List of black Academy Award winners and nominees ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

The list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [1]. Its scope was later changed without discussion to "black Academy Award winners and nominees", where it stayed for some time. I then moved the page list to "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees" to reflect its original purpose. Another user subsequently started an RfC asking "should the title of this article be changed to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States?". After much discussion, the RfC expired, resulting in a stalemate of five votes for the proposal and five votes against it. There was thus no consensus for the page move, so the page title should have been kept at "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees". However, the closing administrator disregarded the arguments of the editors opposing the move and instead suggested that there was consensus for the move. I and the other editors whose arguments had been discarded then attempted to discuss the matter over with him, explaining that the RfC close did not reflect the actual consensus [2]. He initially defended his closing rationale, but eventually stopped responding altogether. On the advice of the uninvolved User:DD2K, I've consequently now started this formal move review. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - There was definitely no consensus for this move. The rational by the closer seems to ignore the fact that only 2 support editors are regular contributors, the other 3 are either brand new editors who gave convoluted reasoning, or an IP that's lone contribution is a support vote. The move and the closing rational doesn't make sense. The editors who opposed the move cited policy( WP:ETHNICGROUP, WP:PRECISION, WP:EGRS) and the fact the article was originally created to list African American Academy Award winners. While most of the editors who supported the move gave silly reasoning. Mentioning Charlize Theron and Steve McQueen. Yet the closing rational mentions that the oppose editors were actually in support of adding these other actors, when in fact that is not true. So I really cannot understand this close at all. Thanks. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"...the other 3 are either brand new editors..." Firstly, how do you know this? If you are making an assumption based on the fact that these editors do not have accounts or long edit histories with their IP address, then you assume wrongly. I have been an editor for many years on Wikipedia and have a dynamic IP address, so you might think I'm new when I've been editing for years more than some of the other contributers to the discussion. Secondly, length of experience editing is irrelevant. If a person who has been editing a long time makes a bad argument and a newcomer makes a good one, a closing admin should not count it as a 1-1 tie and not count it in favour of the experienced editor but in favour of the good argument. 99.192.50.212 ( talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205) reply

Few editors edit for more than a few months using anonymous ips, let alone years. They usually by then have registered an account. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

That's (probably) true, but also completely irrelevant to the question of the move review. 99.192.50.212 ( talk) 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Not if it applies to your dynamic ip as well. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - "...five votes for the proposal and five votes against it. There was thus no consensus for the page move..." Surely, you are familiar with Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE? The vote count, especially when the other "votes" were canvassed by you, is irrelevant.

"...the closing administrator disregarded the arguments of the editors opposing the move..." Not true. You are mistaking disagreement with disregarding. The closing admin took your arguments into account. Just because you don't like the outcome does not mean you were not heard.

"...I and the other editors whose arguments had been discarded..." Again, disagreement is not the same as discarding. By your logic, it is always true that the arguments of the side that loses a decision are disregarded and discarded. There was nothing wrong with the process. It just came to a conclusion you disagree with. 99.192.50.212 ( talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205) reply

Of course you would feel that there was nothing wrong with the process ip since you were pretty much the main (and often only) disputant arguing for the page move. Unfortunately, the RfC was indeed a bad close, as explained point-by-point here. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"Of course you would feel that there was nothing wrong with the process ip since you were ... arguing for the page move." No, I agree with the process when the process is done right. That is independent of outcome. I have been involved in many processes and discussions of how pages should be titled or edited and I don't base my assessment of the process based on whether the outcome went my way. Unlike you, I do not assume that my arguments were "disregarded" or "discarded" when they are merely disagreed with. 99.192.50.212 ( talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I beg to differ. Claiming as a closing rationale that there was consensus for including non-Americans when I and the other opposers in fact argued the opposite of that is also not a mere disagreement. It's a fundamental misassessment of the discussion. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - per nom. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn – This close really surprised me as I did not think there was a consensus or a compelling policy-based rationale for the move. 1) WP:PRECISION and Wikipedia:Systemic bias: The term "black" is too poorly defined and open to interpretation in a global sense, ranging from " one drop" of African blood in the US to not one drop of European blood in Africa. The awards may be a US topic but the idea of the move is to add non-Americans to the list and applying a local racial classification system to non-local people goes way beyond applying WP:ENGVAR quoted by the closer on their talk page. 2) WP:EGRS and WP:ETHNICGROUP: "Black" is a socially constructed race, specific to the society in which it is constructed, not an ethnic group per se. A race-based list of people effectively categorises people by race which is against Wikipedia policy. Helen Online 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

To specifically address the stated closing rationale, I disagree that there is consensus that the list should include non-Americans and that the solution is therefore to broaden the scope of the list (which creates a whole new problem of a subjective race-based inclusion criterion). Helen Online 10:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• *Overturn. I was shocked to see Wikipedia an encyclopedia turn into a tabloid listing site? What next, top 10 black guitarist? We know what South African means, (as a nationality), we know what African American means. We also know what Somali means. I might debate what African means (a race, not a nationality) and we can discuss that with passion what I do not understand is what on God's Earth is "black" is this Black in SA which is political and also includes Indians and so-called Coloreds? B/c in Ethiopia no one calls themselves "black". The short reason why this is nonsense is because Wikipedia is not Ebony Magazine. Stick to clear terms and groupings. Avoid the confusion of "race" and black is def not a "race." List of Somali directors, List of British directors, List of even Muslim or Jewish directors, things which at least have some structure in their definition. (i am typing fast just to weight in).-- Inayity ( talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I can see no coherent rationale in the closer's statement for why he thought the support votes were significantly better rooted in policy than the oppose votes, which would have been the only legitimate reason for closing this against the weight of numbers. Quite to the contrary, I find a lot more weight of policy on the oppose side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. per state made by Helen and other users. AcidSnow ( talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• overturn per Helen. The arguments of the oppose camp (keep scope to African Americans) were much better rooted in policy and practice, especially around NOR - no-one has demonstrated what the inclusion criteria for 'black' is supposed to be, since black is defined differently by every culture - eg black person in Brasil may not be considered black in the Dominican Republic or South Africa for example - as such it's not a valid designator for a list. The closer failed to note that the original scope of the list was AA, and we should bring it back to that. Whether AA are more frequently called black is irrelevant, since AA more precisely describes the scope vs 'black' which other users hAve interpreted to mean anyone of the black race, which as we all know doesn't exist in any biological sense.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the article is about a US award, thus the term is used as commonly (and generally uncontroversially) understood in the US, and as used as a self-designation by people on the list, including the person's whose inclusion on the list started this debate. The scope of the article has included non Americans for many years, and the article was changed without discussion shortly before the RfC. Thus even if the result was no consensus, the article should have remained titled 'black' as noted by the admin who closed the RfC. That this is how the list is commonly understood in the culture which the article primarily refers to was evidenced by the significant number of editors who attempted to add non Americans to the list during the short period of the RfC discussion when the article title was 'African American.' It may also be worth noting that those who originally voted to move it back to 'black' all did so independently, whereas those who voted to limit it to 'African American' were all canvassed to comment by the editor who originally made the change without discussion. The real issue is not the article title, but whether the list should exist as an article at all, a discussion a numbers of editors have repeatedly indicated a willingness to have, and which may hinge on the kind of arguments made by those who wish to overturn. But until that discussion is had, it should remain as it is using the word as understood in the cultural context of the primary topic. Melcous ( talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Canvassing is not necessarily inappropriate, so be careful about suggesting otherwise per WP:NPA. (Already thrashed out at Talk:List of black Academy Award winners and nominees#Threaded discussion if anyone is interested, there is no need to repeat the discussion.) Helen Online 06:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The users were contacted per appropriate notification. What's actually telling is that all the uninvolved users who have weighed in have also seen the close for the discussion misassessment it is. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

By my count "all the uninvolved users who have weighed in" consists of a grand total of two users, and it doesn't take into account User:Liz below who appears to disagree with you. Everyone else who has called for the move to be overturned participated in the original move discussion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

That's a majority all the same, which is still quite telling. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment I know this isn't the most popular opinion but I think there is justification for having both a List of black Academy Award winners and nominees along with a List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. There is overlap, of course, but I can see the value in having a list limited to African-Americans and then a broader list for those Academy Award winners of African descent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

how praytell do you proposed determining if someone is of African descent? And which parts of Africa? Does Egypt count? What about Mauritania? They have 'white' Maurs and 'black' Maurs in Mauritania - but which ones are of 'African descent'? I remember a case recently where a white supremacist had his blood tested, and he was shown to have 18% genetic markers from sub-Sahara Africa - so he is technically 'black' if that's your definition. Many so-called 'coloured' people in South Africa certainly have blood from SSA but they don't really identify as 'black' and wouldn't be so-called outside of SA (except they are 'black' under the law there, as are Chinese people.) The deeper you dig the more you realize that any equating of 'black' with 'African ancestry', while certainly common in the vernacular as a shorthand for what used to be called the 'negroid' race, is problematic from an encyclopedic POV. and any equation of black with 'what they self-identity with' runs into a massive variation in definition of black across societies, thus no clear inclusion criteria.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

