g.diff,not that this is a particularly important point.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use non-English sources to determine common name in this Wikipedia, and editors opposed to RM were going against that rule. That diff pretty much says something like "sky is red" because it is aimed to confuse readers and misrepresent 3 different English spellings than identify existence of any other notable or even non-notable "Sadhguru". Assessment of the validity of the argument is important, not just dependance on mere existence of the argument because chances are high that arguments can be disingenuous. This is why I also said that difference between support and oppose count clearly speaks volumes.Rzvas(talk)07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RM did link to references that used Sadhguru to refer to someone else...ErikHaugen,were any of those references found inreliablesources? Certainly the ones cited in the diff you quoted above are not. Proboards.com doesn't make the cut, LOL. In any case, you're right it doesn't matter much, because even ifSadhgururefers to others, this use is clearly primary. I'll just add that just because it's used as an honorific in some cases, it is clearly used as his most common name inindependent reliable sourceslike in the NY Times I cited below. That does matter, and much. --В²C☎01:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I don't think it matters much. It's totally obvious that this is an alternate romanization. It'sसद्गुरु (Satguru) in Hindi sources,so we know the intent here is the same word. Sources werementioned in the RMthat useSatgurufor this subject. etc. Also, just whatisthis? Do you really think this is a different word? Why are we spending so much time discussing this question??ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)06:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yetyour own ngrams checkand the fact that no one else goes by the name that is specifically spelled "Sadhguru" appear to indicate that it is very much more than just too small a small detail, n'est-ce pas? "Sadhguru" really does seem to be this guy'sCOMMONNAME,and no amount of rationalizing can change that. The Article titlespolicyshould very much rule in this case!Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there14:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That observation speaks to PRIMARYTOPIC, not COMMONNAME. This islargely irrelevantto the question at hand: this has more to do with e.g. whetherSadhgurushould redirect toJaggi Vasudev(incidentally, it does currently). There is anotherdiscussionabout that point – ifSadhgurushould redirect toSatguru:I think that discussion is mostly about "it's obviously just another romanization even if Vasudev's camp is largely the only to use it" versus SMALLDETAILS. That discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but maybe y'all could revive it.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, here is where some editors disagree with your close. Admittedly, part of my disagreement does stem from my own experience with this subject having been involved in meditation since the 70s. I've followed this man for some time, now, and I've only known him as "Sadhguru". Didn't know his actual name until I relisted this RM. So, for me, the COMMONNAME args in the RM blast the rest out of the water, and the article should be titled with the name he is commonly known by, "Sadhguru".Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and to expand on a point I made above, regardless of what the semantics are in Hindi, what's relevant here is usage in reliable/independentEnglishsources. And there, while sometimes Sadhguru is also used as an honorific, it also commonly used as his name, so commonly that it is hismostCOMMONNAME, while the other spellings are not. So just because in Hindi Sadhguru is a variant spelling of Satguru etc., in ENGLISH it has evolved into being a particular person's COMMONNAME. And that was the consensus of the RM discussion that the closer ignored in his supervote.WP:SMALLDETAILS,by the way, is a section ofWP:AT,where COMMONNAME is also found, not atWP:D,where PRIMARYTOPIC is found. The point of SMALLDETAILS is that two names differing only in small details can never-the-less each be used titles for different articles. --В²C☎18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and renameto the proposed title. I was involved: originally closed in favor of the move, reverted my close upon learning the discussion was still ongoing, and eventually weighed in in favor of the move. I was so taken aback when I read this close that I even commented about it on a colleague's talk page, asking forSmokeyJoeto do a "sanity check"[10].Upon further reflection the closing comment still seems like a super vote to me. In fact, you could copy/paste the words verbatim into a!vote comment and it would work just fine. I don't see much evidence of a reading of consensus. I think the close reflects the opinion of the closer about what should happen, not a reflection of what consensus is about what should happen. The closer takes it as a given that "Sadhguru" is an honorific despite that very point being challenged (in this case this particular spelling has become this particular person's name) and largely not accepted by the participants. And on that basis alone he decided the title should not be changed. This was a super vote, not a good close, and the call was opposite of consensus. --В²C☎18:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with much in SmokeyJoe's reply, although some of it is slightly off topic. I think most of it is repeated in SJ's section above; definitely worth a read. I would say most of my closes read like a!vote, since I explain the rationale. Hopefully explaining is ok to do:) You did challenge whether it is an honorific, true, but a) I don't think your argument was compelling, b) I don't think anyone else thought it was, and c.) there was a very compelling counterargument (including noting that the subject is sometimes referred to by the other spellings!). Ultimately, this line of reasoning for discarding WP:HONORIFIC simply did not carry the day. I think the rest of this has been addressed above; e.g. you seem to be brushing off the main arguments such as COMMONNAME's insistence onindependentsources, etc.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing that up as if it’s relevant here. First, the only person bringing up this distinction of usage in “independent “sources in the original discussion was you in your supervote close; it was not an argument at the RM, much less a “main” one. Second, many independent sources confirm he is known as Sadhguru, including The NY Times[1].Third, it doesn’t matter that they also give his other name. They explicitly say he is known as Sadhguru and that’s how they refer to him in the rest of the article. That’s the ‘’quintessential’’ example ofWP:COMMONNAME.Finally, we’re not supposed to re-argue the original RM here; note I’m countering the closer’s arguments. I’m really just demonstrating how the close was a supervote, perhaps the most blatant one I’ve ever seen. —В²C☎06:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Beddie, Allaina (April 25, 2016)."My Meditation Binge, in a nutshell".NY Times.RetrievedNovember 26,2018.the Indian yogi and mystic Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru
The need forindependentsources was discussed quite at length in the RM; it really seems like you haven't read it, if you didn't notice that.thisis but one example.as if it’s relevant here– it's kind of central to COMMONNAME.‘’quintessential’’ example ofWP:COMMONNAME– yes, some articles do that! Many others don't; see the RM.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)19:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point: nobody but you used the termindependentin the original RM discussion, yet you relied on that heavily in your closing "explanation" of your supposed reading of consensus. The duty to rely onreliablesources (like the NY Times I just cited above, and many others cited in the original discussion) to determineWP:COMMONNAMEgoes without saying in all RM discussions involving COMMONNAME determination. Reliable sources were used to support the COMMONNAME argument. Here's another one, from the CBC:[11].The bottom line is this: thedefinitionof COMMONNAME is "a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article". Further, COMMONNAME states: Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" It was repeatedly and abundantly shown in the RM discussion thatSadhguruindicates the subject of the article AND is most commonly used in independent, reliable sources to refer to this subject, and you, the closer, simply ignored all that. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you're not acknowledging your obvious error. --В²C☎19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point: nobody but you used the termindependent– Wha? Why on earth would it matter if other words were used to express the same idea? If that is your point, then frankly, I'm disappointed in your point.:)ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
shown in the RM discussion thatSadhguru... is most commonly used in independent... sources– Much better! This is actually relevant – if you're right, then maybe I screwed up, and HONORIFIC doesn't come in to play – likeLordeor something. Power Enwiki, above, observedindependent sources tend to use both approximately equally.I was basing my close on an observation similar to that after carefully reading the RM; the name and the title are both used regularly inindependentrel: sometimes both, sometimes one in the title of the source and the other in the body, and so on. IF that observation is on target, HONORIFIC makes it clear what to do: don't use the title. I don't think anyone really argued in the RM that HONORIFIC doesn't say that.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME refers toindependent and reliablesources. RM participants referred toreliableones. You, uniquely, focused on theindependentaspect. That's raising an issue others did not raise; It's not other words expressing the same idea;independentis not the same idea asreliable.That's why your close was supervoting. As to what HONORIFIC says, you're again assuming the unique spelling with thehis never-the-less an honorofic, but that aside, even if it is, consider this:Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included..Where is Sadhguru written about in independent reliable sources and NOT called Sadhguru? It's rarely found. QED. --В²C☎22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You, uniquely, focused on theindependentaspect. That's raising an issue others did not raise– you said this earlier, and I replied to it, giving an example proving it wrong. Did you see that? Here'sanotherone. What's going on here B2C?It's rarely found.– Several were given in the RM, and see just above inxray's "12:29, 27 November 2018"comment?ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)23:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links to comments from the RM discussion the participant was referring toreliablesources, notindependentones. In this latest one they refer to RS, not IS. I don't deny that a few source citations can be found that don't refer to him as Sadhguru, and they have been cited. My point is they arerare,and, since they arerare,the whole argument about not using it per HONORIFIC evaporates. --В²C☎23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They say things like"Unplugged with Sadhguru" is a promotional video....– the point being that because it is not an independent source, it does not count (much) toward COMMONNAME. (that is what COMMONNAME says, also). This editor, in the RM, is invoking a point about COMMONNAME and independent sources without using the wordsindependent,common,orname.May seem weird, but it happens all the time.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)00:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse– I was not involved, and know nothing about this guy, but I've reviewed the RM discussion, the close, and the discussion above, and it appears to me that the close was very sensible in light of the evidence and opinions presented, and in light of our title policy and style guidelines. In short, the name is more appropriate than the honorific, as many argued and guidelines support.Dicklyon(talk)03:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon:Those who argued against the proposal were only making non-policy based disingenuous argument by misrepresenting sources in Hindi language sources, which is against the policy on naming convention in this Wikipedia. Which reliable sources say that it is an "honorific"? It seems that "Sadhguru" is reserved only for this person. Unless that name is being used to refer anyone else other than him then we can dispute it ashonorific,but "Sadhguru" is reserved only for this person and no one has provided any other notable or even non-notable individual who is referred as "Sadhguru".WP:COMMONNAMEorWP:PRIMARYTOPICare not supporting an uncommon name like "Jaggi Vasudev", but "Sadhguru".Rzvas(talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)sign to re-pingRzvas(talk)19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would like to remind others ofWP:NOTAVOTEhere since the concerns raised by OP are not being answered by those who are endorsing the closer. Here are the concerns that needs to be resolved:
1) If "Sadhguru" is honorific according to reliable sources and if it is really being used for any other notable individual in English language source.
2) If "Jaggi Vasudev" is a more common name in English sources.
