- Pennsylvania Dutch language(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
The closer only counted noses during the move request and did not evaluate the arguments against the move, which were far stronger, relying on the weight of reliable sources, than the arguments in favor of the move which relied only on the results of Google searches and anecdotal evidence.TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)10:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But you ignored the issue ofWP:PRECISIONwhich requires that a name be accurate and not ambiguous. The use of "Dutch" (which the language is not) in the article title when the vast majority of reliable sources use "German" (which the language is) is a violation of precision. So while you did, indeed, count noses and based your move solely on unreliable sources, you ignored reliable sources and the speakers themselves which indisputably use "Pennsylvania German" as the language name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated on my user talk, that's not whatWP:PRECISIONrequires. Both "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Pennsylvania German" are unambiguous terms and thus equally PRECISE. (t·c)buidhe11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Pennsylvania Dutch" is precise insofar as it refers unambiguously to one language. The fact that that term means something other than the sum of its parts makes it no less precise thanJerusalem artichokewhich, while neither an artichoke nor from Jerusalem, is precisely one thing. In fact, if one is going to invoke etymology in evaluating precision, "Pennsylvania Dutch language" ismoreprecise than "Dutch language" because "Dutch" itselfmeans"German" insofar as it comes from the German and Dutch words for theGermanlanguage, "Deutsch" / "Duits". So, thankfully, origin isn't relevant: otherwise we'd have to consider renaming "Dutch language" to "Netherlands language" or "Nederlands".
- Setting origin aside as a consideration, then, "Pennsylvania Dutch" means what it meanstoday,and is a precise as well as, I believe, the common term for its referent.Largoplazo(talk)12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between "Jerusalem artichoke" and "Pennsylvania Dutch" is that botanists and cultivators use "Jerusalem artichoke" as the common name for that plant while linguists and speakers do NOT use "Pennsylvania Dutch" as the common name for that language. Reliable, academic sources use "Jerusalem artichoke" while reliable, academic sources use "Pennsylvania German". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And reliable sources very commonly use "Pennsylvania Dutch".Like, even a cursory search of Google News shows that.Orngrams,if you prefer. I'm not relitigating the move - only trying to draw your attention to the implicit backing behind the cries to use the "common name". It is the most common name in reliable sources. If it's not the most common name withinacademia,that's an interesting point to add to the trivia section, but "academic" has never been a synonym for "reliable" on Wikipedia.RedSlash18:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And as Wikipedia continues to produce materials trying to gain trust among academics and university faculty and regularly has booths at scientific conferences to promote its "usefulness" in college courses, there are Wikipedia editors (with unknown academic credentials) and policies written by them that claim that acedemics are not the most reliable sources and shouldn't be trusted above journalists who have a solid BS degree. Because of course a journalist who might write about a dozen unrelated topics every week knows more about any subject than the professor who has spent two decades researching that single subject. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)04:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "trying to gain trust among academics and university faculty"?‹ThetemplateFake citation neededis beingconsidered for merging.›[citation needed]x 1000000. We are not "trying to gain trust among academics". We are trying to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are meant to inform the general public, not academic experts in the field, for the same reason that LeBron James is unlikely to find reading the article onbasketballto be very helpful for him. We use common names on Wikipedia. Of course, we trust theresearchacademics post--of course we do! But our job as an encyclopedia is to present their findings in relatively common English. That's... literally what encyclopedias are meant to do.RedSlash22:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with those two links is that they reflect the uses of the phrase, and most uses of the phrase are not about the language. The vast majority of the items on the Google News link, for example, are hits for "Pennsylvania Dutch folk arts", "Pennsylvania Dutch potato fillings", or "Pennsylvania Dutch apple butter". If