There are also plenty of white people of African descent. Liz did you know there is already a separate List of African Academy Award winners and nominees? Helen Online 09:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The reason the RfC was necessary in the first place was that Middayexpress had unilaterally moved the article to List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees and removed the black British and black African winners/nominees from the article. No consensus was ever sought for that initial decision, which I believe made the article less useful to readers of the encyclopedia. Middayexpress's idea that the list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees" (as opposed to including black people from other countries) is speculative at best, given that the page was initially titled List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and included non-U.S. nominees starting from the very first edit (Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Sophie Okonedo, Jonas Gwangwa). In any event, the article creator has not edited Wikipedia for seven years and we are not bound by their decisions. I would also strongly question whether Middayexpress used appropriate notification to contact users to participate in the original discussion, given that they contacted all the users on their own side (against the move) to notify them of this move review, but did not contact any of the users who supported the move, such as myself (who opened the RfC to request the move), User:Melcous, User:Shivertimbers433, or User:AdamBMorgan. That looks a lot like WP:Votestacking to me. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I have struck the implication of canvassing in the original discussion as it is no longer really relevant. My concern is mostly with the votestacking in this move review, and whatever notification went on before is not really the problem now. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Speculative? That's reaching, at best. The truth is, the list was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [3]. That's the page creator's own statement of purpose, not mine (though I certainly agree with it). As for the bad faith charges of "votestacking", I obviously contacted User:Obiwankenobi, User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow and User:HelenOnline because it's our arguments that were unjustly and unilaterally discarded in the name of a false consensus. WP:MR also does not require me to contact you, the anonymous ip (who, incidentally, could be anybody), or any of the other users. All it requires is that I notify the closer and post a notice of the move review in the same section as the RfC discussion, both of which I did. The latter by default obviously serves to notify all of the interlocutors of the move review. It's also linked to at the top of this section (under RM), so I'm not sure how you somehow missed that as well. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• So you are endorsing this close as appropriate? As for Middayexpress 'unilateral move', the page has been moved back and forth to various titles over 8 times the past 5 years. Unilaterally. The article creators original intent seems obvious. The very first edit to the article states:

  "The following is a list of African-American winners* and nominees from 1929 to the present".

So that seems pretty clear as to 'intent'. You cited absolutely no policy reasons for the move. The same goes for all '5' support editors. The support editors only argued that the polices cited by the opposers didn't exclude moving the page. Which was an incorrect and non-policy argument. Look at some of the reasoning by the move supporters.

Shivertimbers433 states:

"African American" is a nonsensical politically-correct neologism. Charlize Theron is from Africa and became a naturalized American citizen. Why is she not considered an "African American" Oscar winner?

You support that type of reasoning?

The anon ip states:

The list is noteworthy for documenting how the Academy has homored people of a particular race. The nationality of those people is of minor significance.

Which totally contradicts WP:EGRS. We don't list people by race, but by ethnicity or nationality. That doesn't stop people from adding people of African decent with different nationalities to a list. See List of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. There is a very specific reasoning we do not list people this way, and a reason why we have these policies. I can't understand how one could endorse this close with the closing rational. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Dave Dial ( talk) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

how do you define "black" people from other countries? Is it by their skin color? Tightly curled hair? Presumed descent from sub-saharan Africans with dark skin? It's pure OR - every country has a different definition of black there is no globally accepted definition because black as a race is a social construction not an objectively real characteristic of people. The title of the page is irrelevant, if we want it to stay at black I'd be fine with that, the point is the scope - I believe African-American makes the scope much more clear. And to your question, African-American is an ethnicity and people like Charlize are not considered to be part of that ethnicity.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• To respond to DD2K above, yes, I am endorsing this close as appropriate. That is not to say that I endorse every statement by every other commenter who supported the move in the prior discussion. The concept of " black people" as a group may be a social construction, and it may not be meaningful to some of the participants in this discussion, but it is meaningful to reliable sources in relation to the Academy Awards. See The New York Times: "Mr. Daniels was overlooked this year for “Lee Daniels’ The Butler,” which received no nominations. But he remains one of only three black directors — along with John Singleton and, now, Mr. McQueen — to have been nominated for a directing Oscar. Overall, the number of black nominees through history stands at about 125, with this year’s addition of Mr. McQueen, and two of his stars, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong’o, among others." The Guardian: "Steve McQueen may not be the favourite to win the Oscar for best director when the statuettes are handed out on 2 March, but if he does it will represent a historic breakthrough for black film-makers: none has ever been honoured in this category and only two others have even been nominated – John Singleton in 1992 for Boyz n the Hood and Lee Daniels in 2009 for Precious." Hindustan Times: "At the moment, McQueen – though with an emotionally engaging film behind him – is not the favourite to walk away with the best director statuette. But if he does, he would be the first black helmer to actually clinch this Oscar, although there have been two other black directors who were nominated in the past. One of them was John Singleton for the 1992 Boyz n the Hood, and the other was Lee Daniels in 2009 for Precious." In any event, this move review has been so tainted by votestacking that it would be a bad idea for an administrator to reward such behavior by overturning the move. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Arguments should be centered on actual website policy, not the opinions of random film critics. Fact is, no Wikipedia policy supports categorization by race. Quite the opposite, actually. Your idea of what the term "black" means in the context of this list is also altogether different from that of the new Melcuous account. He/she asserted in the move discussion that this list actually "seems to be about skin color rather than "race"", which by definition would pertain to any number of dark skinned people from around the world, including many people on list of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees. As for your continued bad faith charges of votestacking, I remind you that WP:MR does not require me to contact you since, per that same policy, I already left a notice of the move review in the very same section as the RfC (at the top of it, no less). Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

If anyone genuinely believes there was votestacking, did they follow the relevant procedures, which would require evidence to support their accusations? If not, raising it now is nothing more than a personal attack which is usually a sign of a weak argument. As I have already stated, Middayexpress did not know what my opinion would be in advance (and we do not always agree). Helen Online 06:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Resorting to personal attacks/ ad hominem is never a good idea, and is a telltale sign of a weak argument. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I have just now followed the procedures, notifying the user involved and including evidence (links to the notices under dispute). I find Helen's claim that "Middayexpress did not know what my opinion would be in advance" of this move review implausible, given that the point of this move review is to overturn a move which Helen had opposed in the RfC. In fact, Helen had also written, "I would also support a review of the move" at [4] before this move review began. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