It doesn't make any sense to endorse the closer as long as these these questions lack a valid answer with proper evidence.Rzvas(talk)05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up NOTAVOTE again, and I think this is a reasonable summary: does the fact that it is an honorific matter, and what does COMMONNAME say about the sources brought up? Those are the two questions. I think you're being a bit disingenuous with "not being answered",though – these two questions have been discussed at great length here and in the RM.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent rehashing and treatment of this page as RM round 2 by chief opposer of the RM --Rzvas(talk•contribs) Please feel free to respond to the commenter when warranted. --Paine Ellsworth(talk•contribs)
Endorse,retain Jaggi Vasudev: (I participated in the RM. The article and the entire topic is sock and COI central. And then there are the people who are trying to game the system now as well.) I've presented most of my arguments in the original RM; please read through them as well as some of the replies to other users. I'm going to address the arguments posted by the only-1-month-old-but-experienced account, Qualitist, here:
Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the "independent reliable sources" referred him as Sadhguru.
Firstly, boomlive.in and azertag.az are not "independent reliable sources". Neither is indiapost.com which Qualitist possibly misunderstood to be the same as indiapost.gov.in. The cited indiapost.com article is also either an advertorial or syndicated drivel which is evident from the "To learn more visit: InnerEngineering.com or contact us at [email protected]" footer text. The Isha foundation is a business built upon promoting its founder and they appear to heavily use SEO to promoted said business and founder. Wikipedia is an arm of their SEO business.
As I've noted in my RM arguments, the aggregator-in-chief of online news that is Google News classifies news about "Jaggi Vasudev" and "Sadhguru" under "Jaggi Vasudev". (1,2)
There is a clear absence of any other "Sadhguru" than this individual. No one else is referred as "Sadhguru", except this individual. No reliable sources have used "Sadhguru" and "Satguru" as interchangeable terms so far. The argument of "honorific" was completely WP:OR and misleading. If there was really any honorific called "Sadhguru" then we should seeing other any notable individual being referred as "Sadhguru".
Qualitist is interestingly leaving out the homophonousSadgurufrom his list of variants. And there is nothing OR aboutSatguru,Sadguru, or Sadhguru being honorifics. AsWP:NCINattests,Guru, Jagadguru, Gurudevetc. are honorifics. Sadguru is a lesser form ofJagadguru,the "world teacher".
I have provided a list of Satgurus and Sadgurus (plenty of whom are on Wikipedia) in my RM arguments.
After my mention, someone deemed it fit to moveSri Sadhguru Sadhu Laxman Rao Ji Maharajtodraft space.
As for reliable sources not using Sadguru and Sadhguru synonymously, consider possibly the most reliable of India's newspapers, The Hindu, which also prints columns by Vasudev asSadguru Jaggi Vasudevor justJaggi Vasudev.It's easy enough to find this variant being used inotherpapersaswell.
Even if you consider Vasudev's official site alone, you can see that plenty of people"sadguru" use Sadhguru and Sadguru interchangeably.They are actually spelling it correctly as it is written in Indic scripts. It is also worth noting thatallthe Indian language wikis I checked only use Jaggi Vasudev as the title because there is no silenth-like artefact that they can use to make the Sadguru honorific seemingly unique to Jaggi Vasudev.
Overturn and rename- I have been reading this discussion for days so far I have came to conclusion that there was no reason provided in the closing note that why we should be ignoringWP:COMMONNAME.Oppose comments however obfuscated words of Hindi and English to somehow make it appear that the proposed title is a known honorific which can be best described as unconvincingoriginal researchwhich was not supported by reliable sources. Still the closer seems to have fell for it,[12]which is itself doing nothing but setting a bad precedent that we need to give more weight tooriginal researchthan findings supported byreliable sourcesand ultimatelyWP:TITLEitself. No argument was made if the real name is more written in "independent reliable sources" (or if this was mentioned in discussion at all) contrary to the closing note. There are too many reasons to believe that the close was asupervote.Lorstaking(talk)05:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to adminIt is clear to me, based on the!voters "supporting the move" atTalk:Jaggi Vasudevand here, that the "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev" and the members of the "Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev" have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process. What is even more interesting is that some are even tag teaming and edit warring on this page[13][14][15]to hat!votes that are against their POV. --DBigXrayᗙ06:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is paid by Sadhguru. I have not seen a single RM supporter to be opposing the closer. So far I am only seeing two chief opposers of the RM bludgeoning here and attacking every participant by using non-policy based argument and fabricating evidence to push it further. Your assumption of bad faith should make it clear to those who endorsed the closer that the chief opposers were editing in bad faith and that should the final nail in the coffin.Rzvas(talk)06:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving more evidence to my note here. It is very clear for anyone to see what is happening in the thread above and who are the ones acting in bad faith and bludgeoning.DBigXrayᗙ06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did not claim so, but your statement that "none of them are paid by Sadhguru"is interesting. I assume that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum that in my opinion, seems to be going on. It would be interesting to know what else is mentioned over there. Knowing that one of these participants on the talk pageUser:Regstuffhas already been site banned for Paid editing.--DBigXrayᗙ08:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev... been mobilised enmasse" is a clear accusation of paid editing and doubling down with those accusations really leaves zero doubt. If one person was banned (who didnt participated in RM), it doesnt means long term editors who participated in RM or here become paid editors.Qualitist(talk)08:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if people are influenced by a movement, doesn't mean they're wrong. I suggest everyone focus on the arguments being presented, both here and at the RM, not who is presenting them or why. --В²C☎20:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Gentle reminder that this is Move review and is not the place for personal discussions and accusations. If editors have personal stuff to discuss with or about other editors, then please take it to an appropriate user talk page. It is important to the closing admin that this discussion remain focused on the closure of the RM in question, that is whether or not it was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. That is our focus here,and nothing else.Thanks to everyone for doing their best to stay focused!Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there13:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.A key assumption in the close was that "Sadhguru" is an honorific and the key finding in the close is that it was not the COMMONNAME of this person per usage in independent reliable English sources. But the NY Times introduces him like this:the Indian yogi and mystic Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru[16]That's clearly not using "Sadhguru" as an honorific, and is explicitly declaring it to be his COMMONNAME as is practically possible. I mean, it's like saying,Ella Yelich-O’Connor, better known as Lorde,whichthe NY Times has also said,declaring Lorde to be that persons's COMMONNAME. Here is the quintessential independent reliable source explicitly contradicting the key assumption and finding of the close we're reviewing here. And the NYT is not alone. National Geographic, another unquestionably reliable and independent source, contradicts the close as well:"Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru".An so do doesNDTV,an independent Indian television company founded in 1988:"Jaggi Vasudev, better known as Sadhguru".These reliable English sources do not treat Sadhguru as an honorific and explicitly state that he is known or even isbetterknown by thisname.This was also the position expressed in the nom ( "nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention" Sadhguru "instead of to" Jaggi Vasudev "so Sadhguru serves apparently as the common name." ) and by the majority of the participants in the RM that supported the proposal. The closer was simply mistaken, and the close needs to be reversed accordingly. --В²C☎18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheris a lot likeLorde,I think; this has been hashed out above. Independent sources almost always just use those stagenames. Contrast that with this subject; as PowerEnwiki said above: "independent sources tend to use both approximately equally" – I think the RM largely settled on that assessment as well. If I'm wrong, andindependentsources usesadhgurusignificantly more than they use the given name, then maybe the close was bad, and like you say this is likeCher.(All that analysis stands even ifsadhguruexclusively applies to this subject...)ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone recognizes it's not as obvious a call asCherorLorde.Ultimately, purely objectively, it may be a toss up. But RM participants were asked to weigh in and the majority clearly thought Sadhguru was more commonly used. That's the consensus finding you overrode with your Supervote close, apparently significantly based on assuming Sadhguru is an honorific even in this context in which many RS clearly use it as his name, not as as an honorific. That's why your decision needs to be reversed, not because this is likeCher.--В²C☎22:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that the strongest opposers in the original RM (who apparently influenced the closer) seemed motivated by a belief that it was only or primarily promoters of Sadhguru that use that honorific spelling variant to refer to him, but the reality is that the campaign (if that's what it is) has worked: reliable independent sources have recognized that he is known as Sadhguru, as noted above, and are using it accordingly. It's not our job to evaluate whether reliable sources were duped - we simply follow their lead. --В²C☎23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“It's not our job to evaluate whether reliable sources were duped - we simply follow their lead”?! What an absolutely stupid statement. Wikipedia needs intelligent editors who know, among many other things, how to evaluate source reliability. A duped source is not a reliable source. —SmokeyJoe(talk)00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't believe the NY Times was duped. Do you? (I should have put "duped" in quotes - didn't think anyone would take it literally - I meant "influenced by their usage to use it themselves" - all language evolves like that). Secondly, I'm not talking aboutasource ( "duped" or not); it's many reliable sources that refer to this person that treat Sadhguru as his name, not an honorific (see examples above). Thirdly, and most importantly, it doesn't matter WHY the usage is what it is in reliable sources; it's our job to follow the usage when determining COMMONNAME. Also, I'm not talking about evaluating source reliability for content inclusion; it's about evaluating usage for COMMONNAME determination. The reliability of sources like the ones I cited - NY Times, National Geographic andNDTV- is a given, especially in the context relevant to title determination: usage/COMMONNAME evaluation. The whole point is to use the name for a given topic that is most familiar to our users, and we presume that familiarity stems from usage in reliable sources. --В²C☎01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve only sort of clarified. It is editors’ jobs to weed out duped sources as compromised and unreliable. I disagree with your third point. How it is being used does matter, scholarly uses matter a lot, casual reference less, and repetition of promotion even more less. Secondary source use is preference, and primary / secondary source distinction depends on how it is being used. In any case, your sentence as written demanded objection. —SmokeyJoe(talk)02:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You took my sentence out of context and you are conflating examining usage in reliable sources for determining COMMONNAME with use of RS for verifiable article content. In any case my point stands. Truly reliable, independent andsecondarysources indicate common usage of the “Sadhguru” variant spelling in English is as this particular person’s name (and virtually that of no one else), not as an honorific, this was the consensus of the RM participants, and the closer erred in missing all that. —В²C☎05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I in no way was thinking anyone was being duped by anyone to inform my close. However I did take away from the RM thatindependentRS don't usesadhgurusignificantly more often than the given name. That's all, no duping.