usage in reliable sources is going to be overridden, then we need actual evidence for common usage, and not just editors mi xing up different topics. –Uanfala (talk)12:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to use simple Google counts, then "Pennsylvania Dutch language" yields about19600 resultswhile "Pennsylvania German language" yields about39,300 results.I've never liked using raw Google searches (whether Google News or Google Scholar [98versus172"Pennsylvania Dutch language" to "Pennsylvania German language" ] or just vanilla Google), but there you are, nearly twice as many references to the specific phrase "Pennwylvania German language" than to "Pennsylvania Dutch language". Where isWP:COMMONNAMEnow? The closer in a clearly controversial move used a speedy close without allowing sufficient time for the arguments to fully develop. That's what this is about--a closer rushing to a judgement based solely on counting noses forWP:COMMONNAMEwithout evaluating the arguments is actually notWP:NPOV.--TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)13:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! So we have a situation where editors make a COMMONNAME argument based on a confusion between several topics, and not only does this blatant error not get noticed by most of those involved, but the resulting outcome is on track to get almost unanimously endorsed at move review. What are the implications of that? My past experience has been that RM discussions on language or ethnicity topics have always been hit and miss, but I've still tried to encourage people to use it for potentially controversial moves. Now, I'm finally convinced the process is practically dysfunctional, so for questions of article titles in this topic area, going forward we should probably start using the same method we use for resolving all other issues – informal talk page discussion. –Uanfala (talk)17:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorseas uninvolved, but involved (in the sense of pointing OP to MR rather than continuing to litigate on Buidhe's talk) in the conversation leading up to the MR. (I've fixed the formatting for the link to that discussion, which came out botched; feel free to revert if procedurally unwanted.) The discussion assessed naming policy and use of each name in reliable sources, and came to a consensus that the suggested title was the most appropriate option at this time. It would have been a supervote to close otherwise. I am also unimpressed by the OP's behaviour in the preceding discussion, which was the sort of vague rant about "BADNACs" that keep popping up on the talks of brilliant closers who haven't taken the kick-me sign off them yet.Vaticidalprophet10:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (involved,!voted against the outcome)I don't really see a problem with the close. AFAIK there is no policy that states usage in the discipline that studies the subject automatically trumps usage in popular parlance. I would have liked to see empirical evidence thatPennsylvania Dutchdoes in fact prevail, but the consensus seems clear, unless there was a canvassing or something that compromises the process that I'm not seeing.Nardog(talk)10:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn(uninvolved). Based on the numbers alone, there likely was a consensus to move. The issue is that nearly everyone who supported the move merely linked toWP:COMMONNAMEwith no further justification for it. Suchvague wavesare not enough to overcome the evidence given in opposition to the move. Plus, as was pointed out in the RM,WP:COMMONNAMEsays to avoid using inaccurate or ambiguous names (ambiguous here having its ordinary meaning, not the Wiki meaning).--Calidum14:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What, in the ordinary sense of "ambiguous", is ambiguous about "Pennsylvania Dutch language"? Does that term refer to more than one thing? As for accuracy, I won't rehash everything, but please see my comments above about the implications for the English name of the language spoken in the Netherlands if accuracy is going to be assessed on an etymological basis.Largoplazo(talk)15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What is ambiguous is that this is not a Dutch language and scholars virtually unanimously use the term, "Pennsylvania German". The ambiguity is that you might see "Pennsylvania Dutch" when reading a Pennsylvania travel guide, but you will never see it when discussing languages of the United States. Should Wikipedia actually be a reference that uses ill-informed labels or a reference that uses accurate labels? Those who are looking for ill-informed labels can easily be directed to the accurately labelled articles. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)16:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ambiguous" means one term can be understood multiple ways. You've confused it with synonyms, multiple terms for the same thing.