See above. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I was not talking about the move review, I was talking about the original move discussion. Helen Online 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The move review was advertised on the article talk page ( here and here). Helen Online 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree in principle though, there shouldn't have been selective notification of the move review of participants in the orginal discussion (bar the dynamic IP as I am not sure how one would do that). Helen Online 13:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The votestaking claims are more amusing than anything seeing as how notification of the move review is literally built into the move review process. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• suggestion I suggest we deal with the allegations of vote-stacking in a simple fashion - we post notifications of this move review directly to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the first move but who wasn't notified directly, then we agree to let this move review sit for 7 more days. That way, even if there was vote stacking, we have re-stacked the vote, and given everyone a chance.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The votestacking claims are nonsense. Besides User:DD2K, User:HelenOnline was actually the first person to specifically suggest/link to a move review in our followup discussion with the closer [5]. It's thus quite a stretch to assert that it is "votestacking" to have informed her and the other involved users who actually participated in that discussion that I had taken up her suggestion and started a move review. Moreover, WP:MR doesn't require such userpage notifications to begin with. It only requires that one notify the closer and post a notice of the move review in the same section as the RfC discussion, both of which I did [6]. I also indicated in DD2K's move review section that a move review discussion was underway, and a link to it could be found in the RfC section above [7]. One would thus have to have literally almost gone out of one's way not to have been aware of the move review. Middayexpress ( talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• I have no problem with that, though I thought they were talking about the original move request. I see now that all the opposers(plus you) were notified, but none of the supporters. It is not policy to notify one side or the other for move reviews, but it probably should be. In any case, I don't think that any amount of editors should influence this move review. Policy is pretty clear, and the closing rational was not. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok, although WP:MR doesn't require it, I contacted the other two accounts as a followup to the 21 April general notice that I already posted on the page. Policy is indeed pretty clear on the matter. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, I think the list should remain List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, as I wrote during the RfC. Regarding the closure: RfC's aren't votes, they are discussions attempting to reach the optimum solution. The closing admin is meant to interpret that discussion, not just count the number of supports vs. opposes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Regarding the list: I don't think WP:ETHNICGROUP has anything to say either way on this issue. Attempting to erase black people as a race by removing reference to their accomplishments may be well intended as an act of a post-racial society but we are not in a post-racial society and it still has the negative result of erasure. We live in a world with a Black History Month, which is supported by organised Wikipedian editing efforts: "black" anything counts as a valid subject. Limiting the list to Americans does not give the full picture and hides relevant achievements made by non-American; such as Steve McQueen, the first black filmmaker to win Best Picture. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 20:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The accomplishments of all of the winners and nominees are already acknowledged on pages such as list of African Academy Award winners and nominees and List of English Academy Award nominees and winners. So with respect, the notion that they are somehow being neglected is not valid. It's the insistence on forcing this page -- which was originally reserved for "African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [8] -- to adopt a subjective racial scheme at odds with WP:CATGRS, among other Wikipedia policies/guidelines, that is the actual problem. Further, no comparable list of white Academy Award winners and nominees, list of brown Academy Award winners and nominees or list of yellow Academy Award winners and nominees pages exist. The individuals on the list are thus is in effect for some reason being singled out on a skin tone or racial basis. This is despite the fact that the Academy itself certainly did not and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone, perceived "race", or what have you. It only honors them for their actual film work; it's not a special interest group. As for the RfC close, you're right, the closer is meant to accurately interpret the discussion. However, it has amply been shown above that that interpretation was at best a fundamental misassessment. Claiming as a closing rationale that there was consensus for including non-Americans when I and the other opposers in fact argued the opposite of that is just one example of this. Middayexpress ( talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The process was followed correctly in my opinion, hence my use of the word "Endorse". Consensus does not mean that everyone agreed to the same thing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to make the same arguments all over again but, briefly: "Accomplishments acknowledged on other pages" — those pages do not acknowledge them in the context of race, only nationality. The context of race is important here. Anyway, they can be acknowledged on multiple lists. "No comparable list of white Academy Award winners, etc" — WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument. "Academy did not reward them for their skin tone" — it also didn't reward them for their nationality but you seem to have no problem with those lists. Related to this: you also tried to get List of black fashion models deleted using the same flawed rationale. I think you have good intentions for trying to erase black culture from Wikipedia but erasure is still a bad thing socially and detrimental to an encyclopedia when it would remove notable topics. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 12:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Adam it is extremely bad faith to accuse editors of trying to erase accomplishments of the 'black' race, but you, nor anyone else supporting this page, have failed to adequately describe who is considered 'black'? Is it based on use of 'black' in reliable sources? That's problematic because black in English in the US has a different meaning than 'black' in English in South Africa and 'noir' in French in Algeria and 'black' in Brazil and 'black' in Tamil Nadu. Do we do Build an intersection of these definitions, or a union? Is it based on skin color? Are people from Papua New Guinea 'black' or people from the Andaman Islands black? While there's no doubt a social conception of the black race exists, race as a biological concept is meaningless but the definitions of race are almost all biological. Since we don't have an authoritative way to determine whether and who is truly 'black' (even some disputed whether Obama was truly 'black') as a global encyclopedia we should not perpetuate such race-based divisions.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"it is extremely bad faith" — No. I assume good faith in that erasing black accomplishment is an unintended side effect. I definitely believe that erasure will be the result of this campaign. "Is it based on use of 'black' in reliable sources?" — Yes, everything is based on reliable sources. "That's problematic because black in English in the US" — There are ways around conflicting sources, assuming you can find specific South African/Tamil/etc sources on the subject. For a start, we have the entire black people article to back up this list. "'noir' in French in Algeria" — Irrelevant, this is not French Wikipedia. "While there's no doubt a social conception of the black race exists, race as a biological concept is meaningless" — True and irrelevant. The social construct of race is still a real social construct. It doesn't go away because you want it to do so. This is coming back to the "erasure" concept, however well-intentioned the motivations may be. "we don't have an authoritative way to determine whether and who is truly" — we have a good enough way; again the black people article is right there and reliable sources should be used. For the record, I suggested "African diaspora" as an alternative but that was apparently not good enough (and it would probably fail WP:COMMONNAME to some degree as the international common term is "black"). - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Adam, you're dodging the question. What is the specific definition of "black" that should be used for this list? And you can't discount french-language sources, this is a global encyclopedia, and we use sources from any language. So, if a Brazilian source calls someone preto or pardo or negro, are they all black? None of them? Or are you just going to look at a picture to make sure? Would "African disapora" cover tribes from the north of the Sahara desert? Or only those with darker skin? No-one is denying that "Black history month" exists or that Pan-Africanism is not a real concept - but to build an encyclopedic list that includes and excludes specific people based SOLELY on a source calling them "black" - no matter where they are from - and given the huge number of definitional issues with "black", is extremely problematic, and yes, I think we should get rid of all "Lists of black X" in the same way I would eliminate "Lists of white X" and "Lists of yellow X". Otherwise, the criterion for inclusion in the list are subjective. We have many social groupings that are widely discussed but we don't build LISTS based on them because the borders are always fuzzy in these social groupings, and a given individual can be black in the eyes of some and non-black in the eyes of others, ESPECIALLY as you cross borders - that's why nationally-based ethnic groups are much easier to deal with, as they aren't race based but rather based on identification with a specific ethnic group in a specific place. A Kikuyu in Kenya may look 'black' to you and I but his identity is of a Kikuyu, and that identity is quite different than the identity of a Luo or an African-American. Grouping all of these people together is not encyclopedic.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Adam, I wholeheartedly support all of your replies here. Well said. Obiwankenobi, "What is the specific definition of "black" that should be used for this list?" One could ask those who support the use of "African-American" what definition of that term they want to use. The answer would (and should) be "the one reliable sources give us". Same for "black". If a reliable source says a person is "African-American", then we count them as such. If a reliable source says a person is "black", then we count them as such. Where's the mystery? I should also add that in American-based publications, the terms "African-American" and "black" are taken to mean the exact same thing most of the time. One term will be substituted for the other all the time for political reasons. So there is no less a sourcing issue for one term than the other. "And you can't discount french-language sources, this is a global encyclopedia, and we use sources from any language." True, but we should only use French-language sources that use the word "black", not some other different word that might not mean the same thing as "black". The same for your list of Brazilian words. If there is some question, as you suggest there is, about any of those words meaning the exact same thing as "black" does in English, then none of them can be used to source claims in English that a person is "black". Translations of words are almost never exact, so if none of "preto" or "pardo" or "negro" mean the same thing as "black", then we should use none of them as source claims for an English article. "Otherwise, the criterion for inclusion in the list are subjective." No. If we include all and only the people sources say are "black", then we have exactly the same degree of objectivity we have when we include all and only the people sources say are "African-American". It is only a subjective list if we allow the opinions of the editors to determine who is black and who is not. So long as we leave it to the sources, we have no more of a subjectivity problem than any article has with any claims that are based on what sources say. Now if it were common for some sources to say "so-and-so is black" and other sources to say "so-and-so is not black" then there would be a problem, but I see no conflict of reliable sources. 99.192.81.161 ( talk) 10:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.48.205) reply

you're missing the point. Definitions of 'black' are not consistent, whereas African-American is much more so, and African American is an ethnic group in a particular country with a specific history, culture, even languages - this cannot be said about 'black'. Of course if an American source says Bill the American is black then that means the same thing as African American and I'm not problemstizing that - I'm problemstizing the use of the word 'black' in other cultures - in the Brazilian example I pointed to, only one of those words translates as 'black' but all could potentially refer to someone who is Afro-Brazilian. So is black an intersection of different cultural definitions, or a union? Is a Tamil considered black if reliable sources in his country describe him as such? You can't get around the problem that different countries define race and ethnicity completely differently, so relying on a facile translation of the word black is a terrible idea and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of identity globally. Again, you can't just say 'reliable sources call them black' - because 'black' means very different things and sub-saharan-African dark-skinned descent people are not universally called 'black'. Ultimately you're attempting a racial definition and the inability to delineate race makes it subjective and thus not allowable.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

That old deletion (not move) discussion ended in a stalemate and has nothing to do with the current move review. A lot has also transpired since then, including new information that completely invalidates the central claims made therein. At any rate, as User:HelenOnline wrote below, that and other similar lists will be dealt with later by her, myself and User:Obiwankenobi once this move review ends. Regarding your other remarks, the context of race is actually only important for you, the anonymous ip, and the other accounts insisting on making this list about skin tone or "race" in contradiction to its original purpose. It certainly is not important for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences since the Academy obviously did and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone or perceived "race". It only rewards the nominees' actual film work, while acknowledging along the way their nationalities. And it can do that because citizenship, unlike the subjective matter of "race", is an objective, uncontroversial sorting criterion. Besides actual Wikipedia policy discouraging sorting by race, that is what makes those other lists appropriate. Per WP:MR, this move review discussion should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed policy and reasonably interpreted consensus in the original move discussion. This is of course a tall order since the actual rationale provided to justify the RfC close is fraught with inaccuracies. An example of these factual errors is the claim that "the opposers' rationales for their votes were all over the place", when in fact it's the supporters whose arguments were literally all over the place. User:DD2K clearly demonstrates this above, with quotes. The most glaring of the various factual errors in the closing rationale, though, is the claim that "in general, we appear to have consensus for the idea that this list, as long as it exists, should include non-Americans". I and the other opposers have made it abundantly clear in both our followup discussion with the closer and this move review discussion that there was no such consensus since we actually argued the opposite of that. To claim that the close was legitimate is thus to support its factually inaccurate rationale, and this cannot credibly be done. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