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rename- (disclaimer: I supported the move) the nomination statement at the top summarises the position very well. The support!votes were numerically much stronger, including more individuals who have no deep association with this topic and therefore no prejudices coming into the RM. So there would have to be very strong oppose arguments to overcome that numerical advantage. But the supports also brought strong policy arguments in the form ofWP:COMMONNAMEas well asWP:PRECISE(since no other indivuduals seem to be known as Sadhguru with this spelling). The RM closer seems to have accepted the argument ofWP:HONORIFICwithout question, without considering that (a) it may not even be an honorific (nobody actually produced direct evidence that Sadhguru even means the same thing asSatguru), and (b) since the subject is commonly known by this name, it doesn't really qualify for the usual honorific rules. Much as if he was simply called "Sir" or "Doctor". Thanks —Amakuru(talk)09:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that "Sadhguru" is "an exclusiveWP:Honorificto Jaggi ". What has been said is that the specific spelling," Sadhguru ", is used as a COMMONNAME by only Jaggi. It's like there isCher Lloydand then there isCher– same exact name, no spelling difference, and yet when one says "Cher", literally millions of people know who one is talking about. And when one says "Sadhguru", there are an untold number of people who know who one is talking about. The COMMONNAME policy went unheeded by the close and that community consensus should hold much more weight here.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sadhguru" is not used as a COMMONNAME byonlyJaggi; it's also used as his COMMONNAME by many RS. It's not an honorific in those contexts, and therefore HONORIFIC does not apply. By never-the-less referring to "Sadhguru" as an honorific in his close, the closer showed that he missed this crucial point, as did the minority opposing the original RM citing HONORIFIC. --В²C☎19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Supporta close by a responsible uninvolved admin following WP honorifics policy and not counting! votes! by followers of the guru. This is why we have admins close controverted and difficult RMs, and this Move Review should uphold this close.In ictu oculi(talk)09:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also point out again that Sadhguru "true guru" is only a spelling variation of a common Indic honorific, it is a small detail distinction. But still an honorific for an individual the secular Indian press does not so honour.In ictu oculi(talk)09:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I don't think so, In ictu oculi. If he used it solely as an honorific, then his lectures would be by "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" or similar. Instead, he just goes by "Sadhguru". It would be like a great Western religious leader being called "Reverend", and everybody knows who he is when they hear "Reverend". While that is actually true from church to church, it is not true on a global scale for any one individual. Itistrue on a global scale for this individual, because "Sadhguru" in his case is a name he goes by, not just an honorific.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi,the undisputed fact that "Sadhguru" is a spelling variation of a common Indic honorific is not relevant here since in this context the term in question is used by RS as the person's COMMONNAME.Mr. T,Lady Gaga,PrinceandLady Gare examples of how use of honorifics in titles are acceptable when they are the COMMONNAME for the person in question. This is a point the RM opposition and the closer overlooked. --В²C☎20:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope folks are aware that repeated Chanting of the phrase "Sadhguru is his common name" will not automagically make it his common name. It has already been mentioned in the RM discussion that reliable international media, BBC for example uses "Jaggi Vasudev" for this person. here are some moreNZ Herald,Gulf news + Washington Post.--DBigXrayᗙ21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME means themostcommonly used name, not the universally-used-name. Just because there are some sources that don't refer to him as Sadhguru does not mean it's not his COMMONNAME. The RM subjective judgment was about which of the two names wasmostcommonly used in RS, the majority determined it was Sadhguru, and the closer ignored this and overrode this consensus finding with a Supervote closing decision. --В²C☎21:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify: "the closer ignored this and overrode this consensus" – I didn't ignore it: my take on the RM is that consensus was thatindependentsources use the given name roughly as often as the honorific. (They usually use both names.)@Born2cycle:– We've been over this ad nauseum above. I think I've made it clear what I was thinking wrt. this matter. I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my stated rationale for closing. It's disingenuous.I'm trying to only respond anymore when I'm mentioned or addressed specifically;)ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)17:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying again that your close was a consensus-reversalWP:SUPERVOTEand not a reading of consensus. What you say was your "take on the RM is that consensus was that..." was not your take on the consensus (of the participants) but your take on what the evidence indicated, which is appropriate to go by if you're participating and!voting in the discussion. The consensus of those participating was that the evidence indicated Sadhguru was the COMMONNAME, regardless of whether you thought most independent sources use the given name roughly as often as the honorific. That's what you were supposed to get from the discussion, not to form your opinion about what the evidence indicated and to close based on that. --В²C☎17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your links go to the same story from two or three different outlets. There have also been given links todifferentstories from different outlets that either referred to this subject as "Sadhguru" or as "Jaggi Vasudev, also known as (or better known as) Sadhguru". COMMONNAME does not require that ALL reliable sources use the name a person goes by. "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by consideringthese criteriadirectly. "That was done in the RM. A consensus was reached that was completely ignored in the closing statement. That consensus was to move the article to the subject's COMMONNAME," Sadhguru ", as decided by reliable sourcesandby editors' consensus in that discussion. Why else would we be here?Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there00:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't these reputed authors/media houses not using Sadhguru if that is his common name? Consensus is not counting of the heads but on the weight of the argument. The RM discussion was canvassed with [some]updated --DBigXrayᗙ13:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)COI and SPA accounts, so the number game should not be used to claim a consensus here. --DBigXrayᗙ09:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up sources (falsely mentioned WashingtonPost), when in fact these "reputed authors/media houses" call him Sadhguru.[19]No one in the RM discussion had COI, neither anyone was an SPA. At best only 2 users were mostly interested in this subject but that doesnt makes them SPA. Certainly they showed better understanding of our policies than you do, and simply that matters. For billionth time, you are being asked to refrain from personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources.Qualitist(talk)09:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray you are still misrepresenting sources and cherrypicking outdated sources. You have not mentioned any URL from Washington Post but claims you have. WashingtonPost[20]calls him only "Sadhguru" though and made no mention of "Jaggi Vasudev".Qualitist(talk)01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ToeditorDBigXray:those are very serious accusations to make without actually providing any evidence. Nobody is saying that this is a numbers game. The only thing being said is that the community consensus that supports the obvious local consensus of this RM was not considered in the close and is not being considered here. Clouding the issue with serious accusations and potential personal attacks does not change that fact.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there13:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.A review of a discussion isn't meant to rehash that discussion, as many folks here seem to be interested in doing, but to determine whether the closer judged consensus accurately. A number of people arguing against the merger have citedWP:HONORIFIC.No convincing argument has been provided to rebut this; many people are just saying "but it's not an honorific", which is meaningless. The discussion could possibly be stretched to "no consensus, defaulting to no move" but there's certainly no consensus in favor of moving.Vanamonde(talk)18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many examples of its use as a name and not as an honorific were provided in the RM and in this discussion. It was also pointed out that this particular spelling is used exclusively in RS to refer to this one particular person; it's not an honorific any more thanLordeis. This too has been repeatedly pointed out. Did you miss all that? --В²C☎21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "the merger". Something else you missed is that this a Requested Move discussion (title change), not a proposed merger discussion. --В²C☎22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- even if you accept the argument that Sadhguru is purely an honorific, (which in fact seems dubious at best, as no sources have been found confirming that), you still have to accept that this is a play-off between a policy (WP:COMMONNAME) on the one hand, and the MOS guideline (MOS:HONORIFIC) on the other. Given that policies usually outrank guidelines, as well as the substantial numeric advantage enjoyed by the support arguments, with no serious rebuttal of the argument that it is the common name, it should have been a clear-cut case to close as moved. No offence to the closer, and I'm sure this was closed in good faith, but to me it looks like a case of the closer inserting their own view of the issue rather than evaluating the arguments of both sides against policy, i.e. aWP:SUPERVOTE.It would have been better to have made that argument as a!vote rather than a close. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)11:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about policies vs. guidelines, but I don't think that applies in this case. As discussed in the RM, COMMONNAME gives us kind of a tossup:independentsources tend to use both approximately equally(emph mine) – both opposers and supporters seem to agree with this, I think: it could be used to defendSadhguru,Jaggi Vasudev,Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev,etc. HONORIFIC comes in to play at this point; I think if you argue it doesn't, then you're really arguing that it has no bearing on anything at all. (Now, as noted earlier, if the observation aboutindependentsources is wrong, then my close was probably bad.) I don't think my close was a new argument.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)05:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Not involved, didn't participate in RM, not familiar with the subject. Anyway, this is a clash between a COMMONNNAME (but not an overwhelming one, he's still known and referred to as Jaggi Vasudev) and the guidance ofMOS:HONORIFICS.This kind of dispute is inherently borderline, either name would work, so there needs to be a really compelling argument to overturn the status quo (and the August 2018 move doesn't really count as establishing a long-term consensus). It's a perfectly legitimate close to say that the proposers did not meet the intentionally high standard on doing a move that are intended to prevent pointless moves back & forth in borderline cases, so use the perfectly correct long-term stable title. The "other" name, whichever it is, will be in the lede anyway.SnowFire(talk)19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well that argument would be fine, and I would agree with you, if the!vote were split 50-50. But precedent says that where arguments are equally valid, contrary to the essayWP:NOTAVOTE,we *do* count votes in that scenario. In this case the count was 14-6, which given equally strong arguments is a consensus to move. Instead the closer decided the argument supported by 6 people was the "better" one, and closed it with that. —Amakuru(talk)20:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the number game that I was referring to while responding to "User:Paine Ellsworth" few lines above, where I was assured that isn't the case. And this "number game of counting of noses" is a flaw that is utilized to its maximum by offline canvassers and tag teamers. All they need to do is to mobilize some sleeper accounts to beef up the numbers and let the numbers do the talking for them. Admins should not be rewarding such behavior, and it is precisely the fear of encouraging such behavior that counting of noses is not given priority but the actual weight of the arguments, perWP:NOTVOTE.--DBigXrayᗙ20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire:But two questions still remain unanswered. 1) which recent sources called him "Jaggi Vasudev" over "Sadhguru" the time when RM was closed. 2) Which reliable sources state that "Sadhguru" is a honorific?