- When you say "this is not a Dutch language", it suggests to me that you didn't read my comments about how that's irrelevant. If you had, even if you disagreed with me, I don't think you'd just repeat what I'd already addressed as though I hadn't.Largoplazo(talk)16:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment ties into my argument above although I could have made that clearer. "Jerusalem artichoke" is not a relevant issue because botanists and cultivators both use the term, while only lay persons use "Pennsylvania Dutch", but linguists and speakers alike use "Pennsylvania German". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)16:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few speakers use the term "Pennsylvania German", and I'm sure there must be at least a few linguists who use the term "Pennsylvania Dutch".Rreagan007(talk)07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite you to find a linguist who uses "Dutch" among the thousands who don't. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While not a definitive argument in a move discussion, this article had been stable for years (over a decade at least) at "Pennsylvania German language" without any discussion. It was not a controversial title. Stability in Wikipedia, especially when that stability is based on scientific fact and not "common knowledge", is something that should count more than a string of "me too" votes for "common name" without any reference to reliable sources or evidence of user inconvenience. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)16:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're essentially arguing for asupervotefrom the closer. That's not how this process is supposed to work.Rreagan007(talk)06:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly how this process is supposed to work because evaluating a request for move, like every other discussion on Wikipedia, isWP:NOTAVOTE.I daresay that every contentious request for move or request for comment discussion has included a warning to "bean counters" that the closer will evaluate arguments and not count noses. Are you saying that those warnings are misplaced? If so, then every closing will be a straight up and down vote and Wikipedia will never be trusted again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. PerWikipedia:Closing discussions:"If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy."Rreagan007(talk)14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I fully expect you to show up at every RM to point out that arguments don't count, just noses. That way no one wastes time with evidence or logical arguments and simply states "Yea" or "Nay" and moves on. But every single controversial RM closer (especially if they are an admin) I've been involved with has made a point of noting that they arenotcounting noses, but counting the quality of the arguments under appropriate Wikipedia policies. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)17:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's not a pure majority vote doesn't mean that the count is irrelevant. How many RM discussions have you seen where over 70% of the participants supported the move where it wasn't moved? In general, if a RM discussion has over 2/3 support, it's going to be passed.Rreagan007(talk)18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But when one side has actual evidence and the other side is simply, "I think this is true", there's a problem with a drive-by closer just counting noses. As was demonstrated earlier by accurate Google searches, "Pennsylvania German language" is twice as frequent as "Pennsylvania Dutch language", but since there wasn't any evidence presented by the proponents at all, this didn't come up in a discussion. The proponents had no data to counter the reliable sources that were presented by the opponents of the move. This is no way to run an encyclopedia, where "I think this is true" becomes more important than fact. (I could make a comparison to the current US political climate, but will avoid it.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer doesn't get to use their own judgment to override the judgment of the other contributors to the discussion. The closer is supposed to merely reflect the determination of the contributors to the discussion.Rreagan007(talk)19:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn(uninvolved). The proposed title may or may not be the more common name (this was asserted by many, but I'm not seeing any meaningful evidence: the difference is small in the ngrams reported by kwami, and a Google search for "Pennsylvania Dutch language" returns comparable numbers to "Pennsylvania German language" ). But even if the proposed name is indeed more common, it's still difficult to justify choosing it when it's virtually absent from the reliable sources on the topic. This is not just an issue of academic vs. non-academic sources, it's about sources dedicated to the topic (whether they're academic or not, see for instancethese publications) vs. sources that only make mentions of it. –Uanfala (talk)16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse.The move was proper. The arguments in favor of the move were simply stronger than those opposed.Rreagan007(talk)01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What arguments? Just an uncritical appeal toWP:COMMONNAMEwas the only argument ever mentioned and that was just a "me too" citing by most proponents. That included myself until the better, and more solid arguments presented byUser:Kwamikagami.His arguments, based on actual reliable sources, was far more convincing. There were no convincing arguments presented in favor of the move. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)03:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument doesn't have to be complex to be correct.WP:COMMONNAMEis our central policy for article titles, and most people in the discussion agreed that the proposed title was the most common name for the topic and that the article should be moved based on that policy, so it was moved.Rreagan007(talk)06:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But an argument requires at least one of the proponents to provide some kind of evidence other than "I say it's true". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)11:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Anecdotal evidence is some kind of evidence.Rreagan007(talk)14:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse.<uninvolved>Won't reargue the RM, but even though the RM's nom sort of lost his lunch toward the end, there was nothing wrong with this closure. Wait a year and try to move it back if you want, but right now the obvious consensus is for Penn Dutch ( "Dutch" sounds so much like "Deutsch", doesn't it?) language. Apologies to the nom, but this closure should stand tall on its own.P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there00:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorseas uninvolved. The opposers and the MRV nominator are seemingly focused onWP:CORRECTNAME... which isn't a thing(as it is very subjective - seeWP:V),so of course the closer wouldn't have considered it. Common, recognizable, concise, consistent, and precise are all either equal or in favor of the move. This close was a piece of cake.RedSlash18:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorseperfectly reasonable close, given the arguments. I don't see a good reason to not defer to the common name here, nor do I see a good reason why the common name is not "Pennsylvania Dutch language".Elli(talk|contribs)10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- while the numeric count was close, the supporters' arguments that the common name should be used were well-grounded in policy and convention, while the opposers' arguments that non-scientific literature should be disregarded in determining the common name have no grounding in policy at all and are specifically againstWP:NPOV.Good close.Ivanvector's squirrel(trees/nuts)12:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what NPOV has to do with the issue (unless the policy has changed so that we now assign the same weight to dedicated books on a topic as we do to passing mentions in news items).WP:COMMONNAMEexplicitly states that ambiguous or inaccurate names are often avoided even if they're used in reliable sources, and here we don't even have reliable sources to support the move in the first place as virtually all the literature on the topic uses the other term. –Uanfala (talk)13:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The term is not ambiguous, and the POV issue is that you can only establish that it's inaccurate if you disqualify any literature which says otherwise.Ivanvector's squirrel(trees/nuts)13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your POV argument is only valid if Wikipedia is just about counting noses and not about evaluating arguments. Remember that one of Wikipedia's policies isWP:NOTAVOTE.This closer rushed to move the article based solely on counting noses and not doing the harder job of evaluating the arguments. As you can clearly see from my Google numbers above searching for "Pennsylvania Dutch language" versus "Pennsylvania German language" (where the "German" variant was twice as common as the "Dutch" variant), theWP:COMMONNAMEargument wasn't even based on sound data. That's the job of the closer, which was not done in this case as they rushed to close the discussion prematurely. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the closer
rushed to close the discussion prematurely :it had run for the full seven days mandated by the requested move process, plus half a day. I'm not the first to point this out to you, and making baseless accusations of misconduct like this is a personal attack; you should withdraw those comments. As for the "Dutch" vs "German" argument, Buidhe specifically addressed this in her closing comment, and move review is not a venue for rehashing arguments that have already been considered.Ivanvector's squirrel(trees/nuts)16:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that a controversial discussion must be closed after seven days and Buidhe did nothing more than count noses without considering the arguments. Allmost all of the "COMMONNAME" justifications had no evidence to support that assertion while the opponents of the move provided links to impeccable sources. Just saying "CoMMONNAME" in a move request is unacceptable behavior when there is no evidence presented for COMMONNAME even in the proposer's comment. And do I think that Buidhe made an error? Of course I did, that's why we're here. Buidhe did not do the job of a closer to do more than just count "the votes" and ignored the principle ofWP:NOTAVOTE.Buidhe did not consider that there was no evidence presented in favor of the move and ignored the solid evidence against the move that was presented. Buidhe did, indeed, just count the noses that said, "Me, too, COMMONNAME". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)20:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any good closer would have done the exact same thing. Most participants in the discussion agreed that the proposed title was the common name and that the article should be moved based on that policy. And participants in a move discussion are allowed to use their own knowledge and experience when making that determination.Rreagan007(talk)07:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I mentioned above (and in many other places), allowing "I say it's true because I think it's true" as evidence in Wikipedia runs directly counter to the Wikipedia Foundation's well-documented efforts to be taken more seriously by college and university professors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)11:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If our goal in article naming were "to be taken more seriously by college and university professors" then our article naming policy would be to name all articles based on their official or academic names, not their common names. Wikipedia is for the masses, not the academic elites.Rreagan007(talk)14:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, then perhaps you should talk to Wikipedia Foundation and tell them to stop wasting your contributions on trying to raise the academic profile of Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)17:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is a general-use encyclopedia, not an academic journal, and the Wikipedia Foundation understands that. But I'm not sure that you do.Rreagan007(talk)18:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why does the Wikipedia Foundation spend thousands of dollars a year trying to promote Wikipedia as a valuable reference for college and university classes? I said nothing about "academic journal", just a source that college and university professors would recommend as a reliable source for students to use (as they would use Encyclopedia Britannica, for example). As it is, the vast majority of professors don't allow Wikipedia as a reference because of the attitude that expertise is always trumped by common opinion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo)(talk)18:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EndorseConsensus is clear that the common name in the US (Pennsylvania Dutch, with Dutch being derived fromDeutsch) is what the article should be titled. The minority opinion that the name used in linguistics should be the title... is a minority opinion.User: Lực(power~enwiki,π,ν)16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse(uninvolved). Supporters presented a strong common name argument which the close reflects.PaleAqua(talk)15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsegood close, only available option to a closer I think.SportingFlyerT·C18:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse(uninvolved) Strong support that proposed title reflects COMMONNAME preference for “Dutch” and that this trumps academic preference for “German”. The argument that “Dutch” is “ambiguous” has been soundly refuted in the sense relevant to WP title decision-making. —-В²C☎13:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