"that and other similar lists will be dealt with later" — This is precisely what I mean about the Black Erasure. If this move is overturned it will lead to a spate of attempts to move or delete every list with "black" in the title, leading to the systematic erasure of black people and black achievement (and systemic bias against the same, for that matter) across Wikipedia. Anti-racist intent can still lead to racist effects. "the context of race is actually only important for you, ..." — No. Those are just the people who have commented, there are far more who read articles without contributing to them or even being aware of these backroom affairs. The context of race is important to everyone in the black pride movement, everyone contributing to Black History Month, to the African diaspora and black people in general, to authors writing books on the subject, to journalists writing articles on the subject, to—in fact—a lot of people. "the Academy obviously did and does not reward its nominees for their skin tone or perceived 'race'." — No, they don't (officially); neither do they reward nominees based on nationality (despite what you say here), nor, most importantly, do they have any control or say over the way lists are formed on Wikipedia or any other media. The facts that (1) the nominees are nominees and (2) the nominees are black are intersecting in this list. The Academy's stated opinions only matter for the former. "there was no such consensus since we actually argued the opposite of that" — I still don't think you understand what consensus means. It does not mean complete agreement. There can be consensus even if people have opposed that consensus. Consensus does not need to be unanimous. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

With respect, it is quite a stretch to claim that opposing such unencyclopedic list titles constitutes systemic bias. For one thing, the Academy itself indeed has never, does not, and almost certainly will never reward its nominees for their skin tone since it is not a special interest group. It certainly does, though, acknowledge the nationality of nominees (e.g. [9]). And it can of course do that because citizenship/birthplace, unlike skin tone or perceived "race", is an objective, uncontroversial sorting criterion. On the other hand, the people outside Wikipedia that you allude to clearly do have a special interest. And there is no place for advocacy on this website. While such classifications may be uplifting for those individuals and groups with a special interest, it is offensive to just as many if not more people; especially populations who do not traditionally see themselves in that way or as being closely related to others on the list and have the scientific data to support them to boot. Another reason why the "systemic bias" argument is invalid (which, btw, is an essay, not a policy/guideline) is that WP:EGRS explicitly discourages sorting people by "race" in the first place. Lastly, when I spoke of consensus, I was specifically referring to the actual closing rationale's claim that "in general, we appear to have consensus for the idea that this list, as long as it exists, should include non-Americans". This is obviously false since I and the other opposers in fact argued for the "List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees" title, which is by default reserved for African Americans. This is also in line with the page's original stated purpose ("the following is a list of African-American winners and nominees from 1929 to the present" [10]). Middayexpress ( talk) 15:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

So just because Steve needs to be in the list we must change everything from the term African-American to black. create a Black British page. African American is notable enough, big enough to have its own space. I think hiding the race pride of a people is a problem. I made this argument that people need to feel pride in their race and their accomplishments. And if we have a Black history then that proves "race" is a serious topic. As a Pan-Africanist I can appreciate a need to showcase African accomplishments beyond borders (no problem), just as Jewish people celebrate theirs. My issue is with this word "black". I seen someone say that White SA are Africans, that holds zero water in the real world of real world identity politics. NONE. It is a minority position, not supported in reality in Africa, or anywhere else. It is supported by 0.000000001% (if that) so why is it still being argued. Well because of another problem white privilege. So African have no right to define themselves, and when they do someone above tells us African American is nonsense because it does not include one white SA actress. -- Inayity ( talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I guess white people (and black people) in America aren't Americans either? (as you can see, the opposers of the move don't agree on everything) Helen Online 07:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. While I realize that some of the participants here disagree with the racial scheme on which this article is based, there are other comparable articles within Wikipedia. List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees passed an AfD with a "keep" result in 2011. (I personally recommended deletion in that discussion, but the consensus was to keep.) There's also List of black Nobel Laureates, List of black astronauts, and List of black fashion models. All of these lists include black people from both the United States and elsewhere. The existence of these lists may not convince everyone that they should be lists in Wikipedia, but nevertheless these lists do exist and presumably some people find them meaningful and useful. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

There is a lot wrong on Wikipedia and this was raised in the threaded discussion already. If this move is overturned, OWK and ME and I will address those lists afterwards. Helen Online 06:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Social network ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Consensus was only determined by considering the preferences of the participants. Each point made was countered with a valid objection to the opposition. Evaluation of arguments did not take place by assigning due weight accordingly and giving due consideration to applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Meclee ( talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Meclee was clearly outnumbered, but this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Meclee argues that many people confuse Social network (a theoretical concept in social science) with Social networking service (like Facebook). To be honest, I did, too, until I actually looked at this. Though Meclee doesn't cite WP:COMMONNAME, he's certainly offered the basis for this guidelines-based argument, which I agree with, that our titles should reflect the most common names for things and that the most common meaning of "social network" today is stuff like Facebook. I find it inconceivable that most people, upon hearing the term, would think first of "a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations) and a set of the dyadic ties between these actors."

Several editors argue WP:BROADCONCEPT but you have to do more than just cite a guideline, you have to show how it applies. They haven't done that and I don't think it supports them. WP:BROADCONCEPT asks that "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article ... then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page." But both meanings of social network, the theoretical concept and online platforms like Facebook, are broad concepts or types of things capable of being described in an article. We have the existence proof in each case. It seems possible those arguing WP:BROADCONCEPT may expect that because the theoretical concept is more "academic" that it should be preferred over the most common meaning but they've not made that argument and I'm not aware of anything in the guidelines that would support it anyway.

I think Meclee made his case and that Social network should indeed be given over to Social networking service and Social network moved to Social network (social sciences). Msnicki ( talk) 15:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Closers, admin or not, do not have the wisdom of Solomon. This is why WP:SUPERVOTE closures against strong consensus are discouraged. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 17:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. A close should consider the arguments and the evidence in the context of our guidelines. You didn't offer any analysis or explanation whatsoever to explain your closings. All you said is, "The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)". No one's asking for the wisdom of Solomon but some explanation of the logic behind your decision, even if only to assure us there was some, would be helpful. Moreover, to your point about WP:SUPERVOTE, a term for "a close that allegedly reflects the preference of the closer", I honestly think that after you closed the first RM, your preference was known and that you should not have it closed it the second time. Msnicki ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I can certainly summarize the arguments against the pagemove, though it is unlikely to satisfy editors who seek to reargue the move request. There was a general consensus that the proposed pagemove ambiguated the title of Social network service and unnecessarily disambiguated the title of Social network. Editors preferred to leave the articles at their natural titles. Also, it was believed that the hatnotes on both articles provided sufficient disambiguation for possibly confused readers. In any case, actual practice on Wikipedia for closing discussions does take into account the number of editors expressing particular opinions, and does not solely consist of judge-like weighing of arguments. It is not prohibited to close two successive discussions, provided that consensus is accurately determined in both cases. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, but the point is that if the basis for your decision was basically only just that you counted noses and found more on one side than the other, I think you should man up and say that in your close. More to the point, considering the appropriate guidelines as I've tried to do here in reviewing your close, I don't think counting noses was the correct way to determine consensus, especially with so few editors participating and with their positions already hardened. While two successive closes by the same individual is not prohibited, there's no way you'll convince me it was appropriate here. Closing the same RM twice without any explanation was a poor decision any way you slice it. There is no WP:DEADLINE for settling debates here on WP and you should have left this for someone else. Msnicki ( talk) 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Numeric metrics of consensus were a factor I considered in the close, not the only factor. I can provide essays on strength of arguments for future XFD closes since it seems that this is needed. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but overturn ( via WP:NOTBURO ) ( was Endorse ( though I'd tempted to say Endorse but overturn or Endorse but relist )) I'm actually a little conflicting on this one. Considering the points raised ( and what closers are required to consider ), I don't see how I can do anything but endorse. That said if I were had to !vote in the discussion itself, I would have considering supporting as the broad concept is probably not what most readers would expect so commonname would have been a strong argument. While there is the possibly that a future RM could result in a different outcome, given that there have been two discussions in the last month with only a small number of commenters I don't think I can say Endorse but relist thought that was my first glance opinion. PaleAqua ( talk) 16:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Huh? Calidum 15:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Close was good; hence the endorse. But there is a strong policy/guideline argument for the other direction that wasn't directly cited in the RM. So I'm invoking IAR to considered it now, instead of in a future RM as per normal process; hence the overturn per NOTBURO. PaleAqua ( talk) 17:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Although the number of commentators was small the consensus of not moving is obvious. Users had a more than adequate window to comment and did not. As an aside the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, and this article in this mainspace, rather than reinforce my own misconceptions and that of others, seems to have done exactly that.-- KTo288 ( talk) 13:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