There were only 6 oppose votes to RM, made by those who are deeply involved in the subject, and major opposers of the RM were instead misrepresenting non-English sources. I am really sure that opposers lacked any sense and close was a supervote since these 2 questions still remain unaswered.Qualitist(talk)21:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Can't help but notice that there are seven editors in this discussion who endorse/support the close of this RM. So there are seven editors who recommend going against policy. The COMMONNAME article titling policy is crystal clear on what to do when there is no one particular name that stands out in reliable sources. It has been agreed here that neither "Sadhguru" nor "Jaggi Vasudev" is more common than the other, and a consensus in this RM established that "Sadhguru" should be the title of the article. Every endorser here appears to be megavoting rather than objectively seeing to it that a close that is unreasonable and inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice,policies,or guidelines is overturned.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recommend going against policy, but do recommend a more careful and less absolutist reading of all policy consistent with the policy taggery. I disagree with your reading of policy (the status quo was not even alleged to not be a COMMONNAME), and with your attempt to introduce new policy arguments in the MRV; all arguments belong in the RM. These policy-line arguments were not persuasively made in the RM. The case was simply not well made; and most pointedly,User:Cpt.a.haddock's very well made points were not effectively rebutted and were further supported by several others, and this means that the case to move was not made. Your comment here on other MRV participants is crossing the line of decorum in the review. You should make your case, once, and leave it to others to agree with you or not. Excessive verbosity in these reviews is not helpful. --SmokeyJoe(talk)01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly, and respectfully, disagree. When it's right there in black and white, so to speak, then that means there is a strong community consensus to which to comply. The consensus in the RM was clearly to comply with COMMONNAME policy. To see anything else in it is a stretch the size of the distance to Mars.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME does not mandate a move because all ofJaggi Vasudev,Sadhguru&Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudevmeet it, all are used in many reliable sources. I read many participants making VAGUEWAVES to COMMONNAME, and that is not persuasive. Everytime I re-read the discussion, I cannot get over User:Cpt.a.haddock's very persuasive point, and the fact that he is not rebutted, and the fact that multiple others cite his!vote and repeat his points. As I said first time, "no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move". "No consensus" would have been easily defended, "consensus to not move" is acceptable by reading the better evidence over the VAGUEWAVEs, and "consensus to move" was impossible due to the strong "oppose" arguments. --SmokeyJoe(talk)03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources not "User:Cpt.a.haddock" matters and that is where people are failing because their source of information is "User:Cpt.a.haddock" who in fact misrepresented non-English languages links and couldn't even understand that this is English Wikipedia. You need to find solid reason to support the faulty closer than referring unreliable comments of an editor who lacked very basic understanding of naming convention.Qualitist(talk)04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus decision making requires interplay, debate, explanation, etc. "User:Cpt.a.haddock" was a participant, and he was not rebutted, and he was cited in agreement by others. If you think he mis-represented non-English languages, I advise you to make that argument in a fresh nomination in six months. "couldn't even understand that this is English Wikipedia" is clumsy mud throwing that makes me think you are not to be taken seriously. In supporting the closer, I look to whether Haddock's points were rebutted, not to investigating his points myself. --SmokeyJoe(talk)05:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By how many? Only 5 others who are also deeply involved in the subject. The failure to provide reliable sources or naming any other "Sadhguru" was itself a failure to make a substantial argument. His entire argument depended on unconvincing original research with which most editors disagreed. His bad faith assumption that we see here and also on article as well as clear attempt to rig!votes[22]only confirms it further.Qualitist(talk)05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitist,I don't know that I need to respond to that point, "5 others who are also deeply involved in the subject". Others have commented on the degree of involvement by others, but I see no serious discussion on that line in the RM.
"failure to provide reliable sources or naming any other" Sadhguru "was itself a failure to make a substantial argument"? I think you are carrying that inference too far. Way too far. On a reading of the RM, I see no reason to serious doubt the contention that "Sadhguru", "Satguru" & "Sadguru" are interchangeable transliterations, same word, very slight difference in pronunciation. "Sadhguru" is a unique spelling for Jaggi Vasudev, the only recent well-known Satguru. Will the next Satguru also be associated with the "Sadhguru" spelling? I don't agree that most others disagreed, many did disagree, but they did notwikt:rebut.Haddock supplied evidence of something, the disagreers did not seriously rebut. I disagree that that his links have WP:NOR issues, he did not personally create the results he linked, and the synthesis was very reasonable for a talk page discussion. I supportthisedit as appropriate, and call your comment about it unreasonable.
I have read the RM and this MRV too many times, can you please just be assured that you are not close to convincing me to change my!vote? --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME actually (and clearly)doesmandate the page move as nominated. It was up to the closer to know the policy and to see its strength even if the involved editors did express the policy and the accompanying community consensus only "vaguely" and "unpersuasively". The policy is not vague and is in place just for situations like this. If there is no clear COMMONNAME, then it is decided by consensus, and the consensus in the RM was decidedly strong in favor of the page move. I am not as you seem to think disparaging other commenters here, I'm just making a good faith observation about their good faith comments. Wouldn't you do the same if you thought you were backed so strongly by the community?Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single clear COMMONNAME. There was no case made forJaggi Vasudevbeing a bad title.
I do not think you intend to disparage, but I have been reading all the comments, each of diminishing additional value in my opinion, and my reading of your last post was that a reasonable reader would read them as disparaging me. So I broke my intention to note make more comments. --SmokeyJoe(talk)05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and the policy is clear that when two or more titles are contenders and there is no single clear COMMONNAME, the article titlemustbe decided by consensus. Itwasdecided by consensus, but the closer ignored the debate's consensus, which was to move the article to "Sadhguru". That was not in accord with the COMMONNAME policy, and the close should be overturned because of that.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there05:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, we differ in reading the consensus. I though I explained myself, pointing to strong non-rebutted oppose!votes. I am not sure how you came about to your reading. I note that we overlap with the reasonableness of a "no consensus" call. --SmokeyJoe(talk)06:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought I explained myself, pointing to the policy that goes well beyond any editor's inability to express it clearly and persuasively. The policy itself is persuasive and clear since it is the result of many years of review and change through community consensus. It is policy, and it was for all intents and purposes completely ignored in the close. I saw and still see clear consensus to rename the article to "Sadhguru".Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there07:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A closer may have to overrideWP:LOCALCONSENSUSin determining communityWP:CONSENSUSregarding a given discussion outcome, but that should only occur when local consensus is clearly against policy. That was not the case here. Certainly no case was made for that, not in the RM, not in the close, and not even here in this MR. To the contrary. The local consensus clearly favored the move by a significant margin and per a strong policy-based argument: COMMONNAME. While the closer has some latitude in marginal cases, this was no marginal case. The HONORIFIC counter-argument was not even policy-based, was weak because no RS use Sadhguru to refer to anyone else (what kind of honorific is that?), and many RS use it as his name. There was no basis to overturn the clear local consensus that favored the proposal, so the close was a supervote, and thus the close must be overturned itself. —В²C☎08:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move- "Sadhguru" is the more common name of this individual as attested by reliable references, as many commentators have said. The original discussion did not have a clear consensus to keep the title in the present form.Knox490(talk)02:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.A lot has already been said in the RM discussion about theWP:Honorificsand to append to that list, here are more folks using the same honorific. (Please be aware that Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. seethis discussion
Still don't see any "Sadhguru "even after carefully considering the personal websites and redirects you listed which is exactly copy of an unconvincing commentalready madeon RM. Quora.com is not a reliable source neither it confirms if there is any other "Sadhguru" except this individual.Qualitist(talk)15:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as Sadhguru same for Sadhguru Subrahmanyananda, but that's not the point here. The point is the wordSadguruand and all its forms are honorifics used in the names of many sages, and your or someone else not believing or seeing something doesn't change the ground realities. I am sure you can find better sources in linguistic literature explaining the "addition of H after T and D" in Indian languages, than the link for discussion I gave above. --DBigXrayᗙ15:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to see the difference: when followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as just "Sadhguru", it is similar to me calling my dad "Father". When people around the world, whether or not they are avid followers of Jaggi, call him "Sadhguru", they use it as a single-word name for him. Most of the people who call him "Sadhguru" don't even know it's an honorific. It's the onlynameby which they know him!Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS.I should further disclose that I am not a follower of Sadhguru. I've heard his lectures, I've learned from him and I've disagreed with some of his ideas. So the only stake I have in this is Wikipedia policy, specificallyWP:COMMONNAME.I'm a firm believer inWP:BOLDand inWP:IAR;however, I also believe that one should have a very good reason to ignore a guideline, and a very,verygood reason to ignore a policy. There is no such reason in the RM nor here at MRV. The excruciatingly constructed community consensus of COMMONNAME should take precedence in this case.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please speak only for yourself and avoid making sweeping claims such as"When people around the world," and "Most of the people who call him" Sadhguru "don't even know it's an honorific. It's the only name by which they know him!".Everyone who is familiar with Indian languages knows whatSadhguruactually means. Enough evidence has been presented that he is known as Jaggi Vasudev in the reliable independent media both National and International.
Please speak only for yourself and avoid making sweeping claims...
Why the double standard? Why should I behave any differently than you? No one editor dictates what happens here; Wikipedia policy, which reflects the consensus of the community, is clear on what should be done.But hey, why let facts come in front of a good story.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there18:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have presented my personal opinion based on my own experience with Sadhguru; however, there is no way that I would ever presume that the whole world shares my opinion. It is suspicious that you would even think such a thing. It is obvious that there is no changing your mind and that you are dead set on violating Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that if there are two or more contenders for COMMONNAME, then that common name must be decided by consensus. That was done in the RM, and that consensus was completely ignored in the close of the RM. The policy's community consensus guides us to rename the article to "Sadhguru". YourWP:I don't like itsare noted and should also be ignored.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, consensus is not a nose count, it's a rationale count. And the rationales that cited policy, the COMMONNAME policy and community consensus, should have determined the outcome. Since that consensus was ignored in the closing statement, the close was not reasonable and was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's COMMONNAME article title policy.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:do you have source for your information that the "followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as Sadhguru same for Sadhguru Subrahmanyananda"?It may seem like you are vehemently opposing RM because you feel that" Sadhguru "title belongs to these highly non notable individuals since you are using unsubstantiated unreliable offline sources to argue against reliable sources.Qualitist(talk)10:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages.Yes, and that's not disputed. But what's phonetically the same forIndian languagesis not relevant to COMMONNAME, which requires us to look at usage inEnglishreliable sources. And in English RS Sadhguru is used exclusively to refer to this one yogi, often as a name, not as an honorific. There is ZERO BASIS for the claim that Sadhguru is used as a generalWP:HONORIFICinEnglishRS. This was recognized in the RM by a majority of the participants who!voted in favor of the proposal, but then was overridden by the closer's supervote, which is why it needs to be overturned. --В²C☎19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral independent English language media, which "mostly" refers to him as Jaggi Vasudev, "sometimes" refers to Jaggi Vasudev as "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" and then Sadhguru for brevity. Just because there are instances of its use does not make it a common name. The usage of his name "Jaggi Vasudev" is far more than the usage of "Sadhguru" ( an alt spelling ofSadguru) which as shown above with multiple examples is infact a honorific. Both of us have made our points and we can agree to disagree with each other on this. --DBigXrayᗙ19:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue and is just re-arguing your original opposition in the RM. It was heard and soundly rejected by a consensus of the participants. The closer ignored that local consensus, agreed with you and a few others, and supervoted accordingly instead of recognizing that consensus. That's why the close needs to be overturned. --В²C☎20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NOTVOTE provides basis to discount or dismiss "A 'vote' that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale". But all of the support "votes" were based on COMMONNAME implicitly if not explicitly. Last I checked COMMONNAME was reasonable rationale in RM decisions. There was no basis to give the support "votes" less consideration, but the closer did in his supervote, and that's why it needs to be overturned. --В²C☎21:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately admins who deal with closures, as was in this case, are also aware how to treat!votes that merely invokeWP:JUSTAPOLICYwithout providing justification or solid evidence for it. The admins are also granted their discretion to make decisions. Hence the closure was perfectly valid and rightly endorsed. --DBigXrayᗙ21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this close and Move Review of it is so important. While everyone understands and respects the discretion admins have to override local consensus when that consensus is contrary to policy, it's not supposed to be a blank check to supervote whatever an admin may feel is right. To dismiss the majority position based on a fundamental policy like COMMONNAME in favor of a minority position based on a dubious application of a style guideline like HONORIFIC (dubious because there clearly was no consensus that the term in question was even an honorific in this context, and there was consensus that it was a name, and the most commonly used name in RS) is exactly the kind of thing admins are not supposed to do, and this MR should make clear. --В²C☎22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation against the closer that his move was inappropriate is not unanimously supported. Your own opinion of "clear consensus to move" on the basis of nose counting appears to me as a violation of NOTVOTE. The way some of the editors have treated Erik above is really appalling, and at the very least Erik deserves an apology from them.--DBigXrayᗙ10:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This review is not about the closer in any way, shape nor form. The closer is an experienced, trusted admin. Unfortunately, here at Move review, it is commonly shown that even experienced admins can make mistakes. As for the move, there was no move, was there? No. The decision in the close was that the discussion yielded a consensus tonot move.Please state your facts more clearly, because you have shown a tendency to include little twists in your responses. Thank you for keeping your focus on the RM close rather than on the closer or other editors who participate here.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha,Paine Ellsworth.The Yogurt Principle does not really apply here since there is no history of "no consensus" RM results, but some of it still does apply. Certainly the part about determining community consensus based on how well arguments are founded in policy and guidelines is applicable here, but that's just standardWP:CONSENSUSdetermination stuff. The main point at YP is situations where there is no apparent local consensus (counting!votes it's about even), that community consensus can still be determined. But in this situation we had a strong local consensus... supporting the proposal. This supervote close was far more radical than anything promoted by the Yogurt Principle. I hope you see that. --В²C☎23:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right. The YP covers cases where policy and guidelines have a clear answer to the naming dispute (and the answer is invariably that the article should be moved elsewhere) but repeated attempts to gather local consensus for it fail to ever achieve the numbers in support required. The other classic case wasNew York (state),which took years and years before it finally left its previous home at the base nameNew York.The one thing you know about YP cases is that once moved, there will never be the slightest possibility of the article going back to the old name again. In this case it's the first attempt to move the article, but as the proposed target is the clearWP:COMMONNAME,the policy basis is there and the numbers were there too. If this MRV ends up upholding the close, then we may end up back here again in a year's time, and the yogurt cycle might really be in motion. Whereas if it is moved to Sadhguru, that would probably be the final home. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)23:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I addedNew York (state)to the list of examples. It's a good one because per the traditional interpretation of PrimaryTopic there is no PT for "New York" and so it should have been disambiguated. And that's obvious as there is no PT or any other basis to move it back now, which is the point of YP. Plus, what a history of no consensus decisions. And a terrible Move Review reversal to boot. Yeah, great example. Relevance here: editors should have identified community consensus favoring the move to New York (state) in any one of the earlier moves (because no primary topic), just like the closer should have recognized community consensus favoring this move in his close (because COMMONNAME). --В²C☎00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
mmm, that's why I said the close needed "a little" yogurt (mainly said it just to get a "ha ha" from you and lighten things up). The epic "battle" forNew York (state)should long be remembered in the annals of Wikipedia. This particular battle is "epic" only because some editors can't seem to see how the strength of policy and the community consensus behind it does not depend on how well nor badly editors describe and apply it in a local debate. The COMMONNAME policy stands well all on its own. It specifically calls for a local consensus in this case. There was a local consensus to rename the article to "Sadhguru", and that consensus was ignored in the close. The policy requires us tooverturn this RM closeand rename the article to its consensus-chosen title.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To append to the list of Sadhgurus that I listed above, here are some more reliable sources and the names they refer to.
Self published and poor quality sources like "Shree Paramhans Swami Adgadanandji Ashram Trust", "Radhasoami Satsang", "Srī Prāṇanātha Miśana" are not "reliable sources" but they vehemently failWP:RS.These sources don't discuss anyWP:NOTABLEperson and they also don't recognize anyone else who is known by single name "Sadhguru" like Jaggi Vasudev.Qualitist(talk)00:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WhatQualitistsaid PLUS even if these were legit citations of Sadhguru references to notable people other than Jaggi Vasudev in English RS, they would be for re-arguing the RM, not for evaluating the supervote close. But it's revealing to know that one of the two leading Supporters in the original RM still apparently doesn't understand the relevance of usage in reliable English sources to determiningWP:COMMONNAME.Explains much. --В²C☎00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The person who closes this MRV will see this as what it is – a filibuster-type attempt to reargue the RM. No one has said that "Sadhguru" is not a type of honorific, just that this subject uses it as his "nickname", his alternative name. The facts remain that no one can find anyone else in the world who goes by the name "Sadhguru", nobody else but this subject. And that there was obvious consensus in the RM to retitle the article to "Sadhguru" in accord with the COMMONNAME article-titling policy.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there18:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First you make frivolous claim, questions based on your flawed understanding about the word "Sadhguru" and when your claims and questions are responded to with examples and solid evidences then you claim that the comment is irrelevant to the MRV discussion and call it filibuster. Why raise questions when you don't have the ability to take the response. It is becoming amusing and funny now.
Paine, if you remove your Sadhguru spectacles you will be able to see the several examples I listed above of folks being known by the name Sadhguru. Anyway it's not up to me to make someone see the obvious, By putting all these examples on record, I have made this very clear, why it is Honorific and why so many others are also called by this name. --DBigXrayᗙ18:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray,now you're just being incoherent. Nobody said those particular sources are unreliable. Nobody knows what "frivolous claim" or "flawed understanding" you're talking about. It's not even clear what your "examples and solid evidences" are supposed to support. You still have not shown an example of Sadhguru used as a name in a reliable English source to refer to anyone other than the one and only Sadhguru known as Sadhguru in reliable English sources. If there is one somewhere in your wall of noise, sorry, I missed it. --В²C☎21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the above mini-discussion is helpful; the facts aren't really in dispute. I think the RM is pretty clear about the these; hopefully they are not controversial: e.g. 1.)Sadhguruas a rarely used romanization ofसद्गुरु.2.) This spelling is used, but only rarely (and yes, all your snark aside B2C, in WP:RS), for people other than the subject. 3.) Subject and his PR apparatus useSadhgurualmost exclusively; in other words, if you just look at non-independent sources, this is likeLorde.4.)Independentsources use the name roughly as often as they use the honorificSadhguru.(Many times they use both.) 5.) More people at the RM wanted to useSadhguruas the title. 6.) The article had been atJaggi Vasudevfor over a decade.
As an aside: from there, I considered COMMONNAME (which says to look atindependentsources) along with WP:HONORIFICS which suggests not using honorifics unless you have a Lorde- or Mother Teresa-like situation (and some other exceptions whichdon't applyand LOCALCONSENSUS. Given that I have explained this already, the rhetorical tactic of referring to this continually as a supervote (that word appears more than 15 times on this page) is kind of weird and obnoxious; I suppose that kind of behavior is par for the course in titling discussions. I've also noted that perhaps a no-consensus close would have been appropriate: clearly there was a lot of enthusiasm at the RM for disregarding HONORIFICS and the "independent sources" clause of COMMONNAME in this case, and I don't want to discount that. I do not think there was enough enthusiasm, however, to override the policy arguments/TITLECHANGES/etc, so I do not think a close of "move" would be appropriate.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)21:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No argument with #1. And #2 has me at a loss. The name and spelling "Sadhguru", while used as an honorific for people other than the subject, is nowhere shown to be used as a single-word name for those other people – "Sadhguru" is always placed before their names. In the case of this subject, he is the only one who goes by "Sadhguru" as a single-word name. #3, yes Sadhguru is a bit like Lorde. It is a pseudonym by which the subject is called. #4 is the part of the COMMONNAME policy that you missed, because in a case like you describe in #4, COMMONNAME's guidance is to fall back on consensus, which, as you show in #5 was to rename the article to "Sadhguru". #6 only applies if the close is "no consensus", but you saw a consensus to not move when the actual consensus was clearly to move the page to "Sadhguru".Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2: I'm just saying that it is clear that it is an alternative romanization. I mean, at the very least, that is where the name came from. He spells itसद्गुरुon his site, etc. #2 doesn't preclude the theory that we should treat it as a nickname instead here on Wikipedia; I realize that there is disagreement on *that* point.ErikHaugen(talk|contribs)21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to find community consensus based on policy when there is no consensus among the participants, but quite another to decide consensus is opposite of clear participant consensus that is based on policy. In any such case I think the closer would be best advised to weigh in on the discussion; closing counter to the clear participant consensus based on policy is not justified, goes way beyond closer discretion into the supervote realm, and is exactly what happened in this RM. --В²C☎23:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There are sometimes cases where it is appropriate for an admin to close against the numbers, if policy/guidelines are crystal clear, and the majority opinion is simply based on false reasoning. That blatantly isn't the case here. There are very valid reasons given for supporting the move, and by people experienced in article title issues as well. I'm sorry that the closer feels the supervote comments are "obnoxious"; like I said above, I am not questioning their integrity - there is no doubt the close was made in good faith. But equally there is little room for doubt, from an objective standpoint, that this meets the first of the conditions described inWP:SUPERVOTE:"A discussion has concluded for a particular action, based on solid policy reasoning, but a minority takes a different view that has less backing".The closer's points here should have been made in an oppose vote, not in an impartial reading of the discussion. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)08:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this die down, too, and yet it's those who support your close that keep filibustering after a few days, so admins will think the MRV is still active. It's as if they think they might "lose"; however, when policies like COMMONNAME are ignored, Wikipedia is the only loser.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more uninvolved editors weigh in, though at this point we're asking a lot of anyone to read all the stuff (not to mention the original RM) many of us are guilty of adding on here, as I write even moreso. --В²C☎
This may be a situation where a three-editor closing panel would be helpful; any close by a single editor is likely to be called a super-vote.power~enwiki(π,ν)17:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rename- Consensus was established that the subject is morecommonly knownas "Sadhguru" and happens to be the only notable person who is known as "Sadhguru". Obfuscating these facts with Hindi spellings is clearly against the policy, which relies solely on English languageWP:RS.Shivkarandholiya12(talk)17:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseI know absolutely nothing about this guy but wandered here somehow. This is obviously contentious, but I've read through the close and think the closer got this one spot on: there's no consensus on what COMMONNAME actually is in this case.SportingFlyertalk09:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing editor was not aware of community consensus because requesting editor did not notify affected or interested projects/articles.
The closing on 22 Oct was based on the input of just four editors. No article or project notifications were posted. I became aware of this when a discussion was opened at Project:Automobiles.[[24]] Based on that discussion it was clear that the project members were not aware of this change and support was lacking.
To initially challenge the closing as well as to show the level of community support for the change I opened up a discussion asking about moving the category name back from Cars to Automobiles on 26 Oct [[25]]. This discussion opened with a discussion of the previously closed move so the context was clear. Notifications were posted atTalk:Car,Category:Cars,Project:AutomobilesandProject:Transport.With about 20 editors responding the breakdown was about evenly split and a no-consensus closing. If the original discussion had notified the wider community it's clear there would not have been consensus for the move. I'm requesting the closing be reversed (or seen as no consensus based on the second discussion with wider participation) and the category name reverted to what it had been since being established in 2006.
I suspect I didn't follow the correct procedures throughout this challenge this but I've never previously challenged a closing much less a category move closing so please for give procedural errors here.Springee(talk)20:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close– MR does not deal with categories, only RMs. Move toWP:DRV.In any case, this isWP:FORUMSHOPPING.We just had a second CfD, which determined that there was no consensus to move the 'cars' category to 'automobiles'.RGloucester—☎22:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of procedures, per wp:refactor adding content to a post after someone replies should be done carefully. Your edit here [[26]] added an accusation of bad faith that I would have replied to had it been part of the text when I posted. You should also disclose that you are involved as the editor who posted the move being protested.Springee(talk)22:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will do no such thing. Your 'bad faith', crass disdain for policy, guidelines, and procedure of any kind, have been apparent since the moment I first encountered you. That's about as much as I'm willing to say to you now. In meantime, we've got an old CfD being discussed at MR, when no CfD has ever been discussed at MR...lovely!RGloucester—☎23:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with User:RGloucester, this is perfectly fine to review here. It doesn’t belong at DRV becuase there is no deletion angle. Not FORUMSHOPPING because this is the logical escalation if someone feels unsatisfied, better to review here than at any other page. —SmokeyJoe(talk)23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.I agree with RGloucester; however, we're here, it's now, let's do it. CfD is the place to discuss category page moves. There is no requirement to advertise the discussion; however, since the usual bot notifications aren't used, the nom has a legitimate grievance. Another way to see the "no consensus" of the second discussion is that because there was no agreement, the consensus of the first discussion should be honored for now. Editors can return to this issue next April or so to again try and garner consensus for reversion back toCategory:Automobiles.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there03:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't normal procedure to revert to the long standing version of well anything in Wikipedia when a no-consensus is reached? THe problem with a lack of notification in this case is it affects a lot of articles/projects.Springee(talk)03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that was a "consensus" of just 4 editors. When the number of involved editors was increased to 20 the same question resulted in no consensus.Springee(talk)04:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, we are not here to discuss a category move, but a discussion and it’s close. Interestingly, I find the essence of the dispute here is exactly the same as atWikipedia:Move_review#World_Heritage_site.Does a later better-participated “no consensus” devalue the earlier less-participated “consensus”? —SmokeyJoe(talk)04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To that specific question I would say... it depends. How much time? If the gap in time is long enough to say something is "the new consensus", I've been told that would typically be about 6 weeks, then I would say the smaller consensus would count as the last stable consensus.Springee(talk)04:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking the same thing in regard to October's MR. And just like that one, the second RM in this case came way too soon after a clear consensus to move. And just like that one, the "no consensus" outcome of the second, out-of-process RM clearly means that there is no agreement to revert the earlier consensus. So again, I see this as a consensus to move followed by no-consensus to revert that move. I could be wrong.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there04:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS.Should add that there is a third resemblance to the October MR, which is that both discussions were closed by trusted admins, the first closed with a consensus to move the category page, and the second closed with no consensus to revert that page move.PS added byPaine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Original NameThe second discussion only 4 days after the first made it clear that that there was not a community consensus for the change at the time it was made. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, if a title has been stable for a long time it shouldn't be changed without consensus. This is also supported by WP:NOCONSENSUS which says when there is no consensus for the change we revert back to the long term stable version. If we keep the new title then, in effect, just four editors will change a title that has been stable for 12 years. If in fact they are correct and the change should be sustained they can try again in 6 months with proper notification.Springee(talk)03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.There was a CFD to move the categories to "cars" that was successful thena CFD to move back to "automobiles"which was unsuccessful. Thus, the status quo ( "cars" ) should stand for the moment. If at some point in the future (and I would recommend leaving it at least 3 months) a strong argument can be made that "automobiles" is better then those arguments should be presented at a CFD.DexDor(talk)07:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the two are only 4 days apart and the second one specifically asks about the first why would we accept the option of just 4 editors vs 20?Springee(talk)10:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And despite the 20 editors there was no consensus to move back, after the clear consensus to move. As noted its unlikely to be moved back as long as the article is atCar.Crouch, Swale(talk)13:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But when more than the original 4 editors weighted in it became clear there was no consensus to move. The question here is should a move request that involved just 4 editors and no outside notification outweigh a larger discussion that occurred just a few days later, notified impacted articles/projects and did, very clearly, ask if the original move was valid or would have been supported. The second CfD did ask if the original move was supported. It was not and should be seen as such. You should also not that you were one of the four editors from the first CfD and this an involved editor.Springee(talk)13:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, the arguments for "Automobiles" appear to be rather weak, the side wanting "Cars" cited relevant guidelines specifying that it is usual for the article and category to match and RGloucester gave extensive arguments and sources for favouring Cars. If anything it should have been closed as "no consensus to move" meaning stronger arguments were presented keeping it at Cars that moving back to Automobiles.Crouch, Swale(talk)13:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseasCategory:CarsThe arguments that it 1) matches the articleCar(which was moved as a result of a RM in 2014) 2) "Car" is more common globally. The arguments that 1) "Cars" is ambiguous were responded that it is overwhelmingly primary and that its only ambiguous because its a more common term, thus other topics (like the film) have been names "Cars" not "Automobiles" because of this (although that was countered). 2) "Cars" can mean other types of veichels, while "Automobiles", was argued against that "Automobiles" is actually more ambiguous. Thus I think the policies and consensus was correct and that (except for extra disambiguation and a slightly different scope) we use the same name as the article and that CFD isnotthe place to continue the general name debate, that belongs at a new RM for the article.Crouch, Swale(talk)12:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.RM1, clear consensus, 4 users unanimous and the closer who I am sure would agree with the rationale. Categories should follow the parent article, this simple rule is why CfD renames are not controversial. RM2, although better participated, was probably so because someone created excitement, and that discussion was a mess, and did not invalidate the previous textbook rename to follow the parent article. —SmokeyJoe(talk)14:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that argument relates to the closing vs the issue I've raised here. The issue here is that the first closing lacked wider community input. The second one did and reached a different conclusion. As you said, the question is should a limited consensus take president over a larger discussion that reached a different conclusion once wider input was sought.Springee(talk)14:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of arguments in RM2 to move back we’re unimpressive. Arguments that speak to the title of the article “Car”should be discounted. Multiple participants pointed out how categories take their title from the parent article. You massively badgered in the discussion, but ignored the most compelling arguments. —SmokeyJoe(talk)22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing the process or the previous discussion? It was also noted that categories do not have to be tied to an article and that the category "Automobile" per@Dennis Brown:'s comment. That seemed to be the only argument for the change. Remember, the MR2 specifically asked about restoration and in context of the closer from 4 days earlier. Would it have been better to just request the old one be reopened? My concern is that currently we have no consensus so we default to previous stable. If we don't then the new title becomes "stable" even though it didn't have a true consensus. It's a weaselly way to make a change that caused concern that will result in some topics being dropped out of what used to be category: automobile. For instance, SUVs aren't cars but they are automobiles. A simple rename shouldn't result in such issues.Springee(talk)22:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with SmokeyJoe on taking this toTalk:Car.Categories may nothave tobe tied to an article, but doing so is standard practice. This was the single issue in both discussion (in which I participated, for that matter) and no good arguments were given to counter this. The point that SUVs are not cars is moot, because that same argument applies to both article title and category title.
In order to proceed in a constructive way, there are three good alternatives:
It seems this is where it will have to go. However this also illustrates the problem with the original move request. Look who has replied here, the editors involved with this board, not the larger audience that participated in RM2. This is why it was so problematic that none of the impacted articles/projects were notified. Thatis a problem.Again the claims of weak "for" arguments made by those opposed didn't mean much. About half the editors were not convinced. The closing said no consensus but nothing about either side having a lesser case so those claimsshouldn'thave any weight here. Furthermore, per the rules here the quality of those arguments don't come into play since that would, only if the greater participation of RM2 is sufficient up overturn the 4 editors who agreed to make the change. Consider this, we are saying the opinion of just 4 editors should supercede that of 20. Anyway, even though article Car and category Carsdon't have to be tied together (certainly they aren't based on how category:automobile was used in practice) perhaps the best solution is to deal with the screwy article hierarchy.Springee(talk)15:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe didn't participate in either CFD and agreed that it is the article, not category that needs debating. Its unlikely that the category will go elsewhere now, since the article has been stable for over 4 years.Crouch, Swale(talk)21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseclosure of RM2 as "no consensus";Neutralon the closure of RM1. Had RM1 been publicized to involved editors, it would likely also have been closed as no consensus - thereby leaving the names unchanged - so one could make a case for overturning it.
But there are two primary issuesat handunderpinning this debate:
The title of the automobile/car article, which should be discussed atTalk:Car
I don't believe this is a suitable venue to discuss these issues at this time, as the category naming is secondary to the above (despite the fact that, based on some comments that were previously made elsewhere, that the category renaming may have been a back-door means of changing the status quo of point #2 without discussion). --Sable232(talk)21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t forget the default issue at hand. “DidUser:Jc37correctly close the discussion?”
I think he did, although as always I wish closers would use more words when closing contentious discussions, summarise the discussion and explain why that is the close. —SmokeyJoe(talk)21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe CFD#1 was invalid, while I understand and accept that the project should have been notified (though it was on the Article Alerts and I was not the nom).Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletiondoesn't suggest that its required. Not only was the CFD open for nearly 12 days but it was also listed at CFDS for a further 5. That suggests we gave more than enough time. If this was over the main articleCarthat might be a bit different, but the article is highly visible anyway so manual notification would probably be unnecessary.Crouch, Swale(talk)21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see your side on this remember that the objective should be to make sure impacted editors/articles are notified. The fact that people who watch or are members of Project: automobile weren't aware certainly suggests the notification want adequate. Heck, with a category name like "automobile" I had assumed the category and project were the linked entities. Anyway, I would hope that even those who are happy with the final outcome can agree that had RM1 had wider notification we wouldn't be here.Springee(talk)01:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, as has been said before, projects have no special control over pages within their scope. There is no requirement to notify projects. Notification was by definition 'adequate', as the letter and spirit of the instructions for filing a CfD were followed in this case. The category renaming did appear in the WP Automobiles article alerts, and was listed in all the usual places where CfDs are listed. Your continued portrayal of my nomination as being somehow 'covert', lacking 'adequate' notification is a canard that I wish you'd stop repeating. Again, no notification was required, perWP:CFD.RGloucester—☎02:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But notifying a project would be an obvious thing to do. You can claim you followed the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit. If you had the editors such as myself who watch project: automobile but notcarwouldn't have been caught if guard. I didn't say it was covert. I have no idea what discussion you had with whom. What I showered was that with more notification, just project automobile and project transportation, the outcome of a move discussion would have been much different. It was only "covert" if your lack of notification was intentional to avoid scrutiny. Perhaps the CfD guidelines should be changed to ensure better notification and avoid situations like this in the future.Springee(talk)03:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an 'obvious thing to do'. Projects are basically groups of editors with the same interests...they have no special control over article content, categories, or anything else. There is no reason to specially notify such groups, as the members of such projects have no more authority than any other editor, and do not haveWP:OWNERSHIPover specific tracts of articles, which is why there is no requirement to notify them. Notification is provided to the broader Wikipedia editorial base at the category page, at the CfD page, and in the article alerts of projects that have tagged the relevant category or article. This is what is called for by our policy & guidelines, and this is what was done. The outcome of the discussion in both cases was the same. Consensus to move away from 'automobiles', and no consensus to move away from 'cars'. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this. It's impossible to argue that there was anything wrong with either the nomination or closures. If you are concerned about the 'merits' of such a move, then the correct path forward is to propose a new move.RGloucester—☎03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 24 subcategories under what was category:automobiles. How many articles are in those 24 categories? What are the chances that quite a number of impacted articles/editors had no idea that you had proposed changing the category name? CfD specifically offers notification suggestions and says that you should consider notifying related projects etc.[[27]]. If I understand you correctly you notified NONE of them. Not one but you say your notification was within the spirit of the rules.Springee(talk)03:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it says atWP:CFD:'In addition to the steps listed above,you may chooseto invite participation by editors...' I notified none, because none needed notification. I deemed the standard notification sufficient, and it was. There is no requirement for a special notification for WikiProjects. Such a requirement has been rejected by community consensus many times, as Crouch, Swale noted above. I've said my bit...enough is enough. Let the uninvolved editors determine whether my actions were inappropriate.RGloucester—☎03:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, 24 subcategories. How many tagged articles? You chose to informnoneof them. You were obviously wrong about "sufficient" since almost immediately after your closing people were upset with the lack of notification. You followed the rules but not the spirit regardless of your protests to the contrary.Springee(talk)04:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone was informed via the listing at CfD, and by article alerts. In any case, no one was 'upset', other than maybe you, and such 'upset-ness' is not rooted in policy and guidelines, and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. No one can claim to be surprised by this change; the article has been stable at 'car' since the 2014 RM. This was a routineWP:C2Dmove, nothing else. I will not quicken your fire any longer.RGloucester—☎04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not "everyone" [[28]]. It doesn't even appear that there were article alerts. You can be dismissive of the views of other editors but that doesn't mean your notification was sufficient. Any reasonable editor can see that you failed to notify editors who per the spirit of the rules should have been. Certainly the editors at project:Automobile can reasonable claim to be surprised. No mater how many times you claim otherwise, all one has to do is read the replies to the MR2 to realize that your outcome would have been different had you notified obvious groups like the projects that link to the articleCar.Springee(talk)04:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hereis the listing at article alerts. There is NO need to specially notify ANYONE. The rules are clear. I cannot have 'failed' to do something that isn't necessary. Why don't you ever read what anyone is writing to you? Why? Move review is meant to be a review by uninvolved parties of the relevant closing. Involved parties should not be bickering in this absurd and useless way. Please stop!RGloucester—☎05:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a problem. Many editors, myself included are not project members. Instead we watch the page. Those alerts don't notify watchers assuming that your CfD notification appeared there. None of your claims of keeping with the spirit of the rules mean much when a whole thread that seemed to be you vs the rest was started here [[29]]. How about this... why did my notification to the same three places (the article and the two project pages) result in 20 replies while yours got just 4? You claim to have notified the projects. I did notify the projects. The difference in participation numbers makes the difference clear.Springee(talk)05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't 'claim to have notified the projects', because, as I have pointed out tens of times, the projects do not need notification. No more replies from me. If you reply to this, I will request an interaction ban. I really cannot take this any longer.RGloucester—☎05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Threats aren't needed here and no one is forcing you to reply. We don't agree but this can be a civil discussion. I've pointed out a big gap in the notification process. You can say it's not a problem but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have this issue in the first place?Springee(talk)06:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'discussion'. The point of move reviews is for uninvolved editors to discuss the close. It is not a forum for involved parties to 'discuss'. I am obliged to respond to any falsehoods, canards, or personal attacks you issue forth, but otherwise, neither of us should really be saying anything here at all. And so it should be. Enough is enough. Follow the MR process, sit back, and let uninvolved editors decide whether the relevant procedure was followed.RGloucester—☎06:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted the category rename should have happened in 2014 as a result of the article rename. That didn't happen because a user disagreed with the RM outcome. The only thing that has changed since 2014 is that ambiguous categories can't be moved under C2D. If the category had have been moved in 2014 then we wouldn't have had this anyway. I do still accept that a manual notification was not issued to the project was not ideal, but as noted 1 this is not required and 2 the rename should never have been controversial anyway, never mind the CFD being invalid consensus.Crouch, Swale(talk)18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen those. They appear to be tied to the name of the article vs the category. It looks like even the article renaming was questioned due to the short period of time allowed for comments (one week vs one month for a typical RfC). I was thinking about a previous CfD regarding the same name change.Springee(talk)18:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 RM was open for over 8 days[30][31].The 1st CFD was open for over 11 days (with an additional 5 days at CFDS). The 2nd CFD was open for around 3 weeks. The standard time for a RM, just like CFD, AFD etc is 7 days. Controversial or complicated cases tend to be open longer (unless consensus is clear, which I think it was reasonably). If the article was atAutomobileand we got the category moved toCategory:CarsfromCategory:Automobileswhile the article was still at "Automobile" then I could see the point about lack of notification making (by common sense) such a CFD invalid but when the article is at Car and the categoryshouldhave been renamed procedurally years ago, it seems a bit excessive to argue that. I'd suggest the way forward here is either to start a RM forCarto go back toAutomobileor to propose splitting the article orcategory.I can't see either of those likely though.Crouch, Swale(talk)19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close– the 2nd one should have been raised atWP:DRV.I suppose the nominator is keeping DRV for the 23rd effort to overturn this perfectly valid and procedurally scrupulous matching of the article name and the category name.Oculi(talk)23:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closeThere's several issues flying around in this. In summary 1 This is an entirely appropriate venue to review a CFD naming discussion,as determined before the opening. 2 The speedy naming proposal really should have been processed - the argument that it had been objected to four years earlier is a poor one as there was spillover from the main article RM and the simple fact of years past objections should not prevent a speedy alignment years later when things are more distant. 3 The original discussion was open for longer than usual - I can't recall why I didn't close it myself after 7 days - but is straightforward and all in order. There is no requirement for a proposer to notify categories or the main article talkpage. 4 The category talkpage already has the WikiProject Automobiles banner and the projectwas notified via Article Alerts,which is a standard automatic system for projects to receive neutral notification of discussions. If people are not following or looking at Article Alerts that is not the fault of either the proposer or the closer. 5 WikiProject Transport does not have a banner on the category talkpage. WikiProjectsdo not ownarticles or categories but can express an interest. If they're not doing so then they can't claim any notification at all. 6 The original discussion close is fully in order. The only objection was raised at Speedy and was a procedural one; the objections from 2014 did not reappear and all contributions on the main page were in support. 7 There are always problems when a user who disagrees with a discussion outcome simply opens a new one instead of first discussing things with the original closer and then seeking a review. Other users assume a never-ending discussion until people get their way and don't always contribute as much. If the discussion ends in no consensus the opening user assumes that this will overturn the prior move but in fact it's upholding it. This is why we have processes to review discussions that might have gone wrong rather than just simply restarting them. 8 The convention that categories should conform to the naming of their main article and not instead become a second battleground for contentious names is strongly set set down in criteria and numerous precedents. The second discussion simply didn't carry a clear rationale to set aside that in this case. 9 The underlying problem is with the article title and redirects. For all the assertions in the discussion that "car" and "automobile" have different meanings, there's a single article on the subject that treats them as synonymous under one name with the other redirecting there. That's why a lot of the arguments in the second discussion cut little muster - they're really about the article title. 10 The best thing to do for now is endorse the close, keep the article & category at the same name and recommend that anyone who things it should be automobiles should start with the article location.Timrollpickering15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With 7, I didn't think that it was common to re-open a discussion closed correctly, however this is being discussed atWikipedia talk:Consensus#Enacted discussions.The problem with re-opening a closed discussion is things get messy and it can be forum shopping, since those wanting the move have to get consensus again (or at least overall for the later discussion).Crouch, Swale(talk)15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare to reopen/relist but it's certainly been done, both by (initial) closers and MRV. Certainly an admin extending the initial discussion is a more effective approach than someone just starting new discussions with uncertainty and disputes over what a no consensus outcome means.Timrollpickering20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7 isn't quite correct. As another editor also noted, based on the RM2 it was clear this wasn't a discussion about "should we change the status quo", it was a referendum on the RM1. I can see how people would say, "we have to stick with our process". However, a unbiased read of RM2 shows that when the question is presented as "A or B" we got a no-consensus. Anyway, even though the category and article had different names for 4 years it appears that the ultimate ruling here is that the two should be the same (they still aren't but the difference is just the Car vs Cars).Springee(talk)17:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where they made that assertion with that phrase or that everyone agreed, which is one of the reasons why initiating a new discussion in quick succession isn't the best approach - is it a review of the previous one or is it a new move to change the title or what? (And the difference between articles at the singular form and categories at the plural is extremely minor in the scheme of things.)Timrollpickering20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close per SNOW:Contrary to@Oculi:questionable accusation, no I'm not going to re-litigate this category change. Since the path forward was never clear I had always planned to simply show that RM1 didn't reflect community consensus (that was done with RM2) and then use the results to request a reversal. That has been done. Consensus, as I read it, is the rules for RM1 were followed (though several agree that notification was the minimum required) and that even though RM2 had better participation, only a consensus to reverse would be sufficient to overturn RM1. I think it's wrong but I will respect the views of the uninvolved editors.Springee(talk)17:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
My discussion with closing editor shows that they don't understand what isWP:CONandWP:CLOSEand think that if enough people claim on talk page that "2+3=1000" then we should not be stating "2+3=5". Frayae believes in head count overWP:RSandWP:COMMONNAMEwhen both policies supported the proposed title "Gandhara art" to be 5 times morecommon name[33]and all reliable sources state that both names "Greco-Buddhist art" and "Gandhara art" are interchangeable.[34][35][36][37][38][39]
Frayae has failed to refute these facts. Head count is completely irrelevant becausesupportingeditors like me avoided RM since strong arguments had been already made.Razer(talk)18:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.It came out in the discussion on the closer's talk page that the close was actually "no consensus to move" rather than "consensus to not move". The close on the article's talk page could be altered toNo consensus(done); however, the outcome would be the same. The discussion on the closer's talk page should be enough to conclude that it would be okay for editors to return in a few weeks to try again to garner consensus for a page move. From the overall discussion, though, one might glean that to turn the redirectGandhara art,the target of the RM, into an article on that subject is a more feasible adventure.[Page move logs]Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there01:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to discuss interpretation of terminology used by a WMF banned sock. Would you describe how "no consensus" can be justified? We rely onWP:ATfor deciding the consensus, not POV pushing. Same opposing editors will continue saying that 2+2=5 whenever a page move will proposed again. Why do we have to waste time entertaining a non-argument which is not supported by anyWP:RS?2 of the 4 opposes were mostly discussing conduct of proposing editor, not the page move. Do you describe that asconsensus?Why we should not move the page to the more common name and keep contradicting reliable sources and policies?Lorstaking(talk)02:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we are here, theonlyreason, is to decide if the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. My endorsment is clear, and I see no benefit in rearguing the merits of the requested move debate. Best to you!Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there03:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is extended content. Click "[hide]" to collapse.
It was not "reasonable" because it was closed by a ban evading sock who never understood what is a consensus. Not only that, the sock has nowhere clarified that quality of argument matters in page move discussion. That is not "consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines", but in fact opposite to all of them.
Closures made by ban evading socks are disregarded because we discourage block evasion. It is pretty common to see non-policy based supervote from ban evading socks, such as this closure.Lorstaking(talk)04:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, okay, against my better judgement I will comment that I was very surprised byCheckUserand by the closer's,Frayae's subsequent block, because that editor has made a lot of good decisions toward improvement of Wikipedia. So I still support the close as "reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines". And lest we forget, the nominator who requested the page move has also been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, andit's not the first time.That's a path we all should be careful not to trod.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there04:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about "a lot of good decisions" because we are discussing closure made by the person who don't understand what is a consensus. Nominator was not evading his block and I was the editor whosuggested himthe proposed page move. He simply followed the correctWP:COMMONNAME,which happens to be more common than the current name by a long shot.[40]That is something that our closing editor wasnot actually able to understand.I hope I was more clear this time.Lorstaking(talk)04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As during the original discussion, you continue to ignore the main argument there, which is that the two terms are not-sufficiently synonymous.Johnbod(talk)05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacksare not acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia, even if the person who is attacked is blocked. For your own good, I suggest you contain your comments to the subject at hand, which is the close of the requested move. You may be coming agonizingly close to being blocked yourself.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there08:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a personal attack here. You may want to retract your false accusations which is itself a personal attack. You really need to focus on the subject at hand in place of derailing it, given your endorsement is based on your personal view that closing "editor has made a lot of good decisions toward improvement of Wikipedia. So I still support the close".Lorstaking(talk)08:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of several personal attacks on your part in this discussion is your link above toWP:CIR.In that context you accuse the closer of incompetency, which is a blatant personal attack, and I will be more than happy to take action if your disruptive behavior continues. This is the last time I will ask you to please stay on track and discuss only the close of this requested move, not the closer or any other person involved.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there08:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several? This the only one you can find. As usual, that is not a personal attack and these "accusations" have been normal when it concerns the history of this editor. For making that easier for you, I should link to the siteban discussionregarding this editor,where people saw "massive WP:CIR issues here", "indef block for WP:CIR issues", and you can find more since entire thread was about it.Lorstaking(talk)08:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must concede that point; however, it still does not mean that this is an acceptable subject for discussion here at Move review, where we should focus only on the requested move's close as "no consensus". Anything else is extended content and off-topic.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that don't comply with the policies should be discounted. Only policy based arguments are counted. Oppose votes failed to provide reliable sources while support votes had tons. This is how I see clear consensus to move the page, because there was lack of sensible argument against the page move.Rzvas(talk)05:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ec. If you "clear consensus to move the page", I advise you to stop using the word consensus because you do not know what it means. The nomination was poorly considered, and the nominator is now blocked. There was a move to amend the proposal. There was clearly stated opposition. If you believe it needs a rename, wait two months, and then try again with a better prepared nomination statement than was used last time. --SmokeyJoe(talk)06:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An admin should re-close, but I think it must be a "no consensus" close. The discussion as it stood pre-close was such a mess that it should not be relisted, further discussion cannot turn it into a consensus. I further advise you to give up wikilawyering, it is unpersuasive. --SmokeyJoe(talk)06:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseas "no consensus" (as a participant in the first discussion). The supporters concentrated exclusively on COMMONNAME arguments, using only one of the spellings (Greco- not Graeco), and ignored the issue of whether the two subjects were the same, which was the main argument of the opposers. The nominationhere might mention that the nominator at the original RM has also been blocked as a sockpuppet.Johnbod(talk)05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has shown numerous reliable sources for backing their argument, while yours is just your personal opinion. "Greco" and "Graeco" are both largely uncommon compared "Gandhara art" or "Gandhara school of art". Either we should move toGandhara school of artorGandhara art,they are the two top choices. Current page title is very uncommon. Rest of your comment is also misleading as nominator was not "blocked as a sockpuppet".[41][42]Rzvas(talk)05:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SupportandmovetoGandhara artper policy based comments here and the page move discussion. It seems that oppose votes, like the above one (Johnbod) had no argument against the proposed page move and they resorted to what can be described as entirely absurd. We should avoid setting a precedent that we can't modify the article only because some POV pushers don't want us to.Rzvas(talk)05:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought arelistwould be a better option had this move involved arguments about POV title, honorific, or there was some dispute over common name. There was no such dispute with this page move. According to the policy, the page had to be moved toGandhara arteven if no one had supported proposed move because there were no arguments that could actually convince against the proposal. Even now, I am open to arelistas a compromise, but we will have to move anyway.Rzvas(talk)05:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseThe purpose of MRV is purely to evaluate the discussion and see if the close was appropriate; whether the closer is a sock has no bearing to whether the discussion has no consensus or a consensus to move etc (as a side note, Dysklyver is not WMF banned). There was clearly no consensus to move in the discussion, as the discussion was split on whether Gandhara art was a different topic from Greco-Buddhist art, and while those supporting the move brought sources in support of them being the same topic, those opposing brought sources too.Galobtter(pingó mió)09:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That change was consistent with the closer's wishes that wererevealed on their talk page,and it is also in line with the closer's statement at the RM, "There is no consensus at this time that Gandhara art is the same topic as Greco-Buddhist art." I left that unchanged except foremphasisof "no consensus". That appears to be consistent with what the closer meant. By all means, feel free to revert my edit if you disagree.Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there16:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist- the response to a sockpuppet of a banned user closing a discussion in violation of their ban is to revert the close, and either relist for more discussion or have someone who is part of this community re-close. No comment on the substance of the close as it is invalid.Ivanvector(Talk/Edits)14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you ask about the ban being in November? This is entirely a comment on the close itself: it needs to be redone by someone who isn't banned.Ivanvector(Talk/Edits)15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because for one thing, you haven't cited policy nor guideline to support your choice, and for another, we do not and never have focused on the closer at MRV. If a close is a good close, then it should be endorsed. Is it your intention to go back and revert all of the closes and other edits made by this user?Paine Ellsworth,ed.put'r there15:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free torevertany edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason andwithout regard to the three-revert rule.This does not mean that editsmustbe reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.
(edit conflict)The guidelines are variouslyWP:BANREVERT,WP:BMB,or thebanning policyin general. Had the discussion been closed by an editor under a topic ban from this subject, or who had participated in the discussion itself, we would have immediately vacated it. The fact that they closed the discussion in violation of a site ban makes the close invalid for the same reason, and yes, I do reopen discussions closed by sockpuppets of banned editors in many cases.
That being said, I see that this issue was raised quite a long time after the original request was closed, and indeed my own comment was made a pretty long time after discussion here had idled, and so my comment is probably not helping things, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to have raised the review in the first place. Consider my comment withdrawn.Ivanvector(Talk/Edits)16:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