My concern was not just that the number of participants was small but also that it likely reflects a biased sample of all editors on WP. I doubt most editors are even aware of the theoretical concept, so this was a debate between only those people who are aware of it about what would be in the broad best interests of the project. If the question were presented to a similarly small number of WP editors drawn more randomly from the entire population, I think we'd have seen a very different split. To that point, at risk of charges of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, perhaps the solution for Meclee if he/she would like to take another run at it would be, next time, propose the requested move on the Talk:Social networking service page, where I suspect it might sail through as WP:SNOW. Msnicki ( talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Consensus was clear, especially when no one else supported the move. It might not be a vote per se, but you can't claim consensus to move when participants (excluding the nom) all agree the page shouldn't be moved. And while the nominator says he countered each point, I just see badgering. It also seems the nominator made no attempt to discuss the move request with the closer prior to filing this review. Calidum 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I did, however, notify the closer of my intent to file the review. As for the "badgering", that is nowhere close to my intention. What I did contribute was to effectively counter the points, especially in view that the same commenters did not understand or did not take the time to read the first (previously closed) move request. This is a very simple and clear case of WP:TITLE#Precision_and_disambiguation that, unfortunately, collected some ensconced views while I was unable to reply and comment on the first request. Meclee ( talk) 01:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Fwiw, I wouldn't give that badgering remark a second thought. User:Calidum is entitled to his opinion that he saw some badgering but I didn't. The were four other participants and you directed one comment each toward three of them and three comments toward the one editor who even responded. If that's badgering, it goes on all the time. This is the internet, not a prayer breakfast. Msnicki ( talk) 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant endorse. Having reviewed the discussion, I don't think that it could fairly have been closed with a different outcome. The substantive argument was WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:BROADCONCEPT, and weighing the two falls within editorial discretion. Since both sides' arguments are equally well-founded in policy, I don't see any reason to discount the views of either side. And since the rationales built on policy were both coherent, I see no reason to weigh the !votes differently.

I also don't see the nominator as having got to the point of badgering. This was a discussion not a ballot, and it is appropriate to question the rationales of other editors. Some of the replies seem to be merely restating a point rather than replying to another editor, and more of that would have been badgering. But IMO, the threshold was not crossed.

That leaves us with a proposal which was supported by nobody except the nominator, so I see no alternative to closing it as a consensus to reject.

However, there are several reasons why I regret having to endorse the closure:

1. This RM was a blatant abuse of process. The same proposal by the same nominator had been rejected in a discussion closed only 19 days before this one was opened. Repeating the same proposal until you get the answer you want is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping, and it is a disruptive display of WP:IDHT. That should have been noted in the close.
2. The closer had closed the previous discussion, and should not have closed a second one so soon afterwards. As DLE notes, the second closure is not forbidden; but nonetheless it would have been much wiser to have someone else assess it. There was no rush, because the discussion had barely exceeded the 7 days, and it would have been much better for it to be weighed by a different closer.
3. The lack of an explanation of the closure was unhelpful. Many discussions are adequately closed with just a result, but this one needed a more verbose explanation.

I have a wider concern about User:DavidLeighEllis's closures. For a non-admin, he is closing an awful lot of discussions (RM, CFD, TFD) more than I have ever seen another non-admin do. I am concerned at this volume of closures from an editor who has been editing for only one year, and whose RFA was withdrawn 2 months ago after concerns which included the quality of his NACs.

I have seen a lot of closures by DLE, but I don't recall seeing any of them in which he has explained why that particular closure was made. I had intended at some point to take a little time to analyse his closures, because I have an untested concern that some of these closures seem a little too hasty. Where discussions need careful weighing, that reasoning should be explained, at least briefly.

I would urge DLE to take more time to explain the reasoning behind his closures. There is no deadline, and quality matters. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I liked your point that these are intended to be discussions and it prompts me to observe that Meclee sought discussion with all four other editors and got basically none. Three of them refused to discuss their !votes, leaving me to wonder if indeed all we're left with here is a just a ballot, taken in relative obscurity, c.f., 2016 distinct authors for Social networking service versus just 280 for Social network. Also, you saw the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline favoring opponents, I saw it breaking evenly. Could you say more? Msnicki ( talk) 18:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"Foo service" is a subset of "Foo". That means that "Foo" is a broader concept than "Foo service". So WP:BROADCONCEPT favours the whole topic of social networks, not just the subset which exist through online services.

As to discussion, Meclee basically repeated his point that editors are linking to the wrong page. Others were not persuaded that this was sufficient grounds to move, and several of them explicitly addressed that.

All the editors in the discussion offered a rationale for their preference, so it certainly wasn't "just a ballot". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, I think I see why we differ. You took "primary meaning" in WP:BROADCONCEPT to mean a sort of Venn diagram interpretation, that we should prefer whatever's the broader term if one might be thought of as including another. Because I expect DAB pages to be complete hodge-podges of often unrelated topics that merely share a common word or phrase, I took it to refer to the meaning that's most common. I think the guideline is ambiguous and while I still like mine better, I think your interpretation is also completely reasonable. Thank you. Msnicki ( talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I seem to be having difficulty communicating that this is not a simple case of one term subsuming another. In Venn diagram terms, there would be at least 3 sets interlaced, not 2 sets with one subsumed by the other. The three sets are: 1) social network; 2) computer network; and 3) social networking service, where the 3rd is not wholly subsumed by either of the other two. This is the DAB page that already exists for the term "social network": Social_network_(disambiguation). Meclee ( talk) 23:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Meclee: If you had said that during the discussion it might have persuaded some editors. Or maybe not. Who knows?
But this is not a re-run or reopening of the debate; it's a review of whether the discussion which actually happened was closed correctly. The closer cannot factor in things which editors wish they had said. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - I strongly oppose the statement that I engaged in a blatant abuse of the process. I truly thought that, since I hadn't been able to respond in the first round, that I had simply failed to communicate the situation in a way that others could understand. I thought calling for a "review" at that point was overkill; that all that was needed was for me to better communicate the problem. I admit to blatant unfamiliarity with the whole process, but abuse was never intended. Meclee ( talk) 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I think she has you on this one. You should not propose questions for debate that you care about unless you can commit the time and energy it will likely take to answer the objections that will certainly arise, right then while the debate is in progress. "I wasn't ready so I should get a do-over" really doesn't cut it.

You are allowed to push an agenda pretty hard, but the one thing that doesn't work is to pushing it in exactly the same manner that didn't work last time. You have to find some other approach, whether that's additional talk page discussion or something else. (This is the thinking behind WP:3RR.) In the case at hand, you might have avoided BrownHairedGirl's complaint if you had MR'ed the first close instead repeating the RM. Your overall position if you'd MR'ed the first one might not have been one bit better (and maybe weaker without DLE's poor decision) but you would have avoided BHG's specific complaint, that you'd already tried this same thing a few days earlier. This should be a big takeaway, not something you should waste a lot of time defending. Msnicki ( talk) 23:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

You must have missed the part where I informed folks on the talk page that I had been in the hospital when the first listing was closed. I assure, that was not a planned occurrence. I was hooked up to all sorts of things for several days and had no access to the Internet. Meclee ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I understand and I appreciate. But a lot of life is about luck. And not much of it comes with do-overs. Even if you feel you have an excuse for the second RM, I think you need to own that BHG has a valid complaint. What's done is done. Try not to dwell on it or waste energy defending it. No matter how unfair it seems, your takeaway should be something like, "Wow, they sure don't take many excuses here for repeating whatever it was didn't work last time." That's really the whole message. Msnicki ( talk) 23:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I willingly accept the advice but not the label "blatant abuse". Meclee ( talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I think she just meant it was blatant in the sense that it clear violation, not that it wouldn't be a very understandable mistake if you're new here and not familiar with the rules. I'm sure she assumes good faith and takes for granted you didn't mean to do anything wrong. You should not take this personally. I'm sure it's not meant that way. Msnicki ( talk) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Indeed Msnicki, I did AGF, and I'm sorry that I didn't make it clearer. The point I wanted to make is that repeating the same proposal so soon is a definite no-no which should have mentioned in the close as a reminder, not to suggest that any WP:TROUTing of Meclee was in order.

Meclee, I am sorry that you don't feel satisfied with the outcome. That's the way it goes; win some, lose some. One of the prices of working in a consensus-driven framework is learning to live with what often feel like bad decisions. There have been debates where I was in the minority for years until the tide changed, and others where the tide never came in. C'est la vie! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I am attempting to problem solve here, not just "get my way". Since some objection to the proposed change seems to rest on the idea that "social network" is a term used in other sciences rather than just the social sciences, I'd like to propose a name change to "Social network (theory)". I post that proposal here to ask advice on whether or not such a proposal, following on the heels of my previous proposals, could possibly be construed as "blatant abuse." Meclee ( talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Again, try not to take any of this personally. We assume good faith. But this is not the place to propose yet another RM. All we do here is review the one you asked us to. Msnicki ( talk) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Apologies for vexing other editors by asking advice (not for a review of another RM). Meclee ( talk) 23:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Could not have been closed other than from "consensus to not move" to "no consensus to move". The proposal was opposed, and the nomination seems to have not convinced anyone. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Cannabis (drug) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Withdrawn. I concede that my complaints that TLSuda dismissed the debate as silly and failed to explain his reasoning are not guidelines-based reasons to overturn the close. He's not required to take it seriously or explain a thing. He just can't be clearly wrong on consensus and obviously he's not. This was a contentious debate and as has been pointed out, I'm on record telling a reporter 4 days after the debate ended that I thought I'd won but we'll see. Of course it could be called either way. Those endorsing the close are correct. Msnicki ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC) reply

This has been a very contentious debate that was closed in a very non-serious way by an individual who's made clear he doesn't think choosing an appropriate title is important. If you can't take the question seriously, you have no business deciding the outcome. Many editors have invested many hours in research and debate on something we took seriously and we have been waiting for almost 2 months for a serious close. We've been cheated out of that.

I posted the original Requested Move, asking that Cannabis (drug) be renamed to Marijuana on 4 Jan 2014 based on what to me appeared to be overwhelming evidence that marijuana is now the more common name. It was closed as Moved based on WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME on 11 Jan 2014 by Red Slash, a non-admin who did not have rights to carry out the procedural deletion of the target page. When no admin volunteered to do the deletion, Red Slash requested a Move Review at WP:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug) to enforce the close.

The move review was closed by Dpmuk on 21 Feb as Overturn rather than Relist based on the fact that while the review was still underway, an RFC had been opened by Moxy asking for comment on the very same proposed move, though posed in some very non-neutral language as "RFC:Google hits vs reliable sources". In his close of the move review, Dpmuk asked that anyone closing the RFC should consider the RFC to be a continuation of the requested move. There was no objection raised in the RFC to doing that. As the discussion in the RFC had already died down, Dpmuk posted a request to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Cannabis (drug)#RfC:Google hits vs reliable sources two days later, where it's been sitting for 6 weeks.

TLSuda has just closed the RFC but in a non-serious way as "not moved" that indicates that he/she does not take the question seriously. TLSuda's close does not state any guidelines-based reasons nor discuss any of the arguments offered by either side to indicate how the close was rendered, making it impossible to tell if he/she even read the discussion. Instead, TLSuda says, "I'm closing this RFC now as to keep it from interfering with the new (15 April 2014) move request. I sincerely recommend that editors should fully consider whether continuous opening of discussions on the name for this article is at all productive." When asked on his/her talk page about the close, TLSuda replied, "This is silly. Stop wasting everyone's time arguing over this nonsense. Go do something productive."

It is simply inappropriate for TLSuda to be deciding RFCs based on a view that debates over article titles are silly and that we all should be doing something different with our time. We are all volunteers here and it is not TLSuda's place to decide how volunteers should spend their time. It is definitely not appropriate to close a serious discussion in such a capricious manner. The RFC should be relisted and then closed by someone willing and able to take the matter seriously and do it properly. Msnicki ( talk) 04:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Msnicki needs to learn to distinguish the close from my opinion. I'm sorry if that isn't clear. There is consensus that the article shouldn't be moved, plain and simple. No new information was brought to the table since the last move review, so there is nothing new to discuss. Just editors arguing their opinions with different words, using sentence fragments of policy. And believe me when I say that I've read through every bit of the discussion, from the first move discussion, that move review the RFC, the new move discussion and now this. I do not think it is silly to discuss changing the name of an article. I think it is silly to keep beating a dead horse because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This process may have been productive at the start, but now its just turned into pure back-and-forth with no productive outcome. There is now currently a move review open and a new move discussion that was opened yesterday before my close. This is the second time that this situation has happened causing editors to have to separate but similar discussions to participate in and or follow. Is this cycle ever going to end? TLSuda ( talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. The nomination of this review makes it sound as if the previous move review was closed on purely procedural grounds, such that a substantive task of re-weighing opinions in the subsequent RfC would have become imperative. However, that seems not to be the case. The previous review was closed with a firm overturn to no consensus. The only way the following RfC could have made the result to swing back towards "consensus to move" would have been if it had drawn a very significant amount of fresh support for that. It doesn't take more than a cursory glance to realize that this was not the case. What we saw in the RfC is essentially just the same small set of people exchanging the same arguments arguments, and weights of numbers – if anything – more strongly tending towards the oppose side. Closers are not obliged to provide lengthy discussions of policy in every case. Here, the situation was quite clear enough for the closure to stand without such a discussion, and I see no way the debate could have been read much differently so as to allow a different outcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Simply not true. The previous review was not closed as "overturn to no consensus". Objections raised in the review were (a) that the closer of the requested move should have been an admin since only an admin could delete the target, (b) that the closer introduced his own evidence (some Google n-gram analyses supporting the move) and that if he wanted to do that, he should have !voted instead and (c) that the closer did not address a claim that marijuana and cannabis are somehow different and/or that cannabis includes hash and marijuana doesn't. None of these objections addressed the quality of the arguments in the RM, merely whether the close was proper. In closing the review, Dpmuk made clear that if the RfC had not been opened, that he would have overturned to relist, not no consensus, and that his intent was to reopen the discussion and that both the RM and the RfC should be considered as a single debate. Msnicki ( talk) 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. I have not been involved in the discussion and have just read it with a fresh mind. The first move request appeared very balanced to me with a general lack of consensus. It was closed by a non-administrator, who recommended a move. This was taken to move review where there was strong support for the decision to be overturned and for the second move request to be considered. Here, I feel as if there is consensus not to move the article, as TLSuda has also concluded. Considering the votes alone, the only user who did not vote for 'keep' or 'speedy close' was Msnicki, the samer user who has initiated this move review. If there was no consensus to move the article in the first request, then there is certainly no consensus here. Whilst I wish to assume good faith, I feel as if Msnicki is simply disappointed that he has not got his own way. I suggest we move on and focus on improving the article instead of wasting time discussing the title. I would also like to thank TLSuda for making the close: he or she should be thanked for taking the time to close such a long discussion. 86.170.98.9 ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Potentially important comment about Msnicki contacting the press. Is this link of any importance: http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2014/02/27/poll-redmond-developer-fires-up-worldwide-wikipedia-debate-cannabis-vs-marijuana/#11822101=0 ? It appears as if Msnicki has contacted the press about her intention to set out to have the page renamed “Marijuana". She writes that the Brits and others don’t like thinking about how Americans dominate the sources discussing certain topics, just like we dominate lots of other things in ways they don’t like. The article describes a Wikipedia user as not really have the kind of cred on Wiki to do what he did. Ominously (considering this move review), Msnicki writes This has been an interesting debate. And it’s not over. She continues to say that That decision [the second move request], whoever makes it and whatever it is, will undoubtedly be challenged. Then the issue will “bounce up and down through the ‘courts’ for a while. Because of the potential severity of these actions, I shall notify administrators at WP:ANI. It is interesting to note that, even though the article is on an American website, a poll on the page shows that nearly three-quarters of visitors agree with the decision made by TLSuda. 86.170.98.9 ( talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Oh, please. You're being ridiculous. Our local paper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has a "pot blog". I sent him a link to the debate on 7 January with the relatively neutral remark, "There’s a lively debate going on at Wikipedia over whether to rename the “Cannabis (drug)” article to be “Marijuana”. International readers insist this is just an American slang term. You can read more here". I gave him my real name and contact information but did not identify which of the comments were mine. I heard nothing from him until 27 February, when he sent mail asking if he could interview me on the phone and if I would be willing to be identified. The article appeared that day. The last comment anyone made in the debate was 4 days earlier. The debate was over and merely awaiting a close.

My remark that I expected the result to be challenged reflected my expectation that I had won the debate and that a proper close would support that finding but that those objecting to the move would challenge it again, just as they did when the first close went my way. I did not expect to request a review of just any close that went against me. I'm on the losing side of debates all the time and I can accept losses just fine. I understand and I accept our guidelines and that we operate on consensus. I'm objecting to this close not because it went against me but because it was a lazy, drive-by close that failed to offer any reasons for the decision except just that the closer thought the debate was silly.

As for my comments that Brits and others don't like Americans dominating the sources, the evidence was clear in the debate that that's true. Several editors objected that marijuana is an Americanism and that even if there are lots of American sources that use the term, it was still an Americanism. The reporter himself concluded, "The biggest argument against shifting the Wiki page from “cannabis” to “marijuana” centered on Europeans dislike of allowing what they consider to be a parochial Americanism to dictate what the English-speaking world would find as the definitive label on Wikipedia." Those are his words, not mine, and he went on to support that with a quote from User:SqueakBox that argues that marijuana is "essentially an American term" and goes on to question American sources.

Finally, the poll results on that page are probably meaningless and do not necessarily tell what Americans think. Once the link got posted to the Talk:Cannabis (drug) page, it probably got visitors from all over the world. More to the point, from the way the question was posed and the comments on the page arguing that Cannabis is the scientific name, it seems likely that many of those voting may not have realized that we already have a separate Cannabis page for the genus and that this was not about whether to rename that page but merely about whether to rename Cannabis (drug). Even I would oppose renaming Cannabis and for the same reason, that Cannabis is the scientific term for the genus. Msnicki ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Msnicki, I want you to know that I came across the debate without any kind of underlying preference: I found it because I made a comment yesterday at WP:ANI about how we can encourage administrators to close contentious debates, and this perhaps motivated this debate to be closed. My endorsement was made neutrally and I found your link whilst researching the discussion.

Please note that I included the word 'potentially'. I do not know whether your actions have been problematic, but I believe that there is a chance they could be. I raised the matter in case it is relevant and so that more experienced users could assess it.

I hope you understand why the comments you made about challenging the move requests might be relevant here. I hope, too, that your justification of them can be taken in good faith. It is not my responsibility, however, to come to any kind of decision: I do not want to get involved about your actions. I merely thought that they might require attention.

I am not saying in any way that the poll is indicative of what should be done here or that it should be taken into account in any way. I just thought it was quite interesting to see and, actually, a little humorous. 86.170.98.9 ( talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Unequivocal endorse closure. Behavior by filer is now into WP:NOTHERE territory, and sanctions should be applied as per the ANI filing ES &L 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure OP does not like the way consensus went during the original discussion, and now they're grasping at straws (TLSuda's close comments) to try and force their opinion through. Also greatly concerned about complaints (seriously?) made to media external to Wikipedia. Don't like how Wikipedia works? Go try and change the rules instead. By consensus (of course!). Until then though, this is a clear appropriate close. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - Honestly, if I'd participated at the RfC I'd probably have argued to rename the article. I'd prefer an article at marijuana to describe the drug, with an article at cannabis to describe the plant. But regardless of my personal opinion, it looks like the consensus at the RfC would have disagreed with me, and I believe that TLSuda's closure was appropriate and made with due consideration and diligence. -- Atama 頭 17:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Did you consider only the RfC or did you also consider the original RM discussion as part of the same debate? The RfC, in part, perhaps because of it's unhelpful phrasing of the question and because it asked the same question already discussed in the RM and still under review, was down to a small core of participants still arguing over remaining issues. The closer of the RM thought that part of the debate went clearly in favor of move and gave a detailed recital of the arguments and evidence he considered as prevailing. Msnicki ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I did, but I also considered the RM not really "closed" with Red Slash's closure of the discussion, because debate continued on the subject about 10 minutes after the closure was completed. It seemed like over the longer debate, there wasn't a solid consensus to move, and the debate at the RfC seems more conclusive. I also wish the RfC hadn't been created when it was (as TLSuda also expressed in closing the RfC, and as it complicated matters for Dpmuk as well) but what's done is done. Looking at the debate as a whole, there's definitely not a consensus to move it to marijuana (which is necessary for a move, if there is simply no consensus either way it would default to staying as it is). -- Atama 頭 18:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

This is not a bad answer and if the actual close had offered this analysis and fleshed it out by reciting some of the arguments to indicate which ones were considered persuasive, I could and would have accepted any outcome, including one that went against me. I do, after all, respect our guidelines and our process and there's a luck of the draw in whether we get a closer who happens to like one set of arguments better than another. But that's not what happened. What happened was it was closed by someone whose only reason offered was that the whole debate was silly. Msnicki ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• The one thing I'll say is a trout to the closer for appealing to the new RM, which is never going to succeed. -- BDD ( talk) 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close NE Ent 21:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close In addition to agreeing with much of the above, that fact that there is yet another RM on the page indicates that a procedural close might be considered. PaleAqua ( talk) 22:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. Note that I closed the most recent move request post-haste per SNOW. Drmies ( talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close Admins close seems to be reasonable, I see no evidence that procedure was not followed in this case. -- Jayron 32 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

The proposal was to move from "Accession of Crimea ..." to "Incorporation of Crimea ...".

Closing admin closed the discussion as "consensus to move to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" despite 5 supports of "Incorporation" and 3 opposes (of "Incorporation", the discussion was about moving to "Incorporation").

In his closing argument the admin expressed his strong personal support for "Annexation" and argued that "Annexation" received more support in the discussion that "Accession". But why would anyone who preferred "Accession" over "Annexation" say anything in this discussion? Why would a person come to the discussion about moving to "Incorporation" only to vote against moving the page to "Annexation"? The version starting with "Annexation" was not an option and therefore the people who opposed it didn't have a chance to express their opinion. Meanwhile, a couple of people who very strongly preferred "Annexation" used this opportunity to say that once again. (I personally think that people who are "on the Russian side of the fence" are too tolerant and polite to argue endlessly, so if someone starts saying "It was Annexation! It was by force!" [the closing admin said it "was in fact unilateral" and "it did involve force"], they won't say anything. Why would they say anything to this if they know the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to access to the Russian Federation? They know that propaganda is all around and it is obvious that the English-language sources express the Western point of view and everyone reading the Western press is affected.)

Talking about me, I preferred not to vote simply because I wasn't sure if the article should be at "Accession" or at "Incorporation". The article was already at an okay title, so I preferred to stay away and see how it is moved to "Incorporation". The voting was in favor of "Incorporation", so I didn't care. I'm sure the same was true for many people who strongly opposed "Annexation" in the earlier discussion. My guess is supported by the fact that this new proposal had very low feedback, while the earlier attempt to move the article to "Annexation" received very strong opposition from many editors.

Once again: The title starting with "Annexation" was not proposed and therefore wasn't discussed by people who might have opposed it. The discussion was about moving to "Incorporation" and received 5 supporting and 3 opposing votes. I am asking to overturn the closure.

P.S. I am very much alarmed at the way the closing admin seemed to have a very strong personal opinion in favor of "Annexation" (read his closing statement) and used this opportunity to enforce it. Moscow Connection ( talk) 07:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

As I explained in great detail in my closing rationale, the situation was such that the discussions in both sections had to be taken into account equally. This by no means implies that opinions of those editors who opposed "annexation" were ignored – quite to the contrary, only by conflating the two votings in the way I did could I make sure they were duly registered. It would have made no difference if you had restated your opinion again the second time, so there can be no talk of a lost opportunity.

As for my comments on the merits of the case, this is not a matter of expressing my personal opinion. Rather, as per WP:NOTAVOTE, as the closing admin I have the obligation to assess whether policy-based arguments on any side were strong enough to force a closure even against weight of numbers. My rationale merely explained why I felt this was not the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Most people voted for "Incorporation". I think what you did was unfair. (Moreover, if "Annexation" were an option in the move request, it would be immediately opposed by many editors. There was certainly no consensus to move to "Annexation" anywhere.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

It was incorrect to combine votes from two unrelated move discussions. There were some votes for "annexation" in this new discussion simply because some people who stand on a very strong anti-Russian position in the event can't keep quiet and took this opportunity to state their opinions once again. People who were against "annexation" didn't have an opportunity to confront them because "annexation" was not an option. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse close - I was also involved in that discussion. And some facts are not touched here: The administrator "count[ed] 3 editors who fully and exclusively supported "incorporation", 4 who named "incorporation" as their second and "annexation" as their first choice, 9 who supported only "annexation", and 8 who opposed both moves and supported only "accession"". So it was quite fair move. Besides, the Administrator didn't push his POV, but merely gave the fact how all reliable source refer to the problem had been discussing there and when it is "better to avoid it in favour of a more neutral-sounding option"(what really disappointed the users with WP:POVPUSH, according to their edit history and in most cases, country-allegiance). Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

(This is one of the people who came to the discussion and expressed his very strong opinion in favour of "Annexation" which wasn't even an option. Maybe we shoud wait for someone more neutral to come.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

1. I didn't hide my involvement, moreover it was my first sentence here. 2. I didn't state any opinion here, just quoted the Administrator's note in order to show the facts that were omitted above. 3. My positive (and strong) opinion towards "Annexation" was due the fact it is a Legal and appropriate term, which I proved with multiple links from different encyclopedias; but not my country's or nation's involvement in the discussed problem. 4. There was already an ongoing discussing about changing "Accession" to "Annexation" under the thread, and some people were against both moves either Incorporation, or Annexation. And yes, 5. Most people voted for Annexation, which can be seen with simple mathematical counting. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse Close: As previously stated in mine initial arguments (yes Moscow I am hoping you read this), the properly defined term was used, as per the dictionary. In fact, I find it offensive (personally) that "annexation" has been given such a bad name...my very place of residence came about from Annexation! მაLiphradicus Epicusთე 10:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

What is being reviewed here is the closure. The proposal was to move the article to "Incorporation" and it was supported by 5 votes against 3. The closing admin preferred not no see this and found some strange way to count opinions expressed in many different ways and places so that the resulting title would correspond with his own strong opinion that the incorporation of Crimea "was in fact unilateral" and "it did involve force" (citing the admin). This is my rationale. That the vote was 5 to 3 for moving to "Incorporation". -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

(Two edit conflicts. Addition to my rationale.) I personally think that people who are "on the Russian side of the fence" are too tolerant and polite to argue endlessly, so if someone starts saying "It was Annexation! It was by force!" [the closing admin said it "was in fact unilateral" and "it did involve force"], they won't say anything. Why would they say anything to this if they know the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to access to the Russian Federation? They know that propaganda is all around and it is obvious that the English-language sources express the Western point of view and everyone reading the Western press is affected. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - 'Annexation' doesn't mean 'bad'. I don't know why people are stripping words of their neutral meaning. It merely is the appropriate word for describing the unilateral incorporation of a territory into some state. The administrator who closed this request did so in connection with the arguments presented. Since these discussion are not a vote, this was a very sensible thing to do. RGloucester — ☎ 14:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

There are some arguments against it:

a) very point of unilaterality is disputed by Russia. I'm pointed out several times why, so I'm not going to repeat that position here (just refer to Kosovo independence precedent and this treaty). About "neutral meaning": annexation (in *international law) The acquisition of legal sovereignty by one state over the territory of another, usually by occupation or conquest. Annexation is now generally considered illegal in international law, even when it results from a legitimate use of force (e.g. in self‐defence). It may subsequently become legal, however, by means of recognition by other states. The annexing state is not bound by pre‐existing obligations of the state annexed. Yes, I'm noted "may subsequently become legal", but this is exception (and such recognition is very unlikely currently, considering US & EU support for Ukr. gov't policies) to general consideration of illegality.

b) referendum itself, which is (or pretends to be) expression of popular will. Sometimes, in revolutionary moments they are held in violation of the Constitution (cf. Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991, violated USSR law on seccession, Russian constitutional referendum, 1993, violated Russian Constitution of 1978), but legitimized by subsequent history (cf. also "a)"). We can have many opinions for and against what happened on 16 March, but we must stay neutral. We don't call 1993 Russian constitutional crisis as coup d'etat (but formally it was, and there even a redirect from such name). Ukrainian impeachment went with violations (no Con.Court verdict on VY, no Sup.Court. verdict) and followed by purge of highest courts from VY supporters - but we call this article "2014 Ukrainian revolution" (with coup d'etat presented as alternate position, not main).

c) there are RS with accession term too [12], [13]

d) "annexation" title constrains ability to present neutral POV (as pointed above), in comparsion to "Incorporation of..., known as annexation of.. or accession of..". This makes lead less neutral.

Seryo93 (
talk) 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Updated 15:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
reply

Move reviews are not for the purpose of rehashing the discussion that was had at the article. They are for evaluating the behaviour of the closing administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, then it becomes even simplier: closing admin "hijacked" request (it was about move to "Incorporation...", not to "annexation"!) and renamed article the way, that hasn't recieved consensus. Seryo93 ( talk) 16:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

(Reply to your previous comment) The problem that it wasn't unilateral, but the "Annexation" title makes it look so. No one took anything from anyone. People who live in Crimea didn't like what was going on in the state they happened to find themselves in 23 years ago and decided to join another. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

(Off topic.) And by the way, it may sound strange to Americans, but Ukraine and Russia are single nation. Most people have relatives in Ukraine or have Ukrainian ancestors. (And those who don't simply don't know they do.) All attempts by the Western media to make Russians and Ukrainians hate each other will fail cause we are them and they are us. Russia didn't take anything from Ukraine, it simply saved some people from the rule of some evil people. It is very sad that Wikipedia instead of providing a neutral view of things (and in this case it should have been kind and understanding and let the Russian point of view be heard as well as the Western point of view) is promoting hate and intolerance. I'm not talking about this particular article but you can look at any article related to the 2013/2014 Ukrainian crisis and you'll see a lot of hate. At least, let's name articles neutrally. — Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• It isn't a 'hijacking'. Requested moves are discussions, not votes. They evolve, as discussions do. They are not limited to the initial proposal, proposed by the initiator. I don't think Russians and Ukrainians hate each other (but they are not 'one nation', as I'm sure many in Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Transcarpathia would tell you), but that's irrelevant to the discussion here. Absolutely irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Either way, this move was made without consensus, by administrator, who a) personally favors annexation title (i.e. seemingly biased - it's not my accusation, by the way, see posts above) and b) didn't noticed several hints to POV nature of "annexation" title. Moreover, this decision was made in background of ongoing sourcing controversy (in which I didn't participate currently, by the way), which makes situation even more complicated. And look at this: Tymoshenko conversation was removed as "rumor", but 123% Sevastopol rumor (appeared due to ITAR-TASS mistake) still persists, for "some" reason. Now you have an outlook of neutrality situation about whole Crimea-related mess. Situation, in which we, IMO, should restrain ourselves from making such "easy" decisions in favor of either "annexation" or "accession". Bests, Seryo93 ( talk) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Addition to above post: we have RS for "Incorporation of Crimea in the Russian Federation". So this proposed title is not unsourced. Seryo93 ( talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Sourcing for "incorporation" was never the issue as far as I can see. Of course people can refer to an annexation as an "incorporation" – just like they can refer to demonstrations as "disturbances", to a civil war as "fighting", to a revolt as "civil unrest", to a coup as "military action", or to a genocide as a "tragedy". There are more specific and more generic descriptors for things, and a diplomat might often prefer a more generic one to a blunter one. That doesn't stop us from using titles at the appropriate level of specificity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Seems like reasonable use of discretion, and possibility of using annexation was referenced early in the discussion so seems like a valid choice for consideration when weighing opinions at the close. PaleAqua ( talk) 22:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose close due to very negative connotation of term in this particular case (see this for example). Either way, I'm not going to be disruptive, but I'm still insist on (or rather propose) neutral (i.e. neither pro- nor anti-Russian) term for page name. Common name (and there are arguments that annex. is that case) can be resolved not only via page title but also via redirect (such as Soviets, common shortname redirecting to Soviet Union, or 9/11, common shortname for September 11 attacks). And about "diplomat's neutrality" counterpoint: there are other sources (such as [14], [15] and [16], note that they use "annex." and "incorporation" interchangeable) with incorporation. Seryo93 ( talk) 06:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• And please consider further: annexation of Hawaii is more common term than Newlands Resolution, but we use latter term. Why we can't follow similar policy here, choosing neutral name over claimed to be common one? Seryo93 ( talk) 06:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close I cannot find fault with the closing admins decision. Particularly valid is the point of taking into account the previous, recently closed, move request into account in coming to a conclusion.-- KTo288 ( talk) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Current title provokes POV-pushing edits (see [17] and [18]), followed by response from opposite side (see [19], [20], which makes very event "a theory"), so I urge community to overturn moving decision and move page to something neutral ("incorporation", "joining", etc.). We have precedent for non-common neutral names (see above for Newlands Resolution example), so please, name page in a neutral way. Seryo93 ( talk) 08:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Please, see WP:DUE. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 08:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I may agree with that point, but even if we accept "annexation" term (to which I still object, but not going to be disruptive), we must watch lead for neutrality. BTW, what do you think about current lead? Seryo93 ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I find it somehow acceptable, as it seems to be quite neutral. Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 09:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I've modified preamble further, so I think, it no longer sides with "annexation" terminology, but rather follows it's common status, making article more neutral (even with so unneutral term). Seryo93 ( talk) 13:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Aside from Hawaii we have Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. 92.100.51.149 ( talk) 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - As the editor who originated this particular move request, I think the administrator's points were well-reasoned and it was wise to take into account previous discussions on the title. Although the new title may irk a minority of readers and editors, it has a far more solid basis in WP:RS than the alternatives presented and is prima facie accurate by the very definition of the word "annexation", regardless of any particular connotations some may perceive it as having. Wikipedia has a responsibility to present information in a verifiable, encyclopedic, and objective manner, and this title violates none of that. We cannot be held hostage as an editing community by the dissent of a vocal minority. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Dictionary definition of words. Dictionaries define words, not encyclopedias. Some people on here are trying to make this into more than what it really is. This move is a very simple, terminology-based one. I can't believe the resistance some people gave it... მაLiphradicus Epicusთე 05:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Problem, in fact, lies with a meaning. From Russia's point it was a self- cession of RoC territory to Russia (hence accession, entry ("вхождение") into political union, in this case federal Russian state). I really can't see why "Incorporation of..." (if we so dislike accession variant) is bad. We have this one, while technically it was annexation of Kingdom of Tibet (by "dictionary definition") too. And one more question (repeated several times before): why we have to attack Russia under guise of "dictionary definition"? In case of Crimea "annexation" term is used with negative connotation (see this for example), and from my point, renaming article to annexation is a POV-pushing (like adding Anschluss link or similar ad Hitlerum parallels). How about maintaining NPOV? Seryo93 ( talk) 09:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

We shoudn't discuss it all over again. The only thing that matters (here at the move review) is that the close was reasonable because there in fact was no consensus to move. And this message on the user's talk page explains to him that everything on Wikipedia requires a consensus and this is a contentious case and not a simple technical move. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Moscow Connection the problem here lies in the first sentence written by Seryo93, and I quote, "From Russia's point...[of view]", that is all that I need to have stated that clearly and publicly violates the NEUTRAL point of view! We here are NOT going to push any ONE country's point-of-view. It is that simple. "Annexation" is not an "American" point of view...it is the view of the entirety of the so-called "civilized" world. This includes multiple alliances and different countries. In fact, there are VERY few cases where such a move is titles "Incorporation of..." მაLiphradicus Epicusთე 20:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

And annexation is pro-Ukrainian POV. Why you pushing it? "Civilized" world is not an argument at all. Seryo93 ( talk) 06:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Can everybody here please stop re-debating the merits of the case, and instead present us a clear and brief summary of what move was requested, how that move request was closed, and why that closure may have been procedurally wrong (mind you: procedurally, not just because you would have favoured the other outcome)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply