Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

:{{move review links|Srebrenica massacre|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Srebrenica massacre}}|rm_section=Requested move 2 June 2024}} (Discussion with closer)

After many years of watching this article's title go through partisan bickering for move reviews, such that a repeated failure to form a consensus to move, it behooves the project to be able to clearly and coherently articulate to both editors and an interested audience why the title remains Srebrenica massacre instead of Srebrenica genocide. Articles in less contentious areas with contested titles often have FAQs at the top of the talk page that clearly indicates the answer as such, but this article which has had several formal multiple move requests over the years, all to the same proposed new title, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_22#Requested_move_25_April_2021], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_16#Requested_move], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_13#Requested_move], as well as several informal move requests going back over 15 years [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_4#Move_to_rename_this_article_%22Srebrenica_Genocide%22] (there have been numerous arguments on the talk page archives over the years in addition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3ASrebrenica+massacre&search=srebrenica+genocide&ns0=1]) about why the article title is what it is.

Of these requests and discussions, the last satisfactory explanation for the move request failing was given in 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_16#Requested_move]; {{tq|The proponents of this move have made an excellent case that the use of the term "Srebrenica genocide" is growing in use, especially with the recent declarations by various national and international organizations. However, the opponents of this move also have made an excellent case that "Srebrenica genocide", while growing in use, has not yet achieved the status of most commonly used name.}} 15 years later, this is the exact same argument made by those opposed to the argument. How can something be growing in use for 15 years but somehow never quite reach common name? How can editors make heads or tails of the fact that Wikipedia article regarding the reason that the name of the article about a genocide differs from the name used by national and international organizations is that consensus cannot be formed by a group of editors with minimal or no supervision, flinging accusations of genocide denial back and forth?

I thank Reading Beans for having taken the time to read through the move request and have the courage to put an end to the conversation, as they'd have good reason to suspect the same tenor of conversation as in the move request would come to their talk page, but it is not a satisfactory outcome to simply offer to {{tq| Feel free to make another RM when due.}} and not be able to articulate, to a satisfactory degree, anything regarding the number of votes for or against, contextualize the latest of many failed move requests over several years, or, more importantly, offer anything regarding the strength or weakness of these arguments. That this opportunity for a move review comes in tandem with another highly contested article title in a similar topic space motivates this move review all the more. That the level of insight, attention, and conversation which the Gaza genocide move requests have gotten is entire magnitudes of maturity and coherency than what the Srebrenica genocide article gets nowadays is understandable given that one is more topical than another, but there isan opportunity here to finally provide a satisfactory explanation for the article, instead of kicking it down the can for another 15 years. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time someone has submitted this article's numerous unsuccessful move requests for a move review, and if this is the case it is long overdue. 122141510 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I've notified those who participated in the requested move about this discussion. 122141510 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (involved): There certainly were strong opinions expressed in favour of the move proposal, but seemingly motivated as much to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as by Wikipedia policy & guidelines, producing a larger volume of argumentation than those opposed, and perhaps generating more heat than light. Closure was a difficult judgment call, and another person could have perceived the same discussion as a consensus to move, but I don't see sufficient grounds for overturning a no consensus declaration. The same proposal was a snow close against it at Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 22#Requested move 25 April 2021. Revisiting the question in a couple of years seems reasonable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :(involved) I object, as I did in the discussion, to the idea that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as a motivation would be exclusive to the support side. Some editors saw fit to question the legitimacy or procedure of international organizations in recognizing the genocide. If it's fit to suspect support arguments are doing it to 'correct' Wikipedia, those object arguments which questioned the legitimacy of international organizations recognizing the genocide may see objecting to the move request as an opportunity to 'correct' the international consensus. 122141510 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I have not noticed anyone in the RM discussion trying to minimize the gravity of the event or anyone who "questioned the legitimacy [or procedure] of international organizations recognizing the genocide". The article about The Holocaust uses the word 'genocide' just once in its lead section. The Darfur genocide article uses it twice (one of which is the opening sentence's repetition of the article's title). The Armenian genocide article uses it four times. This article uses the word nine times in its lead section. I have not noticed anyone trying to remove the word or say the word does not apply and should not be used in the article. I have not noticed anyone in the RM discussion trying to say that the term is not accurate in the way it was applied in organizational declaration(s). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::One of the opposers repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the UN and/or its processes, and another indicated that they questioned the "moral authority of UN pronouncements in this area". 122141510 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Reclose or relist (uninvolved). Unless I'm missing something, the closer does not appear to have given an explanation for their conclusion. I'd be open to ReadingBeans themselves re-closing this with a 4-5 paragraph explanation. That length is warranted given the variety of arguments and sources presented. Even if the result is the same such a close would be incredibly useful for future move discussions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :(involved) To avoid any confusion, the full explanation as provided by closer is here Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024. My submission above might give an incorrect impression that the closure explanation was only 8 words long – it's actually 54 words, but my contention is effectively what you've suggested. 122141510 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak endorse (uninvolved). While I agree that the closer's decision could have been more detailed, I suspect that a more careful and detailed closing judgement would nevertheless arrive at the same conclusion. I count 8 supporting and 9 opposing votes, and I too get the impression that to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS motivated supporters to a considerable degree. In such a case, a declaration that they nevertheless had the better arguments would look suspiciously like a WP:Supervote. A relist seems pointless, as the RM was open for almost two months – surely long enough to gather qualified input. Gawaon (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Very clear no consensus. The close was entirely correct. It looks like the proposer just wants to re-argue the case here and that's not what MR is for. The debate has been going on for far too long already. I also agree that most supporters seem to have been motivated by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that's not what Wikipedia is about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Reclose overturn with a rationale (involved). Per VR and Joe. Zero explanation in the close. The policies discussed were COMMONNAME and PRECISION. Closers must give some explanation/rationale for the decision. Added: It would be damaging to set a precedent/encourage closes with zero rationale, Tom B (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to what? You can't possibly argue that this debate resulted in a consensus to move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Yes I can argue that closes should be overturned if they include zero rationale or summary. I argue there is consensus to move based on COMMONNAME and PRECISION, but the closer doesn't mention any argument or policy, Tom B (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::So, are you arguing that it should be overturned to a move or not a move? Because it's a clear no consensus, whatever rationale was supplied by the closer. There's no way in hell there was a consensus to move the article. And if there's no consensus to move then an article stays where it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Several of us, including Joe, Szmenderowiecki, myself are arguing it should have a rationale regardless of what the consensus is. A surprising number of editors are endorsing a close that has no rationale, Tom B (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I'm wonder what is the mechanism (if any) by which a panel of multiple editors might agree to reclose and certify the rationale, such as was done here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Clinton/April_2015_move_request]? I think there's some hesitation in being the person tasked with closing contentious articles in this topic area – there is either a policy or more likely an essay I haven't been able to find that advises uninvolved editors to avoid this topic space lest they bear the brunt of one or more sides of the contentious editors in this area. (I haven't been able to find it but I swear it exists in mainspace. It also speaks about the idea of just letting editors 'tire themselves out. Point being, I am of the impression uninvolved editors are consciously avoiding any level of involvement this topic area.) The immediate effect would be to provides more confidence in the rationale for the closure, and dilutes the amount of grief any one closer might get. 122141510 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): As much as I'd like for things to be called what they are, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:COMMONNAME. WP:COMMONNAME as a policy makes sense, because people should be able to more easily find the things with the names that they are more likely to give them. While the usage of "Srebrenica genocide" may have increased it was clear from discussion that it has not clearly overtaken "Srebrenica massacre" in usage and was equal at best. Therefore I can't see how the closer could have arrived at any other conclusion, than no consensus, given the strengths of the arguments and the evidence presented for their support. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :COMMONNAME is one of 5 criteria for titles, the closer could have looked at the other criteria discussed and evidence provided e.g. on PRECISION. We don't know what policies the closer applied as there is no rationale, no mention of any policy. I'm surprised uninvolved editors are endorsing a close with no summary, no rationale, no mention of any policy e.g. COMMONNAME, PRECISION? Tom B (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Yes the closing statement wasn't flash hot. However, even if someone recloses with a more detailed rationale I can't see the outcome changing from no consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::thanks, i can see the outcome changing if all 5 criteria were applied, per the policy on titles. Here there are 2 COMMONnames so it particularly makes sense to look at other criteria e.g. PRECISION, Tom B (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't read through through the discussion yet but at the least this is a very poor closing statement. It just states the outcome with zero supporting reasoning—no summary of the arguments, nothing, not even a headcount—and unnecessarily talks down the participants ("bricks of !votes", "feel free to make another RM"). The closer couldn't even be bothered to spell out their words properly ("thru"). A formal close serves two purposes: to save others having to read through the whole discussion by summarising the points of consensus, and to lend weight to the outcome by reassuring participants that their arguments have been considered, even if their preferred outcome didn't happen. Both are especially important in lengthy and contentious discussions like this one. Since this close offers no information and actively antagonises the participants it's worse than no close at all, and I'm tempted to say it should be overturned on that basis alone. – Joe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :On reflection, yes, that's enough for this close not to stand. So reclose by someone willing to write a proper closing statement. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I made a point that the term massacre is controversial and that we cannot have a controversial term favored over the other non controversial term on the grounds of COMMON name. I also made a point that COMMON name process is flawed.That wasn't addressed at all. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :They're both controversial, rather your argument is privileging one form of "controversial" ("massacre" minimises severity) as being right and the other ("genocide" overstates severity) as being wrong ("denial", see also comment by Jessintime below). If most sources call it a "genocide" then cool, it's a reason to have that be the title, but you can't then go woke on whether people are allowed to say "massacre". Did the UN declare "massacre" harmful? Do most sources care? Is there a "denialist" movement directed at the consensus that "massacre" is harmful? Apologies if this is offtopic for I do endorse having a summary of arguments in the talk page per current consensus (as above). FMasic (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::They are not both controversial. This is not the place to have discussions from the talk page, but suffice to say that jo one made a point that genocide is a controversial term, including you. I've made several other points apart from this 2 I have mentioned here. and I would like to have an explanation in how they were considered when establishing the consensus. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::::Establishing which consensus? There was no consensus, as the closer clearly enough indicated (even though I agree that their statement could and should have been more detailed and better explained). Gawaon (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::What's your figuring on that? When I subtract those arguments I find without merit, there is a consensus to move on the basis of WP:TITLE criteria. I couldn't have closed the request both because I was involved and because a contentious article would've been a poor choice for someone to do their first ever move request close on. 122141510 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::I mean... is the argument here that this point about massacre being controversial and genocide not, that because nobody addressed it then it should go into the rationale? Because if it did go into the rationale then I think it'd get a lot more scrutiny for being a terrible point (my argument above). Sorry I wasn't there to say anything I guess 🤷. If that isn't the point then my fault for misunderstanding. It seems to me that if there's a common name consensus then it's based on more objective criteria such as counting. FMasic (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't need to argue that The Genocide Convention has yielded a controversial term. If you think so, you can go elsewhere to discuss, maybe Genocide Convention talk page. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::Gawaon, the consensus being that there is no consensus for the change. That is the consensus on the move request. I still expect explanation on how my points were considered. As I see, only COMMONNAME was considered, and even for that process I have argued the counting was flawed. I have used COMMONNAME argument in support of the move. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reclose If the discussion outcome were obvious, I would have had no problem whatsoever with a short closure. In more controversial discussions like this one, I need to understand the motives of the closer for me to see if the closure was within editorial discretion and to rebut any assumptions that the closer may have made. However, here there's basically nothing except for the result. This isn't good enough. I think the closer should provide a reasonably detailed rationale so that we are sure that the closure was based on correct assumptions.

:If the closer expands his closure with a rationale, I may reconsider. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). Notwithstanding the fact that the closer should have offered a better explanation, the no-consensus close was correct. Evidence introduced by a proponent of the move showed each term is used equally and, if anything, massacre remains the common name. And quite frankly the idea that calling something a massacre and not a genocide is denying that event happened -- as proponents did throughout the discussion -- is insulting. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. A post closure comment on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024 talk page] and some of the comments above make me wonder if a lot of the problem was an unsophisticated rationale as provided by the request submitter – "per the UN using the term", in effect – so some oppose arguments were formulated as little more than attacks on the UN's procedure and/or moral authority, ignoring or otherwise sidestepping the attempt to move the conversation to supporting or opposing the move on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. If the move request is relisted it might need to be done so with some modification to the submitter rationale[?]; if reclosed the explanation should clearly explain whether those arguments were given weight and if so why. 122141510 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved, I argued against the move): I would have welcomed a more detailed rationale and an admin closure, but perfectly understand why neither happened. The closer has done well if they have waded through the oceans of specious and bad-faith argumentation. As others have argued above, the fundamental issue centred on COMMONNAME. The little evidence provided (mainly by a proponent of the move), is well summarised as {{TQ| While the usage of "Srebrenica genocide" may have increased it was clear from discussion that it has not clearly overtaken "Srebrenica massacre"}}. And long and middle-term usage still shows a strong preference for 'massacre'. I cannot see how any close other than 'no consensus for move' could have been arrived at. I thank those editors above who note that neither the article itself, nor editors arguing against the move, were implicitly or explicitly minimising the seriousness of the crimes committed at Srebrenica. It is tiresome, offensive and tediously predictable to be repeatedly accused of giving comfort to historical revisionists, Serb apologists or genocide deniers. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > Again we see that "no consensus" is often a tough closure. Per above editors, this time it is correct, reasonable and in line with closing instructions at WP:RMCI. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• :That the close is difficult to make does not mean reader should have a rough time understanding why it was closed. 122141510 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Agree, and I suggest to the RM closer to go back and put a better explanation in their closing statement, so that future readers of the RM can understand the reasoning. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse The closer's only error was not doing a better job with elaborating why this no consensus was a no consensus. Since the resolution was recent, and since Wikipedia is conservative in these regards, I would not be surprised if the next move discussion in six months to a year finds a consensus. But those opposing have valid arguments and their opinions cannot be easily discarded. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• :@SportingFlyer don't you think that error you mention should be rectified? If so, a reclose should be done. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::No, not if it doesn't matter for the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Gaza genocide|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Gaza genocide/Archive 2}}|rm_section=Requested move 3 May 2024}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024 Discussion with closer]) and ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Again,_genocide_or_accused Post move discussion])

On 3 May 2024 there was a requested move from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" and it was moved to "Gaza genocide". Three options were available to vote for the new article title: "Gaza genocide question", "Gaza genocide accusation" and "Gaza genocide". While the third option had the plurality of the votes, options 1 and 2 had a majority combined, and are basically the same thing just put into two different titles. I want to hear comments on if the move was applied too soon and if there is a clear consensus to call it Gaza genocide. User:Selfstudier wrote "If you want to dispute the current article title, which has consensus, Move Review is the place, where I note no-one has to date contested the recent move". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1234480593] I am thus following his suggestion to ask for further review.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). This move review is not at all timely. I get that people have lives, but almost three weeks after the RM was closed is getting a bit long in the tooth. That aside, consensus is not determined by a blind head count and the closer clearly articulated why consensus was to be found with option 3 given the detailed source analyses which were provided in support of option 3. TarnishedPath^talk 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: {{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, did you discuss your concerns with the closer before opening this move review? The link you provided goes to their close of the RfC, not to any discussion you have had with them about their close. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :They didn't. But another use did raise the same misunderstanding about the counts at User talk:Joe Roe#Genocide close. In short you can't just add up the number of supports for 1 and 2 because many people supported more than one option. If you count the number of participants who supported option 3 against the number of participants who did not support it, there's a majority in favour of option 3. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I didn't, but other users did. There were discussions and discussions, but it was always the same outcome: those who wanted a recount / reconsideration of the title name and those who refused another review because they thought it was a settled consensus.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::It is a settled consensus currently, subject to this move review. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :@Pinchme123, there was a discussion here. Alaexis_¿question? 08:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). According to my own recount, 29 editors preferred Option 1 or 2 (or both), 25 28 preferred Option 3 {{small|[figure corrected after another recount]}}. Considering that 1/2 were clearly closely related (and most editors saw this), this numerical outcome indicates that "one of them" would likely have been the most appropriate outcome. At least the closer should have explained why they saw a consensus for Option 3 despite it being endorsed by only a minority of editors, but they didn't. The closer also showed biased by downweighting arguments of "there is no Gaza genocide" as "not policy-based", while apparently accepting arguments of "yes, it's a genocide and should be called such" (widely made by those in favour of Option 3) as policy-biased. Gawaon (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :My count was 32 for option 3 versus 27 for option 1 or 2 – a majority. It's normal for different editors to come to counts that differ by a head or two (sometimes you lose a !vote in a thread, etc.) but I don't know how to explain such a large discrepancy. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::OK, I did miscount a little bit too – looks like I overlooked a few Option 3 votes. Let's try again.
• ::Counting only those who voted under {{slink|Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#Three options}}, I count for Option 1 or 2: Alaexis, Alalch E., AndyBloch, Animal lover 666, BilledMammal, Bondegezou, Cdjp1, CoffeeCrumbs, Cremastra, Crossroads, Czello, Eladkarmel, FortunateSons, HaOfa, Hogo-2020, Howardcorn33, Kowal2701, Let'srun, Me Da Wikipedian, Metropolitan90, My very best wishes, NoonIcarus, Oleg Y., Paul Vaurie, Some1, TimeEngineer, Vegan416, xDanielx {{small|(opposed Option 3, which can be considered implicit support for 1 or 2)}}, Zanahary – total: 29 editors.
• ::For Option 3: BluePenguin18, Brusquedandelion, Chaotic Enby, CNC, David A, Dreameditsbrooklyn, FunLater, Huldra, Iazyges, Iskandar323, Ïvana, kashmīrī, KetchupSalt, Kinsio, Levivich, MarkiPoli, M.Bitton, Nishidani, PBZE, Personisinsterest, Rainsage, SKAG123, Skitash, Smallangryplanet, Stephan rostie, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Trilletrollet, Vice regent – total: 28 editors.
• ::Three editors (blindlynx, Selfstudier, Vinegarymass911) voted for option 1/2 or 3, without expressing a clear preference for either, so I didn't include them in either count.
• ::Now it's almost a tie, but still not a majority for Option 3. A no consensus decision might have been more appropriate. In any case, the closing decision didn't take proper consideration of how close the vote count really was. Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::WP:NOTAVOTE, the sourcing played a large part in this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::The rationale for the close seemed largely based on numbers though. In particular, the closer didn't mention any particular arguments he found convincing for why (3) would not be a WP:POVTITLE, but just said that there was no consensus on the matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::There is nothing intrinsically wrong with basing a close on numbers provided that each !vote was properly argued in relation to WP policy, notavote is meant to distinguish stuff like "Wtf, no way" and give less weight to such. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::I agree, a finding of consensus that's driven by numbers is generally reasonable, just not when the numbers are approximately 50-50. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The closer clearly articulated why they saw consensus with option 3, that being the detailed source analyses which were provided in support of that option, amongst other considerations. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) The discussion lasted for about two months, from 3 May 2024 to 2 July 2024. Particularly interesting on the issue of sourcing is {{u|Levivich}} initially arguing for Option 1, but after looking at the sources, {{diff|Talk:Gaza genocide|prev|1230345418|switching}} {{diff|Talk:Gaza genocide|prev|1230625336|to Option 3}}. The arguments presented in the RM for Options 1/2 do not provide significant numbers of genocide scholars' sources arguing against genocide occurring. {{u|Joe Roe}}'s closing summary accurately provides a rough consensus based on policy – WP:RS – rather than vote counting, and is fair in stating that the sourcing {{tq|argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted}}. Boud (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• I forget what the consensus is regarding involvement. Boud participated in a similar move discussion on the same page, previously expressing support to move to {{tq|Gazan genocide or Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza}}. That doesn't seem uninvolved? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure I agree with the closer's claim that "the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources", see the thread that followed FortunateSons's !vote in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Three_options the original discussion] in which many sources were presented which did not support the option chosen by the closer. Alaexis_¿question? 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• :We have further collected opinions from relevant experts in the below template. You can see over time a shift to sources with heavier weight and more detailed opinions provided explaining the assessment of the assault as genocide.
• :{{Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}}

::-- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:::There are two problems with this list. First, it includes opinions of scholars who work in completely unrelated areas (Professor of linguistics, Professor of computer science, Professor of political science, Professor of information theory, etc.). The second problem is that I don't see any of the sources listed in u:FortunateSons's thread which makes me doubt that the list is in fact representative of the range of experts' opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::::I am confused then as to what list you refer, as this list was started by {{ping|User:FortunateSons}} with an exact copy of their list, and none of their entries have been removed. As to specialisms, you assume that the individuals are not relevant based on the field they are located in, if you click through the links provided in the list you can see what their research focuses are and the work they've published, and you'll find they have relevance. This is not to say they should be considered with as much weight as others, just as how the small comments by some individuals in the popular press should not be considered with as much weight as the peer reviewed papers published in the Journal of Genocide Research. --Cdjp1 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::I was referring to the collapsed list under the "Scholarly and expert opinions" heading above. I think that non-experts' opinions should not be in the list at all as the opinion of a professor of linguistics on the matter has about as much weight as yours or mine.

:::::Regarding the missing sources, I meant the mostly German-language ones u:FortunateSons added to the thread I linked. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::This list does (or at least should, I only spot-checked them) include the people I originally included. I must admit that I mostly disengaged from the list due to being incredibly busy, so at least the German part is mostly out of date, unless others have contributed those. There have been some discussions on scope and content in the past (see it’s talk page), and you (and everyone else) is very welcome to contribute.

::::While the journal is a generally reliable source, we should be mindful that it has certain slant, something one should probably be aware of.[https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/3.1.48/html [1]], (see also: it’s article on wiki) FortunateSons (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::Charny once again arguing that any comparative analysis of other genocides with the Holocaust is wrong and bad, unless it's Charny himself doing it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for introducing me to Charny. I've read his paper [https://ihgjlm.com/articles/Holocaust-Minimization-Anti-Israel-&-Antisemitism-at-JGR.pdf accusing] the Journal of Genocide Research of Holocaust minimization. I then read a [https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=gsp response] to the paper.

:::::Briefly summarizing what I agreed with in the response paper:

:::::* Incredibly flawed survey design (Could be used as a textbook example of what a survey should not do)

:::::* Misquoting and mischaracterizing scholarly works, even going so far as to re-order a quote's sentences to completely pervert the original message.

:::::* Attacks on fellow Israeli scholar Amos Goldberg for daring to suggest a hypothetical way for Palestinians and Israelis to achieve peace

:::::* Nakba denial where Charny demonstrates his work is one of political rhetoric than history

:::::From my admittedly non-exhaustive survey, I do not think the journal has any slant. It is Charny that should be considered a deprecated source when it comes to Israel. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). Nothing out of ordinary here, since this is how consensus is normally established on Wikipedia. Consensus is not unanimity. When a group of editors presents good, policy-based arguments and another group makes weaker arguments, then it's routinely determined that there's a consensus for the stronger option. Which happened here, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The move relies on the notion that non-neutral titles may be used if the specific formulation is widely used by reliable sources and so readers will more likely recognise it through this title. But there are three problems with it.

1. The query of the sources does not allow me to reach this conclusion. The table includes a lot of sources coming from experts not within the field of genocide study, international law, Israel-Palestine conflict, historians or the like. Among those scholars who are relevant, there are a lot (mostly of Jewish roots or origins, but a couple non-Jewish as well) who firmly state this is not a case of genocide or even that it is counter-genocidal, or alternatively that what they are doing is awful but there is no proof this is genocide (because proving genocide per the Genocide Convention is hell of a difficult task).
2. *A very good source here is a [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ Brookings poll] that says {{tq|A majority of Middle East scholars see Israeli motives in Gaza to be about forcing Palestinians out [57%]", "A third of scholars see Israel's military actions in Gaza as 'genocide' [34%]", 41% see it as "major war crimes akin to genocide".}} But 57% is not a wide majority, and war crimes are a lesser crime than genocide and require a lower standard of proof (though they are still heinous, and whether we call the crimes genocide or war crimes doesn't help suffering Palestinians).
3. *To be clear, there are excellent sources here that assert that Israel commits genocide or is on the verge of doing it (e.g. UN special rapporteurs report from this month), but I don't see wide consensus that genocide is underway. "War crimes" is more likely to have wide consensus here than genocide, but that's not what was discussed here, so I can't force a change to this title. In other words, a legitimate debate is ongoing and Wikipedia should not take a side.
4. The second problem stems from the principle that we should not state opinions, or seriously contested assertions, as fact. A statement that "Israel is committing genocide" may even be an assertion of fact, but it is seriously contested, as shown above. And even when you assume this, you can't just nebulously say "Israel", because it's specific people who execute its policy and would arguably be perpetrators of the crime (e.g. Netanyahu, Gallant, other senior IDF/govt officials). But WP:BLPCRIME would bar us calling them génocidaires without a court of law having secured a conviction. So far we have an ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant, but an arrest warrant is not a conviction (in the same vein, Putin and Lvova-Belova cannot be accused in Wikipedia voice of forcibly abducting Ukrainian children even when such government-sponsored cases are well documented and the ICC posts arrest warrants on their asses for that reason).
5. *Any reasonable reader would imply from the title that Wikipedia says Israeli officials are committing genocide in Gaza, when no court has yet said it and, even if we allow an exception for cases when researchers almost unanimously say this is genocide, this is not it. It is also not necessarily how the war in Gaza, and Israel's actions towards Palestianian civilians, is widely known among readers. Such accusations are known, but widely known as fact? Nah-ah. Therefore, I will be not the least bit surprised if readers start to flock here to accuse us of presenting the pro-Palestinian rhetoric as fact.
6. The third problem is that the policy of neutral point of view may not be annulled by consensus. Even if 90% of people had voted to move towards Gaza genocide, the first two points would prevent such a move. Here it's barely a majority, which makes the case for the move even weaker.

:{{u|Joe Roe}} tried hard, and he deserves credit for trying, but I strongly disagree with his conclusions, given available evidence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::I certainly agree that the NPOV can't be dismissed by a local consensus, but there was no agreement here on what the NPOV title was. Those in favour of options 1 or 2 argued that "allegation" "question" or "accusation" was NPOV and "genocide" was POV (because not all sources say that there is a genocide). Those in favour of option 3 argued that "genocide" was NPOV and "allegation" "question" or "accusation" (per WP:ALLEGED). As a closer I don't think it's my place to decide which of two policy-based arguments are correct when there is no consensus amongst participants on that point. Instead, I looked for consensus in the other strands of the discussion, and found one on the question of usage in reliable sources/WP:COMMONNAME.

::Your other two points seem to be criticisms of the reasoning and source analysis of the participants, rather than of the close? – Joe (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::WP:ALLEGED is clear that {{tq|alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial}}, which is what we have in both ICJ and ICC right now. I think you should have pointed to this quote in the guideline. And even then guidelines cannot override a core policy. As for WP:COMMONNAME, I explained myself below.

:::To be clear, you did a hard job, and you are explaining yourself very reasonably, which I appreciate deeply. I believe you are doing a great job. It's that I would have made a different closure and I disagree with you, but that's no offense from me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::::I think that if I'd tried to determine that this is a situation where "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" (i.e. subject to WP:ALLEGED), or more broadly decide which title is favoured by NPOV, it would have been a supervote not a close. But of course I take no offence that you disagree. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Hi Joe, thanks for all the work you do here. Option 1 was 'question' rather than 'allegation'? Tom B (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks, corrected. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::On your comment on the list of sources, if you trim the list to just genocide scholars, firstly you'll find the majority support the assessment that this is in fact a case of genocide, secondly you'll find a chunk of those who state this is not genocide do so using the UN convention which is in contradiction to their own previous work where they use what they consider to be better frameworks to determining if something is genocide (this latter point you touch on yourself). So one must ask why is Gaza a special case for them to use a framework they consider deficient? There is then also the consideration of weight of where various scholars are publishing the opinions, as once again if we look at those that are being put through review to be published in academic articles, we find once again a majority appear in declaring this a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::It may very well be that the researchers apply double standards or are hypocritical, but we should not be the ones calling the shots. You may provide scholarly commentary/papers of a similar level of proof that show those who oppose the genocide label are in fact inconsistent.

:::Now the purpose of POVNAMING is to say that when the choice comes between neutral but obscure title and widely used but possibly non-neutral title, we should use the latter. This is made, among other reasons, to make sure that readers may find titles under commonly recognised names. I don't see polls suggesting the term "Gaza genocide" or support for that notion is high enough to say that the first thing people will think when speaking of Gaza is "genocide". My assessment is that the sources presented do not demonstrate enough consensus to say that we can ignore the concern about article title neutrality (and when saying "we", speak for yourself - I explained why I don't believe the sourcing is good enough). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::::"We" stands as it is a numeric assessment of the reality of the sources, you can choose to disregard it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::::If the sourcing is sufficient, and it is, then that's enough. All the rest is equivocation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

::This is an RM vote, not an MR vote. #1 and #2 are reasons why it should/should not be moved. As for #3, well, it's up to the RM voters to decide whether a title is or is not in line with WP:NPOVTITLE. Levivich (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you, but I guess I know what I should assess in this discussion, and yes, I read correctly, it's MR nor RM.

:::#1 responds to the determination that "the arguments in favour of this title [Gaza genocide] generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources". I don't really see it. Yes, there are great sources that say it is, and many others suggesting a controversy about this naming still exists. What the closer did is dismissed the latter, and that was improper on the closer's part.

:::#2 states the policies that inevitably will be implicated once the article was renamed, and which the closer did not take into account. Even if no other person has raised the argument, the closer's job is not only to evaluate consensus but to avoid closures that will obviously clash with other clearly stated policies, and to discard arguments that violate or will lead to violation of other policies (which the closer is explicitly allowed, and, I dare to say, obliged to do).

:::As for #3, that's where I'll have to disagree. The whole point of setting NPOV as a core policy is to prevent RM voters, or any voters, to override the policy by consensus, which is what this closure effectively does, and I believe that the closer did not take this into account, either.

:::Responding to your comment that "genocide" does not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention".

:::First, the article structure still doesn't align with the title, and I don't know whether it's intentional, but, adopting your idea that editors are to decide what is NPOVTITLE (and NPOV content, by extension), you'd need a couple of things changed. First, the lead sentence "Israel has been accused by ... of carrying out a genocide" should be "Israel is committing genocide" (cf. The Holocaust - The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews...); then section titles should be "Alleged genocidal intent and genocidal rhetoric" and "Alleged genocidal actions". That's if you want to be consistent. I guess you'd also need to have this included into List of genocides. Good luck doing this all.

:::Second, genocide is a crime and anything crime-related should fall under WP:BLPCRIME, and you aren't arguing that Netanyahu or Gallant should be called a "leader of the Gaza genocide campaign" in Wikivoice, are you? A lot of genocides were not prosecuted by ICC/ICJ/ad hoc tribunals, including all those before WWII, but here we have a high-profile case that is under consideration in the International Criminal Court (arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant) and the International Court of Justice (South Africa v. Israel), and both apply the Genocide Convention. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). Some comments here appear to be an attempt to rerun the discussion, which already ran for an extended period of time. Closer identified superior sourcing in support of the title (that also included sourcing suggesting there was a consensus on the matter among relevant experts).Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (uninvolved), I had drafted a close at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Discussions_for_discussion&diffonly=true#Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Three_options]. It recommended moving to option 1 per WP:ACD, then having another rfc, as editors provided reliable sources that an International Court of Justice case is ongoing, and WP should wait for the ICJ to decide, rather than editors. If there was an ongoing court case about whether Gerry was murdered or manslaughtered by Idris, and WP had two articles, one on the case 'State vs Idris' and one on the topic of 'Gerry murder', it would damage WP's reputation. Are there negative consequences to WP's reputation of no qualification of genocide, ahead of the verdict or does it just describe a topic without taking sides? Potentially a better way to deal with this would be to keep the move and start another RFC if editors feel the current unqualified title is damaging WP's reputation for neutrality, Tom B (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• :"Genocide" does not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention." Most genocides (almost all) have not been adjudicated as violations of the Convention, but are nevertheless considered genocides by genocide studies scholars. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::But that's partly because the 1951 convention didn't exist at the time of many genocides e.g. Libyan genocide in the 1920s. Even since 1951 there has often been no prospect of a court case. Here we have an ongoing court case where living people are being accused of not just war crimes or crimes against humanity, but genocide like the Holocaust. Why have a court, a legal system if we only need scholars? Tom B (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::"Genocide" does
• :::not mean "a violation of the Genocide Convention," even after the Convention was created in 1951, up to today, because "genocide" has multiple, overlapping definitions, and the Convention's definition is just one of them. The consensus of genocide studies scholars decides (for WP:RS/WP:NPOV purposes) what is and what is not a "genocide." The ICJ decides what is and what is not a violation of the Genocide Convention. {{tqq|Even since 1951 there has often been no prospect of a court case.}} Exactly, and that's why genocode studies scholars do not depend on the ICJ to determine what is a genocide; they make their own determination. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we follow the scholarship, not the courts. {{tqq|Why have a court, a legal system if we only need scholars?}} The purpose of a court is to prosecute criminals. The purpose of scholars is to study something. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize reliable secondary sources, such as genocide scholars' works, not to repeat what a court says. It's not like the ICJ is the only RS out there, nor does it trump scholars. A violation of the Genocide Convention isn't like a murder trial, but even still, Wikipedia will call something a murder even if courts have not convicted anyone of murder, when the RSes call it murder. Same with genocide: we refer to something as genocide when the RSes do, regardless of what the ICJ decides, and that is exactly because scholars call many things "genocide" that the ICJ never ruled upon. International law is not really similar to domestic law in this way--ICJ case isn't like any old murder trial. Levivich (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::thanks, "Wikipedia will call something a murder even if courts have not convicted anyone of murder", have you one example pls? My understanding was there wasn't clear consensus among sources that Israel's leaders have committed genocide, rather than crimes again humanity, and therefore it would be best for WP to wait for the court. But you're saying there's clear consensus those living people have committed genocide, so there's negligible risk to BLP or WP's reputation, Tom B (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::Murder of Tupac Shakur. {{tqq|But you're saying there's clear consensus those living people have committed genocide, so there's negligible risk to BLP or WP's reputation}} I don't think I've ever said anything even close to that. I'm saying the fact that the ICJ hasn't convicted anyone of genocide yet is not a reason to overturn this close. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::A good example, but there's also a good reason: the murderer of the rapper is not covered by BLP as he was himself murdered (just like in Lee Harvey Oswald's case, we state that he was JFK's assassin even though no court said he was one, as no court is quick enough to convict anyone in two days). This is why we don't have the BLP limitation. Here all the alleged perpetrators are living people.
• ::::::Also, I have to concur with Tom B's point, because it's a logical extension of that argument, even if no one ever said it out loud. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::thank you, nearly all sources agree Tupac was murdered. If nearly all sources agree there's no question a group of living Jews are guilty of genocide rather than war crimes, and WP editors are above the courts, then there's no risk to WP's reputation, Tom B (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::You're both still arguing the RM (what the title should be) instead of the MR (whether consensus was read correctly), and I'm not sure WP:BLPGROUP even applies to entire nations, militaries, or governments. Anyway, most participants agreed the title "Gaza genocide" doesn't accuse any specified person or group of committing genocide in violation of BLP. There is no "it must be X because of [ICJ/BLP]" rule that applies here. This RM did not have only one possible outcome, and I don't think arguing it did will convince anyone. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::There were 3 possible outcomes: the lengthy status quo which no one agreed with, thank goodness that's gone; or acknowledge there is a question over whether genocide is happening, like Holodomor genocide question, or the outcome that happened: a concise title which suggests WP believes there is no question a genocide has been committed rather than war crimes, otherwise it would have put more words in the title, like it has with other articles. No one has argued there was only possible outcome, why do you think that? There is a sad irony on this move review page in that multiple courts found a genocide was committed in Srebrenica due to the intent behind the killings, but the move request for that article to genocide was denied with no rationale. Sad times, Tom B (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > This closure was in line with the closing instructions per above comments. It was a very tough, good and reasonable outcome and so should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): A tough close, but consensus was assessed appropriately. There doesn't have to be a near-unanimous decision — nothing would ever be closed if that was the case. It ran for two months. People had more than enough time to add their comments. There will always be objections to difficult closes, which is why I am happy some people are willing to consider them. C F A 💬 16:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) That was a very well reasoned close on a contentious topic that was always going to wind up here. I don't really have anything else to add. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). I agree with Kashmiri and Selfstudier, and as far as I have understood, the vast majority of both scholars with expertise in the area, international courts, reliable human rights and relief organisations, and the United Nations, all agree that this is a form of genocide. David A (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Also, from what I recall there were 60 editors in total who voted, with 32 votes for option 3. What may have caused confusion is that many editors, particularly those who supported options 1 and 2, voted for two options at the same time. There were also a few instances of apparent vote-farming from people who were vocally against the move to the current page title, by either pinging many editors who would be against the move or visiting pro-Israel wiki projects to inform them. Initially the consensus was far more onesided. David A (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::As I counted above, 28 editors voted for Option 3, 29 for Option 1 or 2 (or both), and 3 for both equally. Close call, but not a majority for 3. Gawaon (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Don't think there was any WP:CANVASSING here. User:RodRabelo7 notified WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, not just "pro-Israel wiki projects". There were some other pings, one from User:Monopoly31121993(2) to everyone from a 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation discussion. It was discussed in a few places, and I think the consensus was that it wasn't a great practice but wasn't canvassing. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). Nothing approaching a consensus was found, and the closer appealed to the number of 'votes' cast. The closer used the vote tallies to frame the justification for the move, and seemingly as evidence for the existence of a 'rough consensus'. WP:CON makes it extremely clear that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I'm not going to argue that there was no discussion (or the points of the discussion itself – I'd remimd others that this is not a suitable forum to relitigate such arguments), but it would seem that the closer's rationale for moving the page was overly influenced by 'vote counts' in a way that it should not have been. Domeditrix (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) as it was a clear instance of WP:NOCONSENSUS, which {{tq|preserves the most recent stable title}}. Joe counted 31-27 in favor of Gaza genocide (rather than the two similar alternatives). My own count is 29-28 in favor of Gaza genocide; Gawaon counted 29-28 against Gaza genocide. Either count indicates a lack of consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but the close did not really explain why either side had more convincing policy-based arguments. It mentioned arguments about the prevalence of "Gaza genocide" in sources, but most such arguments ignored the higher standard that WP:POVNAME imposes for non-neutral common names. Very few participants offered arguments for why Gaza genocide would not fail WP:POVNAME, and the closer did not mention any such arguments that he found convincing. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (didnt vote in the move, but involved in the topic) - I dont really get why this is treated as a POV issue, the topic here is "Gaza genocide" and the title is wide enough to cover views that support the contention that such a thing is ongoing and views that oppose that contention. Joe's explanation that the title does not imply that it is true is amply supported by other article titles, such as American exceptionalism, which also covers a view and also includes material criticizing the belief, or Race and intelligence, which flat out says the connection between the two is pseudoscience, or Acquired homosexuality, or a long list of other articles. I think the close is well grounded in our policies, and as such see no cause to overturn it. nableezy - 18:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• :I don't think it's useful to draw comparisons to such dissimilar titles. American exceptionalism for example is the name of a viewpoint. A closer comparison would be to say Murder of Travis Alexander, a title which implies Alexander was murdered, or say Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which uses a qualified to avoid such an implication. See also :Category:Allegations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::The point is that this is a title for the overarching topic. It includes pro *and* con arguments. That is true of all the above. nableezy - 15:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Agree with Boud, Kashmiri and others. There was a long discussion and debate over sourcing, and there ended up being a contested and close yet clear consensus on Option 3 after sources were reviewed, particularly the fact that the majority of genocide scholars, experts in the field, say a genocide is occurring. That should be leading in our usage as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved in this discussion, involved in the topic area) Agree with Szmenderowiecki and XDanielx. A blatant violation of WP:POVTITLE and clearly there was no consensus to disregard that rule. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• :There was also no consensus on which option was the "blatant violation" (arguments were made for all three). – Joe (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) – this was an incredibly well-attended discussion that evolved and settled in line with the sources – of which they were plenty supporting the eventual move target, and few seriously challenging it – and that is a pretty major order of the day. I'm not sure what could possibly be so unreasonable about the close that was made in the circumstances. The closer's weighing of arguments was the closer's weighing of arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• :But was the closer's weighing of arguments appropriate considering the discussion? My impression is that it wasn't. Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::And this impression is based on what exactly? You would have weighed the arguments differently? Why? Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'm not a closer and don't want to become one, but see above for why I'm unconvinced in this case. Closer strongly relied on a headcount supposedly in favour of option 3 (claiming "most support by a clear margin") which, however, can't be confirmed by a recount. They also seem to have weighed the arguments differently, apparently disregarding some votes for option 1/2 as "not policy-based" (namely: "there is no Gaza genocide"), while silently allowing exactly the same kind of argument ("there is a genocide in Gaza") in favour of option 3. A no consensus close would have been more appropriate considering the headcount and the arguments presented. Gawaon (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::You're saying that I over-relied on the headcount, but also that a difference of one or two !votes should change the outcome. Which one is it? FTR I don't know whether it's 31-27, 29-28, or 28-29 (we have three different counts from three different people), but nor do I think it matters: the strength of argument for option 3 was greatest, and I explained how I came to that conclusion. – Joe (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::No, I'm saying that regardless of the exact count, the headcount by itself is too close to be conclusive (but you said "Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin ... I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide" in the final sentence of your decision). There remains the "stronger grounding in reliable sources" that you gave as additional basis for your decision. Maybe that by itself is enough, but I don't really see it and so remain unconvinced. Gawaon (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::By "support" I don't mean the raw numbers, I mean the level of support after discounting non-policy-based arguments, which as I explained where found more on the option 1/2 side than the option 3 side. Sorry if that wasn't clear (though I do think it is standard practice). – Joe (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) – Not to be all "Webster's Dictionary states..." but the NPOV policy makes it clear: "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." In this case the original title as well as options 1 and 2 were wholly descriptive, the current title after the move is a name derived from reliable sources. Everyone is free to disagree with the sources, but they do call it the Gaza Genocide, so the closer made the correct decision here.Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Some do, some don't, right? Gawaon (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) per the arguments above. Excluding the margins question, which I would call less-than-clear, the closer did not sufficiently differentiate between the legal vs. non-legal destination of genocide, a question at the core of (just to be clear, in my opinion rather opaque) question of source majority vs. minority. The side supporting the move did not make a case of why „Gaza Genocide“ was a neutral title or used overwhelmingly, thereby failing to meet the requirements of WP:POVNAME.

:FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - I don't see any issues with the way the closer weighed the strength of arguments, including the arguments that the title "Gaza genocide" does not mean that there is a genocide in Gaza (in the same way "Flat Earth" doesn't imply that the Earth is flat, "Race and intelligence" doesn't imply that race determines intelligence, and "Israel and apartheid" doesn't imply that Israel is committing apartheid). These arguments, rooted in WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NPOVTITLE, were not rebutted by those voting for 1 or 2. Similarly, arguments rooted in WP:COMMONNAME based on source analysis were not rebutted. The closer's job is to weigh the strength of these arguments. Those voting overturn haven't shown why or how this weighing of arguments was incorrect. Assertions like "well it's blatantly wrong" are unpersuasive. The sources call it "Gaza genocide" even when they're arguing against there being a genocide in Gaza, and that's a strong argument for "Gaza genocide" being the name of this topic. So I agree with the closer that those who think it shouldn't be called "Gaza genocide" because not everyone agrees it's a genocide, are making the weaker argument. Just like the Earth being round doesn't mean we don't call it "Flat Earth". Levivich (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Title's with "and" are bad examples since they don't imply anything except that some people see a connection between the two topics. However, if the article was named "Apartheid in Israel" instead of Israel and apartheid, it wouldn't be neutral any more, since it would suggest that there actually is apartheid in Israel. Flat Earth is an article about an outdated theory, but there's also Spherical Earth which discusses the theory which is now generally accepted. If the Earth's form were entirely discussed in the "Flat Earth" article, that would mean Wikipedia is taking sides by giving an outdated theory more weight (promoting it to article title even!) than it deserves. Now, when it comes to genocides, we do have a well-established naming schema. "Genocide" is the main noun if a genocide is well-documented to actually have taken place, as in Armenian genocide, Bangladesh genocide, Cambodian genocide, Greek genocide, Rwandan genocide, and many others sadly too numerous to list (but see List of genocides). If, on the other hand, there's serious dispute about whether a genocide happened somewhere, we usually call that "genocide question" in the article or section title, such as Holodomor genocide question, Congo Free State#Genocide question, Nigerian Civil War#Genocide question. Merely alleged or imagined "genocides" are also identified as such, e.g. White genocide conspiracy theory. Would it be neutral to rename that page to "White genocide"? I don't think so! The Gaza genocide article now sadly and illogically deviates from this pattern. To keep neutrality and stick with our well established patterns, "Gaza genocide question" would be the appropriate title. Gawaon (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{tq| if the article was named "Apartheid in Israel" instead of Israel and apartheid, it wouldn't be neutral any more, since it would suggest that there actually is apartheid in Israel}} Nope, the current title reflects the fact that the accusations are that Israel commits apartheid both in Israel and in the occupied territory. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'd also note that "Israel and apartheid" is not the current name of the article, instead it is Israeli apartheid. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::This is a strong and well-reasoned argument, and I endorse it wholeheartedly. Domeditrix (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::If intersection articles (X and Y) aren't good analogues, then neither are conspiracy theories (although I'd be fine with it being called "White genocide" just like I'd be fine with "Chemtrail"). But voters in the RM didn't base their votes entirely on either intersection or conspiracy theory articles; they looked at others like "American exceptionalism", which doesn't imply that the US is exceptional, it's just what that idea is called. Ultimately, that you or other editors might disagree that this is the best title has no bearing really on whether or not it was a proper close. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::Exceptionalism refers to be the belief that something is exceptional, rather than referring to the thing itself as exceptional - I don’t think that’s the best example. Plus, it’s almost certainly the WP:COMMONNAME BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Overturn (uninvolved) - per xDanielx and others. Jdcomix (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). There already a lengthy debate over the name of the article which had a broad consensus, there is no need to go through another change. There is broad scholarly consensus using the name 'Gaza genocide' and as it becomes colloquialised the name will continue to line up with public opinion and WP:COMMONNAME. Also as per other arguments presented here. Ecpiandy (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :{{tq|as it becomes colloquialised the name will continue to line up with public opinion and WP:COMMONNAME}} which means it isn't a common name yet and it is only about to line with the criterion, and also really, are we phychics? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved in the RM, although regular editor in the topic). The close was carried out correctly and with due care.

:Commenters here should remember the advice at WP:MR: {{tq|Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question...}}. Some of those suggesting overturn have leant on WP:POVTITLE, which is just that - a re-hash of old arguments - and they have all, so far, declined to answer the repeated follow on question on the comparison to other similar articles such as Rohingya genocide, Tamil genocide and East Timor genocide. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). There are fundamentally two problems with the closure:
  (1) At issue here is not, as some (especially outside Wikipedia) are saying, whether the situation in Gaza qualifies as genocide; the issue is a fundamentally stylistic question of how to title an article about [allegations/debates/questions] of genocide. Wikipedians are funny about style. We obsess over it sometimes, argue about it, have endless discussions... Some of the most heated conflict arises because of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. The role of the admin in closing such discussions is in evaluating the strength of policy-based arguments and placing the weight of those arguments where they belong in terms of policy. That means placing core content policies over style pages. At the end of the day, if those pushing for a stylistic change fail to account for the way the change would affect reader understanding of the subject, they are presenting fundamentally weaker arguments and it shouldn't matter what the numbers are. If the argument is between word economy and reader understanding, it's the job of the closer to weigh the latter arguments more strongly rather than accept framing put forward that only style arguments matter.
  (2) The closer acknowledged there were two nearly identical choices and one different choice -- that those who supported the first two seemed to have some overlap and combine to have a lot more support than the third. But then that fact was simply ignored. This was a nearly 2:1 result against the third option (not that numbers need play a role -- see #1). There would be an easy way to determine if this was correct: have a run-off vote with two options. But like I said, reader understanding arguments should be weighed more heavily than style anyway as reflective of core content policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Small edit, but re-signing for transparency since it's been a week. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Rhododendrites}} This has already been mentioned multiple times, but there was not a 2:1 result against the third option because many participants voted for more than one option. If you count the number of people in favour of option three versus the number of people opposed to option three (including people who supported option one or option two), it is almost even but very slightly in favour of option three. You can find the exact figures elsewhere in this discussion. Counting this way is equivalent to the 'run-off' you propose. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::Thanks. I misunderstood the numbers in this thread, so struck that line and went to count for myself. I see roughly equal numbers between 3 and !3, with a handful including 3 and !3. With those numbers, the policy based arguments on one side would have to be quite a bit stronger than the other's to find consensus for anything. My reading is that the policy-based arguments were not quite a bit stronger in favor of #3 but in fact substantially weaker per my first point above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|My reading is that the policy-based arguments were not quite a bit stronger in favor of #3 but in fact substantially weaker per my first point above}} Only if you want to completely ignore the sourcing, which was conclusive (and recently became even more conclusive with yet another high profile genocide scholar stipulating a genocide). Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I'd like to remind you, @Selfstudier, that this is not the place to relitigate arguments made in the initial discussion, as you have done here. @Rhododendrites should be free to at least give their opinion on the merits of the close without a recommencement of the original discussion in full (for the umpteenth time). The length of this move review is already going to give any closer a massive headache, it doesn't need to be lengthened further needlessly. Domeditrix (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::{{ec}} One of the reasons I found the arguments of those supporting #3 weak is this way that of talking about sourcing. You're relying on a bespoke collection of sources identified through their use of a specific label, but it's a label for a subject that is more often described than labeled. The fact that the body of literature which doesn't use "gaza genocide" do not produce a nice neat keyword to use is a problem, but a stylistic problem. It means "gaza genocide" is worth considering from a stylistic point of view, so long as there aren't other problems with it that would harm reader understanding. In this case, many people in the discussion flagged such an issue: it's not a neutral title and/or gives the reader the wrong impression about the subject of the article. That is fundamentally a stronger policy-based argument than the stylistic perspective based on counting keywords in sources, and IMO we need the closer to recognize such an imbalance. I won't likely reply to this further, btw, as I don't think I have anything else to add. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) per the arguments presented by Szmenderowiecki. Feels like putting such a contentious title in Wikivoice would require a wider consensus that almost 50/50, but I suppose not. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) This MR is rehashing all the old arguments without offering new evidence or arguments. The current title is in line with reputed sources' description of the topic. I see editors who are opposed are bringing up works of questionable reliability as disagreeing sources. The closer accounted for this in their original decision and followed WP:RMCI by appropriately giving weight to the relevant sources based on their level of reliability. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). The discussion doesn't need a rerun. It lasted almost two months - surely that was enough time for everyone to add their two cents. I myself changed my vote a couple of times based on arguments provided by other editors. The closer explained in detail how the verdict was reached. Simply doing a headcount is not enough since what matters is the quality of the responses, if they relied on proper sources etc. The criticism mostly relies on a supposed POV violation. The topic here is unequivocally Gaza genocide, whether people are arguing that it exists or it doesn't. If anything adding "allegation", "accusation" or similar is POVish on our part. Other editors have already provided plenty of examples showing why the title being as it is doesn't imply that it is true. - Ïvana (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Narrow and continue (uninvolved) Given the sourcing, the close was not fully unreasonable, but it also left doubt as to how it would do in a two-horse race or whether it's a WP:POVNAMING. Should it be the title, I don't think so. I feel it's biased and we can do better. Most of the sources aren't exactly Jewish-friendly but given the fairly biased lead paragraphs, the title fits. This whole article is a "don't let this happen to you lesson" for my students so they don't get Ds and Fs. The easiest thing to do is re-run it and give two firm choices. "Gaza genocide" and "Gaza genocide accusations." It really should never have been run with three choices and with a 2-way split between (softest choice + softer choice) or (harsher choice) there was always going to remain doubt and finger pointing. It's not that hard folks.... redo with a 1. Gaza genocide accusations (with an s, plural since there are many) and 2. Gaza genocide. Dump the super-soft and silly Gaza genocide question. Make it clear this is it... a third choice is no choice. We are in no rush so let it run for a few weeks and see if there is any difference. It relieves the look of WP:POVNAMING. I don't expect there to be but you never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Why go with two more or less biased versions when the "question" alternative would be the most neutral one? Gawaon (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::One of the reasons would be sourcing. Everywhere you look you see "Israel accused of genocide." I see it every day. The accusations can be shot down or enhanced depending on press from the right or left, but accusations are the name of the day in this dispute. The only place I see the term "question" on google is when it links back to this discussion. To me "accusations" is the more neutral and used term. "Question" is the softer less used and therefore more biased term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::Most of the above has absolutely nothing to do with whether the close was good. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• :I think the participants in the original discussion already addressed this problem by !voting for "option 1 and 2". This was mentioned in the close. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). This seems obvious to me. Editors agree we shouldn't be saying there is a genocide in Wikivoice, and thus per WP:POVNAMING we shouldn't be saying there is one in the title. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Comparing the move discussion and this discussion, it is difficult to escape the sense that this move review is mostly rehashing the move discussion. As the close explained, the source analysis, among other factors, demonstrated stronger policy-based support for option 3. By way of aside, in this move review I noticed a sentiment from some overturn support arguing that the topic isn't broadly known by readers this way. However, in neutrally naming topics, as editors we try to take our cues not from the general average of the human population or from the average of the probable reader population but from the best reliable sources that are relevant. As Joe Roe's close explains, the discussion revealed more grounding for option 3 in relevant quality sourcing, and I don't see a compelling reason to overturn the move. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). The closing statement and the post-RM discussion were reasonable and based on wikipolicies. A "no consensus" result was inappropriate, given that few wanted to stay with the current title. As for head numbers, many of the "overturn" !votes here are proposing combining "option 1" with "option 2", even though in the RM many of those who voted for "option 1" opposed "option 2" and vice versa. If you look a couple of !votes above, two overturn !voters (Fyunck, Gawaon) can't seem to agree between "option 1" and "option 2".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• :If you'll look at the discussion again, you'll notice that many participants accepted both, at least in preference to option 3. Personally I'd consider both quite acceptable too (but I didn't participate in the discussion, so that hardly matters). Gawaon (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). I'm not sure how the current naming of the article doesn't violate WP:POVTITLE. I don't see a consensus for the third option. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• :A POVFORK is a type of content fork, not something that can occur merely as a result of an RM. TarnishedPath^talk 08:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• :POVFORK?? Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

::*My mistake, I meant WP:POVTITLE. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:Overturn (uninvolved). As per xDanielx, as well as per that the primary reason given by the closer - vote count - is fallacious as it counted votes for options which are largely interchangeable independently. Even if the original discussion truly had anything approaching a consensus - which it didn't - the proposal should still at least be reviewed since one of the major reasons given by the closer was incorrect.

:There is a good argument to be made that the secondary reason given by the closer - that arguments for option 3 had more grounding in Wikipedia policy - is also incorrect: it might have had more grounding in reliable sources, but WP:RS was a less relevant policy for the topic than WP:POVNAME; and in turn, arguments for options 1 and 2 had more grounding in WP:POVNAME. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'm pretty sure that indicates the arguments for options 1 and 2 had more grounding in Wikipedia policy. Rhosnes (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

::That's not correct. I counted !votes for option 3 vs. options 1 or 2, and option 3 had the majority. This also wasn't the "primary" reason I cited for the close; that was the relative strength of arguments. – Joe (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:::In the discussion, which 60 editors participated in:

{{cot|25 editors expressed support for option 1}}

1. Alaexis
2. Alalch E.
3. AndyBloch
4. BilledMammal
5. Bondegezou
6. Cdjp1
7. CoffeeCrumbs
8. Cremastra
9. Crossroads
10. Czello
11. Eladkarmel
12. FortunateSons
13. HaOfa
14. Hogo-2020
15. Howardcorn33
16. Let'srun
17. Me Da Wikipedia
18. My very best wishes
19. NoonIcarus
20. Oleg Y
21. PBZE
22. Paul Vaurie
23. Vegan416
24. blindlynx
25. xDanielx

{{cob}}

{{cot|28 editors expressed support for option 2}}

1. Alaexis
2. Alalch E.
3. AndyBloch
4. Animal love 666
5. BilledMammal
6. Cdjp1
7. CoffeeCrumbs
8. Cremastra
9. Crossroads
10. Czello
11. FortunateSons
12. Hogo-2020
13. Howardcorn33
14. Kowal2701
15. Let'srun
16. Me Da Wikipedia
17. Metropolitan90
18. My very best wishes
19. NoonIcarus
20. Oleg Y
21. Paul Vaurie
22. Selfstudier
23. Some1
24. TimeEngineer
25. Vegan416
26. Vinegarymass911
27. Zanahary
28. xDanielx

{{cob}}

{{cot|30 editors expressed support for option 3}}

1. blindlynx
2. Blue Penguin18
3. Brusquodandelion
4. CNC
5. Chaotic Enby
6. Dreameditsbrooklyn
7. FunLater
8. Huldra
9. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum
10. Iskandar323
11. Ivana
12. Kashmiri
13. KetchupSalt
14. Kinsio
15. Levivich
16. M.Bitton
17. MarkiPoli
18. Nishidani
19. PBZE
20. Personisinsterest
21. Rainsage
22. SKAG123
23. Selfstudier
24. Skitash
25. Smallangryplanet
26. Stephan rostie
27. The Great Mule of Eupatoria
28. Trilletrollet
29. Vice regent
30. Vinegarymass911

{{cob}}

:::There wasn't majority support for the move. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

::::The count has already been discussed exhaustively above. You are the fourth editor to try and count the !votes and you've come up with the fourth different set of figures. In my experience this is normal because there will always be some !votes that are ambiguous and that is why I always qualify my figures as a "rough headcount" in my closes (as I did here). It doesn't matter what the exact figures are because if I'd based my close purely on a margin of a few !votes either way it would have rightly been thrown out immediately. But I didn't. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::I provided a full listing of who supported what, so that if there are any issues with my count you can identify them, and hopefully we can determine whether there is an actual majority. With that said, are there any individuals who you think I missed for option 3?

:::::I consider this important because the headcount did play a role in your close, and that means determining whether you made an error is useful in assessing the appropriateness of your close. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::So did Gawaon above, and he got 28–31 for option 3 and 29 for option 1 or 2. Again, it does not matter. Shuffle the numbers any way you like and I would have made the same close. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse (uninvolved) It was a long and interesting discussion, and consensus and strength of argument moved to accepting the scholarly consensus among genocide scholars. Even in the absence of that merely using the common name for it without "allegations" in the title does not mean accepting it. The page contains the controversy. Close was justified. Lf8u2 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). The move to "Gaza genocide" did not reflect a clear consensus of the discussion. The headcount was nearly evenly split, and the closer’s decision overly relied on numbers rather than the strength of policy-based arguments. Options 1 and 2, which together garnered substantial support, better align with Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. The new title violates Wikipedia's stance on neutrality by implying a settled conclusion in an ongoing debate and even contradicts the lead sentence of the article which says Israel has been 'accused' of genocide. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved with discussion, involved with topic). The decision was within the bounds of a reasonable close. The closer found that the many sources presented as evidence gave more weight to favour option 3, while also finding several non-policy-based votes for option 1 and 2. Therefore, by weight, option 3 prevailed. Certainly, when the numbers are close, the more policy-complaint arguments win. starship.paint (RUN) 10:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Just on a point of definition, when something is marginal, it is very hard (or impossible?) to argue that a consensus has been reached. A plurality or slim majority does not indicate a 'consensus'. The way you've framed the point ("when the numbers are close") seems more consistent with an argument of WP:NOCON. Maybe if you explain in a bit more detail what you meant here I can understand where you're coming from. Domeditrix (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{re|Domeditrix}} - simple: WP:NOTAVOTE. Numbers and votes are not the only factor. One must analyse the strength of the arguments. If both sides have the similar number of votes and similar strength in arguments, then no consensus. But the closer determined that option 3 had stronger votes due to sources presented, whereas some option 1 and 2 votes had little strength. So when evaluating both numbers and strength, the closer concluded that option 3 was superior overall. starship.paint (RUN) 15:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). The new title clearly violates WP:NPOV. The nominator has effectively demonstrated that the majority of votes are against the new framing, which improperly uses WP:VOICE to present a highly contested allegation as fact. UnspokenPassion (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• :It isn't highly contested except by people with personal misguided tribalist interests in acting as apologists. As is very clear by actually reading the page in question, along with other closely associated Wikipedia pages, the vast majority of expert scholars, well-informed relief organisations, and member countries of the United Nations consider this a textbook case of genocide. David A (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::Please avoid personal attacks on this talk page. I contest this closure, not due to some tribal affiliation, but for the lack of a firm consensus on classifying Israel's actions in Gaza, which was misconstrued by the closer as a policy based argument, with a razor thin majority of users. If a clear consensus existed in scholarly and regular news sources, the article would reflect it in the lede, and it wouldn't begin with 'Israel is accused' unlike other articles like the Armenian Genocide and Rwandan genocide, where the article ledes clearly match their titles. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::The article in question is much longer than just the lead section. Please read the entirety of the rest of it for much further information regarding the international consensus, and preferably the other most closely connected Wikipedia articles as well, such as Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. It seems preferable to update the lead to match the rest of the article rather than overhaul the entirety of it or move it again.
• :::Also, tribalist simply means "my groups versus other groups" and "my enemy's enemy is my friend, regardless what they are doing" in general, including west versus east or south, rather than accepting that we are all almost genetically identical humans with equal human rights and sanctities of life. David A (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Nothing in the entirety of the article indicates a clear consensus in scholarly and regular news sources, which is why the lede correctly uses terminology like 'accused'. Israel may be guilty of war crimes, but genocide has a very clear definition in international law, and portraying it as a genocide without a clear consensus discredits Wikipedia. Please avoid any personalisation of this dispute with tribalist or enemy-of-friend insinuations as it is entirely inappropriate. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::Consensus is not remotely the same as saying that absolutely everybody in the world agree with it, just a strong majority, but the vast majority of the United Nations member countries, except for those with vested political interests aligning with those of the United States government, seem to consider this a genocide going by their U.N. voting records, along with all major relief organisations that I know of, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20240626215735/https://criticalissues.umd.edu/middle-east-scholar-barometer even 75% of the expert scholars who live in the United States], with only 4% supporting the Israeli war crimes, despite the country's very heavy pro-Israel bias, so the consensus among scholars in the rest of this world is likely far stronger. David A (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::I won't add my opinion here as it is not the place, but I'd like to remind you and @IntrepidContributor that this is not the place to relitigate the reasons for the move itself. This discussion is about whether the closer was justified in their decision on the basis of the facts available to them and whether they followed Wikipedia policy. Let's not clog this up further, this is not a WP:FORUM. Domeditrix (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::Okay. I will shut up here then. David A (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). Rhododendrites says it better than I can, but I'll summarize my views anyway to ensure they're understood. First of all, this seems like a spoiler effect - had both options 1 and 2 not been presented, it's very reasonable to assume that whichever of them was "versus" option 3 would've easily had more support. So that makes the entire irrelevant vote counting done in the final paragraph of the close moot as a whole. The closer also seems to impose their own view of the NPOV policy onto the close. NPOV is not a policy/guideline that can be subject to ignoring the rules without a damn good reason. And saving one word in the title is nowhere near that reason to ignore NPOV. Even if reliable sources violate NPOV for brevity/editorial reasons, that does not mean we do so here. For all of these reasons, the close should be overturned and the move request closed as clear favor for shortening the old title, with a consensus against a non-qualified "Gaza genocide" title, but with a new discussion to determine the exact wording of it (whether "allegations", "claims", "question", or otherwise). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - there was a similar proposal to move Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide, which seems likely to fail. If the outcome here is endorse while the outcome there is don't move, we'll be in an odd situation where the parent and child articles aren't consistent, and addressing it would require yet another RM. Not that WP:TITLECON is a huge deal, but if we end up with inconsistent outcomes, it will suggest that our process went wrong somewhere (either in one of the closes, or a discussion not attracting a representative sample of editors, etc). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :This raises the question also of whether this article in question (Gaza genocide as it is named right now) is merely a WP:POVFORK. I can’t imagine that there is so much information that is due weight for an article on accusations of genocide against Palestinians as a whole (whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or elsewhere) that two whole articles are merited. As a note, the Persecution of Uyghurs in China covers many more specific actions and is still one article. Rohingya genocide is also simply one page (though there is another related topic being discussed for merge at this time).{{pb}}The important thing to consider is what is due weight or not. Both gaza genocide and the article xDaniel identifies above are over 300,000 bytes long. Compare that to other articles on genocides - even ones that have had “more developments” such as court rulings, arrests, trials, etc.. but are still all much shorter than either one of these articles - and that strongly suggests that there is a due weight violation being used to artificially inflate the size of a hypothetical combined page in order to segment discussion and allow for POV pushing. Perhaps NPOVN would be a good place for such a discussion to continue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{tqq|I can’t imagine that there is so much information that is due weight for an article on accusations of genocide against Palestinians as a whole (whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or elsewhere) that two whole articles are merited.}} You don't need to imagine it, just read the two articles. A great deal has been written about the Palestinian genocide accusation, which covers the accusation that, to summarize it, the Nakba is a genocide. This covers all of Palestine for the last 100 years or so. Separately, a huge corpus of literature has recently been written about the Gaza genocide, which covers just the Israel-Hamas war, 2023-present. Combining the two would put undue weight on the recent Gaza genocide in relation to the overall Palestinian genocide accusation. One of the differences between the two is that there is much more agreement that the Israel-Hamas war has included genocide (or is a genocide), than there is about the Nakba as a whole. Levivich (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::Just because a great deal has been written does not mean it is due weight to include all of what was written. Just as an example, the "statements by political leaders" and "court cases" sections in Gaza genocide could be significantly shortened while still covering all DUE information. Right now, both articles hold significantly more "opinions from random people" (even those that are "experts" or relevant) than is normally considered DUE on this type of article. Part of the reason for that is because one side is "louder" in terms of their numbers on Wikipedia in arguing for its inclusion. I trust that the recent AE referral to ArbCom will resolve many of those issues and then we can begin having constructive discussions in the topic area again that do not devolve into articles becoming coatracks for all possible information that some editors find attractive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:ASPERSIONS. Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). I've just spent quite a bit of time to read the whole discussion and it looks like Joe is right in saying that the source analysis (which was not challenged or refuted convincingly — unless you want to throw out the entirety of academia) confirms that genocide here is a neutral descriptor. You can argue about headcounts, but the discussion does evidence that there is a consensus that Gaza genocide would be a NPOV article name. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Question for those arguing "overturn": overturn to what? The previous article title hardly had support. Even if you disagree there was consensus for "3", surely you must agree there was consensus to move away from the previous title.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Transbay Transit Center|rm_page=Talk:Transbay Transit Center|rm_section=Requested move 16 November 2021}} (Discussion with closer)

It's been a few years since the last move review. If the name "Salesforce Transit Center" wasn't common then, it certainly is now.

Rationale for calling it "Salesforce Transit Center":

• Keeping the name "Transbay Transit Center" does not follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)

• AC Transit calls it "Salesforce Transit Center." This language is used widespread on maps and trip planning tools, physical signage at bus stops, and digital signage on buses. https://www.actransit.org/overview-maps

• The official SFMTA Muni Service Map calls it Salesforce Transit Center: https://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-service-map

• SFCTA calls it Salesforce Transit Center: https://www.sfcta.org/projects/salesforce-transit-center

• Google Maps does not recognize "Transbay Transit Center." A search for "Transbay Transit Center" suggests "Salesforce Transit Center" as the first result. https://www.google.com/maps/search/Transbay+Transit+Center/@37.7897048,-122.3985976,17z/data=!3m1!4b1?entry=ttu

So, the passengers who pass through the transit center know it as Salesforce Transit Center. The drivers and transit agency employees know it as Salesforce Transit Center. Both locals and tourists know it as Salesforce Transit Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallneil (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Fairfield Metro station|rm_page=Talk:Fairfield Metro station|rm_section=Requested move 9 June 2024}} (Discussion with closer)

So me and this user have been unable to come into an agreement regarding the name of this railway station. There have been two news article that state the official station name has changed, but Paine keeps stating its not enough to officially update the station name. I've provided several links & photos that show the name has changed. Please step in. FlushingLocal (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• {{re|FlushingLocal}} I take it this is in reference to the move discussion at Talk:Fairfield Metro station? BD2412 T 00:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Correct, my apologies for my formatting, I haven't used wiki in a minute haha. {{re|BD2412}} FlushingLocal (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to move: I was the only participant that originally opposed the move, and I notified Paine Ellsworth immediately after the close that I wished to support a move based on new evidence. The evidence is now very clear: the name has been changed on official websites ([https://new.mta.info/stations/fairfield-black-rock info page], [https://new.mta.info/document/124231 timetable], [https://new.mta.info/map/22461 map]), news [https://web.archive.org/web/20240626191039/https://connecticut.news12.com/fairfield-metro-now-fairfield-black-rock-station1 reports the name is changed], and multiple news stories ([https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nj-transit-schedule-july-4-holiday-nyc-subway-mta-lirr/5560895/ 1], [https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/mta-announces-july-4th-service-schedule-changes 2]) use only the new name in brief mentions. No reliable sources appear to have used the old name in several months. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to move the only opposition to the move initially was that it was WP:TOOSOON, but there was absolutely no opposition afterwards. The closer is trying to enforce a guideline to the detriment of the project. For many name changes, we just need to wait and see that the official name is being used widely enough that it's the common name. It's very easy to do with non-controversial changes like the simple renaming of a station such as this one and it actually occurred in this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't about a "guideline", it's about the stronger community consensus of WP's article title policy. And yes, we should all enforce our policies when closing move requests or any other type of discussion, shouldn't we? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• :WP:NAMECHANGES directly cites common sense. The move request was initiated before the transport network had finished updating, and the only opposition was that it was moved too soon, and we need to wait and see if the name becomes official and used. Three different users then cited how the move had become official, negating the two "not yets." Absolutely no one opposes the move now, and it's common sense that a train station with an uncontroversial name change should appear in the way it's signed. Your close ignores common sense and was a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. There's also third party sources reporting on the name change that weren't brought up in the article, so even if we double down on your technicality, it will still need to be moved. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

::::I knew at the time of the close that it was just a matter of time; however, as of the time of this RM close, only one source had been found and cited that used the new name routinely per article title policy. If as of now more such sources have been found, then yes, the new name has become the common name. That was not "my technicality", it is WP policy backed up by long, strong community consensus. Even a station name change can be controversial and confusing to readers who don't know of the change and who search for the old name when it is still the common name. Any other time you'd be citing WP:RMCI, "...and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy," for gosh sakes! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) per PI and SportingFlyer above. This shouldn't be controversial. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. < closer > Here's the thing, it really is just a matter of time before reliable secondary sources can be found per policy that will make the new name the common name. But put yourself in a reader's shoes for a minute. You search for the station using the only name you know, the old name. If the article's title is changed before the new name becomes the common name, then a redirect takes you to the new official name, which you aren't familiar with yet. Now you think, 'Wikipedia is such a piece of s__t, it took me to the wrong article.' That's why WP has the article title policy in place, to keep reader astonishment to a bare minimum. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• :They'd just be redirected to the new article, though, no one in the discussion made that argument, and at the end of the discussion there was agreement among three different users that it was time, and one of the opposers stated they don't oppose anymore. Could you just please un-do and change your close to move the article? SportingFlyer T·C 16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Exactly, readers will be redirected to a name they are not familiar with and will think their search led them to the wrong page. It's what WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES are all about. Until the title is shown to be the common name, it should NOT be changed. C'mon, you know better. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to move (uninvolved) - seems like it has enough sources, both primary and secondary to confirm the name of the station has been officially changed. It's not like we need an overabundance of secondary sources since the notability of the station itself has been established. The name change won't confuse readers if a redirect from the old name is left in place. And common sense would probably be that if a reader is wanting to actually take the train to a destination, they'd probably check with MetroNorth before looking at Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to move (involved) - It seems we have a consensus that the article can and should be moved under the new name. This whole entire thing was completely unnecessary except for the fact that I wanted to move it a bit to soon. 98.116.105.28 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. The move was not supported by the RM participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The previous move or the move that's being requested now? @SmokeyJoe 98.116.105.28 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::This Move Review is limited to the linked RM, or wider RM processes. It is not RM2 or RMextended. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Attempted assassination of Donald Trump|rm_page=Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump/Archive 1|rm_section=Requested move 13 July 2024}} (WARNING: THIS MOVE REVIEW IS INVALID IF NO DISCUSSION WAS HELD WITH THE CLOSER. IF YOU ARE READING THIS, PLEASE CLOSE THIS REQUEST IMMEDIATELY IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION.)

SNOW closing an RM after less then 6 hours is highly inappropriate, since certain time zones would have never had a chance to respond, and there is some evidence suggesting it may not have been an assassination attempt. This should have been given more time to develop with more input from others. Below the RM, the closer further justified closing it, so I did not see a need to bring this to their talk page with the highly likely result they refuse. Downerr2937 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse (uninvolved) a quick close can be appropriate for rapidly developing events and ten !votes over six hours should be enough to determine snow. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse, speedy close. The consensus was clear. I was about to early close it the same way. Closing that early was necessary to get past that issue, saving editor time and making way for future RMs that focus on different issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Project 2025|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Project 2025}}|rm_section=Requested move 13 June 2024}}

review result to not move project 2025 to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. The discussion took place in the section Requested move 13 June 2024 in Talk:Project 2025. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close. The move proposal had no rationale attached, it clearly violates the custom that we don't use a slash to separate two alternative names for the same topic and it already had five opposes at the time it was speedily closed. The OP also reverted the close twice out of process, and doesn't seem to have discussed this with the closer at all, as required by MRV rules. All in all nothing to see here, the move is never going ahead and the OP needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
• Endorse and speedily close - there's absolutely no consensus to move that discussion, it was speedily closed, and the review doesn't bring up any reason for review. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy close. Previous comments spell it all out, let's not waste editor time with this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Côte d'Ivoire|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Côte d'Ivoire}}|rm_section=Requested move 27 June 2024}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire#Post-move_review Discussion with closer]) and also (additional Discussion with closer)

This was either a close for Ivory Coast or perhaps no-consensus. Red Slash based everything on ngrams as opposed to other argument content. ngrams were shown to be inefficient compared with so many major sources still using Ivory Coast. Google trends [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ivory%20Coast,C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire&hl=en-GB has Ivory Coast way ahead], and even that source is limiting. I've never seen ngrams used exclusively as a reason to close an RM. Past discussion have had the same ngram arguments and been quashed. Why this one RM and it's moved? I edit a lot of tennis articles and if we used ngrams to this extent all our foreign players and locations would be at different titles (titles Wikipedia forces us to use often get 0% ngrams vs 100% something else). Plus this was closed the day three more people placed their opinions... it was very active the day it closed. I'm sure the closer was sincere here, but it was just a bad close. Even the person who opened the RM thinks it was a bad close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). Good turnout, open long enough, all processes conducted properly, policies adhered to and evidence all stacked up in one direction. Good close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved) The close correctly discards a couple of the oppose !votes, but the first point makes clear that the closer unilaterally decided that ngrams (the main argument for the move) outweighs the fact that Fyunck and even :Erp's support !vote show major news organisations still use Ivory Coast with considerable frequency, or agree that it is the common name (:Erp's UK government comment). Given this is a fairly major change, I think the discussion is closer to a no consensus than a move even with a slight support majority when downweighting a couple of the oppose !votes, but I think the only really strong votes in the entire discussion were Fyunck's and :Erp's (and Kowal2701's listing of sources which use the current name). Calling these strong doesn't mean all of the other votes need to be discredited, but those were the only comments which tried to actually make a showing of what is commonly used beyond ngrams. I think no consensus would have been a better close, I think the move is probably technically correct and there's a little more support for the move after weighting, but that relisting for another week would be the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Just noting I'm in favour of a relist because the result is in fact the correct one, looking at the evidence I believe Côte d'Ivoire is used more often than Ivory Coast in English. Relisting would simply allow for better arguments not related to n-grams. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (mostly uninvolved, although I did apparently support the Ivory Coast name in a 2011 RM). Per SportingFlyer above, and the points I made to the closer on the article talk page, I think this close amounts to a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE, where the closer is reaching a conclusion not supported by the arguments made. The vote count was split, which means by default it's going to close as no consensus, unless one side or the other really makes significantly better points in policy or evidence. Here, I just didn't see that. There's a slight lead for the French name on ngrams, but it was clearly shown by opponents that media sources still heavily use the English name. Ngrams are useful certainly and I often regard them as the gold Standard for source analysis, but when ample evidence from alternative sources is presented, the ngrams cease to be the only game in town. In short, the supporters did no present a case so watertight that the opposes were nullified, and no consensus is the only conclusion one can reach from this debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved) and turn Red Slash's close into a !vote, or just overturn as no consensus. I agree with Amakuru that this looks like a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE, and the closer was incorrect in discarding all evidence of common usage other than ngrams. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. I definitely didn't supervote--I would personally prefer Ivory Coast. Listen, in any decent contested request like this, you're going to have lots of evidence on either side. But that's literally why we have aggregators like ngrams. Of course tons of RS use Ivory Coast. But more RS use Cote d'Ivoire. With that said, I stand behind this close 100%; no compelling arguments in favor of Ivory Coast were presented at all other than the arguments claiming that Ivory Coast is the most common name in English, and those arguments are founded in nonreality. Red Slash 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :(involved) Where do you get "more RS use Cote d'Ivoire"? More books that google has use Côte d'Ivoire... that's it! Trending on Google has Ivory Coast landslide way ahead [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire,Ivory%20Coast&hl=en in the US] and [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=GB&q=C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire,Ivory%20Coast&hl=en in the UK]. India is also an English-speaking mountain-like 5 year pattern [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=IN&q=C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire,Ivory%20Coast&hl=en in favor of Ivory Coast]. Google is only one tool and you seem be treating it as a godsend, and that's not right. That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This was no consensus to move. And think of something else... I would bet that many people listed with an article at Wikipedia with a diacritic in their spelling are crushed by the standard English spelling in Google ngrams like Grand Slam champion [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Goran+Ivani%C5%A1evi%C4%87%2CGoran+Ivanisevic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 Goran Ivanišević]. Some like 100% to 0% like Wimbledon champion [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jelena+Jankovi%C4%87%2CJelena+Jankovic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 Jelena Janković]. We aren't even allowed to use the standard English spelling here at Wikipedia for these people. Per your ngram affinity they should all be changed. So google ngrams are one tool, google trends are another tool, newspapers are another tool, tv/radio is another tool, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :While I support a relist I'd overturn the discussion based just on that response alone, as it's absolutely clear that there was evidence presented that Ivory Coast is still continually used by major news orgs. Whether it's enough evidence to support a move is a different question, but it's now obvious the close was clearly erroneous. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Ngrams is only an aggregator for books, and its corpus completely ignores things like media usage, web usage, and scholarly usage. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• :You most certainly did supervote. The fact that you claim to prefer the previous title does nothing to exonerate you or mitigate the gravity of your error. Rather, it serves to demonstrate quite well why non-admin users should eschew controversial closes in the first place. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (to no consensus). (Uninvolved) I do not read a consensus. The first fault is a too brief nomination, given the long tortuous history of title debate for this article. The nomination did not present enough data,a Dan did not summarise the history of the same discussion. Participants presented data, but it’s a mess, hard to follow, and strong points are being made by both sides disjointedly. The close is argued, but the closers arguments are the closers opinions are are not reflecting the discussion, as as such the close is a Supervote. Red Slash should take to !voting more in contested discussions instead of bold closing.
  I recommend a careful, thorough, fresh nomination, with a logical presentation of the known data and arguments and a summary of the many preceding discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (to no consensus) as involved move review nominator. Per listing and in answer to closer above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved), as correct on policy. This is clearly one of those discussions where feelings are so strongly locked in on opposing sides that it is impossible to close it at all, with any outcome, without some participants being unhappy and initiating a move review. So, here we are. I salute those discussion closers who are willing to close these hard cases. Without you, the backlogs would be eternal. BD2412 T 13:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): per BD2412 above. A country title change was obviously going to be a difficult close no matter the outcome. Some people will always be unhappy but that isn't the closer's problem. I do not see a supervote here and it was certainly open long enough. I probably would've left it for an admin, but there's no policy error there. Endorse. C F A 💬 14:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (and return to original name). I was not involved in the RM but since the votes were about equal, it clearly makes sense to do a no consensus result instead of moving. It's clear that this should have remained at its longstanding name since its been kept that way for 12 years. Ngrams shouldn't be the only thing used to determine which is the common name. It's unfortunate that it stopped being covered from 2020 onwards but since it has hundreds of years of data, it doesn't really matter for historic stuff. Côte d'Ivoire is not Costa Rica, namely because its never been known as the Rich Coast. Same with Stade de France, Gare du Nord and Tour de France. While Côte d'Ivoire has been around for long (circa 1986), media outlets and general discussion still refer to it by its translated name, especially for Germanic and Romance languages. It's safe to say Côte d'Ivoire is used in Russian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc, at least in official contexts. JuniperChill (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The close was overly reliant on ngrams, which are based solely on books, at the expense of other sources.~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (Additional comment: While there are several calls for relisting, I don't believe it is appropriate in this case. The discussion was open almost two weeks and nearly 20 editors participated, a turnout that is higher than usual for a requested move, so I don't think extending this request will resolve the matter. My suggestion would be to come back in six months with better evidence less reliant on ngrams. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC))
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved), per Fyunck(click), Amakuru, SmokeyJoe, JuniperChill and Jessintime as well as per comments by SportingFlyer and Ahecht. When a Wikipedia entry is at this level of importance, the consensus is expected to be overwhelming. Here, there were eight votes in favor of the move to Côte d'Ivoire and nine votes in favor of retaining Ivory Coast. Clearly, no consensus, even if some of the votes in favor of Ivory Coast have been described as not being solidly based. As for the inherent merit of Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire, it can be certainly argued that such city name changes as Kiev → Kyiv and Odessa → Odesa or such country name changes as Rhodesia → Zimbabwe and South West Africa→ Namibia were more readily accepted, being based upon letting go of cultural oppression and colonial past. On the other hand, although official sources have accepted that Turkey's English name is Türkiye and Ivory Coast's English name is Côte d'Ivoire, that acceptance has not made the two revised country names WP:COMMONNAMES in the English-speaking world. To use general examples, it would be as if Croatia announced that its English name is now Hrvatska, Italy announced that its English name is now Italia or Poland announced that its English name is now Polska. As a final point, it may be noted that no English-language country exonym uses accents and / or diacritics which makes Türkiye and Côte d'Ivoire even more problematic as putative common names. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|Roman Spinner}} Requiring an "overwhelming" consensus based solely on the "level of importance" would basically guarantee that an important article at a suboptimal title would never be moved to its optimal title. Look at the eight discussions over six years that were required to move Yoghurt to Yogurt, or the ten discussions over eight years to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton; both have finally resulted in stable titles that, in retrospect, would have been optimal all along. BD2412 T 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{bcc|BD2412}}But that did happen before with this very article in 2012 and that consensus has remained stable since. —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|BD2412}} Since English Wikipedia is consensus-based, we would likely expect important titles such as this one to at least have a convincing consensus if not an "overwhelming" one. The first Kiev → Kyiv RM was in July 2007, but did not succeed until September 2020 when nearly all media outlets were already using "Kyiv", although it was being used by U.S. government sources and the UN well before 2007 and various ngrams had been confirming its increasing usage. As for the matter at hand, the insistence upon diacritics in the Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire and Turkey → Türkiye proposals makes those even less likely to be accepted into general use, with few if any media outlets in the English-speaking world using those forms. Ultimately, each set of title changes brings its own set of circumstances. Geographic names carry historical, nationalistic and linguistic baggage, while main headers for current events tend to be dynamic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|Roman Spinner}} We have a WP:RM process. It allows for notification of affected projects, and relists of discussions by any editor who thinks more time is needed for discussion. We have no rule, nor any mechanism, for deeming articles "important titles" for this purpose, nor for giving any such articles special treatment. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump asking whether we should have such a policy in place. So far the consensus seems to be against it. BD2412 T 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|BD2412}} I recently submitted a song title RM {at Talk:Friendly Persuasion (Thee I Love)#Requested move 12 June 2024} that was moved seven days later with no participation. Obviously, Yoghurt → Yogurt elicited much greater interest, but is still unlikely to compete in importance with a world-class city or, for that matter, a country name. Of course, designating a title as "important" is in itself a likely mischaracterization. Perhaps, "controversial title" or "high-volume participation title" may be a more intuitive description which would carry with it much greater expectation of a strong consensus, making the Village Pump discussion most welcome indeed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• To describe to discussion leading up to moving the article to Ivory Coast in 2012 as an "overwhelming consensus" is quite the leap. By my count the !vote was 29-27, and a subsequent MR was inconclusive, with no consensus established to endorse the move. TDL (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or relist (involved). There was no appearance to date of consensus in the discussion and the closer's only substantive rationale was a Google Ngram plot, which is only a small part of determining a common name. —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved), per all the arguments raised in favour of these options above, especially by SportingFlyer, Amakuru, SmokeyJoe, JuniperChill, Roman Spinner, and AjaxSmack. There is clearly no consensus in favour of a rename as of now. Maybe a clearer consensus favouring either the old or the new name will emerge after a relist, so that might be worth a try. Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist The proper course of action would be to let the discussion run longer, as it's evident now that more people would join in. Simply changing the result based on votes is pointless, as it doesn't truly resolve the issue (there are rules and precedents for this). In my opinion, arguing that n-grams are merely specialized books and that we should also gather information from non-specialized sources like "how young people talk on Facebook, or rather Instagram or TikTok" diminishes the value of Wikipedia. This is similar to arguing that Côte d'Ivoire doesn't sound English. However, it is stated here that move reviews are not intended to "reargue debates about page moves," so relisting is the correct choice. (Reopen the discussion, but with a warning for editors supporting the move that it is necessary to find something beyond n-gram, otherwise they will definitely not succeed) Chrz (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC) EDITED Chrz (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC) Ad "The discussion was open almost two weeks and nearly 20 editors participated" it does not deserve to be relisted: A high-profile article like one about a country certainly deserves enough time to address all objections and involve as many editors as possible to lend weight to the decision. Why? Because according to the COMMONNAME guidelines all "related" articles where the name appears need to be renamed after a country is renamed And the vast majority of occurrences of the name in article text also need to be changed - according to Wikipedia's COMMONNAME guidelines, there cannot be more than one name for a country. (To paraphrase and exaggerate) Chrz (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). This MRV is yet another example of French language erasure on Wikipedia (see Quebec as one of the most blatant examples). The problem is that it was at Ivory Coast for so long. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Just so I understand this correctly, "French language erasure on Wikipedia" in this case refers to the é? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::French language erasure is when a French-speaking place has a different name in English, apparently. Is Mexico not being at México yet another example of Spanish language erasure on Wikipedia? Kyoto Grand (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Yes. The official name is Québec, not Quebec. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Which is totally irrelevant, as we go by English common names. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• :What the heck does this post have to do with whether a proper closing was made? This is just an editor from French-speaking Quebec that hates the term Ivory Coast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Because it's a good sign that the tides may be turning. My Québec example is because the official name of the province has the accent aigu (and thus it should be the name of the article), and the official name of Côte d'Ivoire isn't Ivory Coast (and thus the article name isn't Ivory Coast). What English language RSes say don't matter in terms of French language place names. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::This is not a serious argument. Maybe it'd have some cachet in the 1400s when English court officials still wrote in French, but it's 2024, 95% of non-Canadians pronounce Quebec with a /kwə/, and the norms of the French language are about as relevant to the English name of the Ivory Coast as they are to the pronunciation of the word 'judgement'. And it's called an acute accent. Kyoto Grand (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::This is the English Wikipedia. Of course English-language sources matter. Should Somalia be located at Soomaaliya? Should China be located at 中国? C F A 💬 15:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Does the usage of "États-Unis" in French count as English erasure? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Hmmm? "the tides may be turning?" What, that the world is universally speaking French now? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::By this logic we should rename Germany to "Deutschland", which I hardly think anyone would consider "German erasure" or actually support. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Users of the reductio ad absurdum are cautioned to take special care in ensuring the proposed act is actually absurd and not simply based.
  
• ::::This would own, and should unironically be done across the board. And yes -- I do mean eSwatini, T{{umlaut|u}}rkiye, and Kyiv, but also Sverige, Zhongguo, Rossiya, Nihon, Hellas, Deutschland and Italia. If they want to call it "Fr{{umlaut|a}}ŋç{{umlaut|a}}ñiå-sųr-lé-hônhônhôn" who cares if it's made up? It's their country, they're supposed to make up a name for it! jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::WP:UEGN Svampesky (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::The point isn't whose country we are discussing, it is what language we are discussing it in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (nominator) appears to be the solution, I can understand no consensus as votes were even and if it had to be closed now I'd say that would be the most accurate outcome. My bludgeoning of discussion certainly malformed the RM and I'd be against endorsing it when the margins are so small. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse – I would've closed it the same way. The "Ivory Coast is the English name" argument is, as {{u|Red Slash}} points out, unevidenced in the RM and borders on tautological. I've noticed a lot, in similar RMs, an argument that USEENGLISH dictates we must use English words in article titles, which is a completely incorrect reading of the policy; article titles, by and large, use the most common name in use in English, not the most common name which is rendered in the English language. Hence Stade de France and Olympiastadion (Berlin), not Stadium of France and Olympic Stadium (Berlin), for example. Given the well-argued rationales in favour of a move – frankly, it was a matter of if-not-when for Côte d'Ivoire – and the faulty arguments against the move, I think a move result is definitely justifiable, and like I said, I would've gone the same way. Sceptre (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The RM literally includes a source that says "Ivory Coast is the usual country name in the English language". That source may be wrong, but the argument "Ivory Coast is the English name" is clearly not "unevidenced". CMD (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Can't assign extra weight to the ngram-based argument relative to "ngram skeptics" when the latter bring up some kind of evidence of their own, such as a list of sources. Consensus could have formed in spite of this methodological disagreement, but it didn't. Oppose relisting; there's no basis for that.—Alalch E. 11:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any consensus. The vote-tally is fairly evenly split, usage in major news outlets is split, the Ngram usage has a slight preference for Côte d'Ivoire but does not clearly mandate one or the other. The "official name" and "use English" arguments seem to balance out. Unless this is listed on WP:CENT, I don't expect a relist would find consensus. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. (with opposition to a relist) < uninvolved > With a good deal of respect to this closer, in this case I think I would have closed as "no consensus". Editor Roman S. said it all above, and judging by the history of requested moves for this article, and admitting that my personal preference is for the French spelling, I would have to agree that the English spelling belongs at the top of this Wikipedia entry. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Same. I also prefer the French one. I would never use the ô otherwise lol. I also spell naïve with ï. Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) - The primary argument to overturn the close is that while there was agreement that the ngram results showed that Cote d'Ivoire was more common, this is not conclusive as these results are restricted to books and Ivory Cost is more common in other sources, which was not taken into account. That's not true. As the closer pointed out, the issue is that those that opposed the move largely relied on dismissing the evidence that showed Cote d'Ivoire was more common, without providing alternative evidence that objectively showed that Ivory Cost was more common. Yes, there was a dozen or so links provided that showed Ivory Coasts was used by for example major news media, but these were offset by a dozen or so other links that showed that Cote d'Ivoire was also used by major news media, Britannica, Google Maps, etc. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that it supports that usage is mixed, but does not clearly indicate which name is more common. Especially so since for such a small sample size is highly subject to cherry picking of sources, unlike the ngram results which are more objective as they consider a much broader set of sources.

:I'd also reiterate my point from the RM that even if the evidence isn't conclusive that Cote d'Ivoire is the common name, it's clear that usage is split and that the evidence provided did not show that Ivory Coast is the widely used common name. WP:NCGN#Use_English states that the local name should be used in cases where there is no widely accepted common name in English, so in this case we should defer to Cote d'Ivoire in the absence of such evidence. TDL (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist or overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). I like closures where closers critically assess arguments against policy (within reason) and not just parrot whatever participants said. But such statements should be truthful and here they are simply not.

:The first point relies on ngrams, which is a good tool but must be interpreted with caution. The ratio was not really overwhelming (1.5:1, which is 60% to 40% in favour of the French name), and opposers provided numerous examples where Ivory Coast is used. Of course, the other side provided a lot of examples with Côte d'Ivoire, but saying "no evidence whatsoever" was provided is simply untrue; and even then the evidence for Côte d'Ivoire was maybe a bit superior, but definitely not by a wide margin.

:Because the second point relies on the first, it is also implicated. The third point simply says that accent circonflexe (ô) ain't a problem and in fact a reading of WP:UCRN may imply preference for English names when all else is equal (e.g. Germany (not: Deutschland) example).

:No, that isn't a good closure. Maybe more discussion may prove the closer right, but as things stand, he isn't. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. In the last decade or so, Côte d'Ivoire has become the common name. That trend is only going one way. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• :But this isn't a rehash of the argument... this is simply about the closure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or Relist (uninvolved): Ngram trends could not be considered convincing evidence for overall change in usage in RS since it only includes books that are on Google Books. Also, the assertion in the closure that there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that Ivory Coast is more used is false since it ignores the RS provided by Fyunck(click). Since the supporters of the move could not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Côte d'Ivoire is the more used name, the proper closure would have been no consensus. --StellarHalo (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (involved) - not sure why the close had to happen then, as it's clear that the arguments were still being hashed out. Theknightwho (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved): I'm completely neutral on this issue (regardless of the outcome, I do think Côte d'Ivoire as the French name doesn't need an English IPA, as I have already explained in the talk page). However I don't think consensus here was achieved. The vote should either be reopened so both points of view can be debated, or started from scratch. A vote that is THIS close to a tie is not consensus and it shouldn't have been closed. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): closer gave more weight to those who supported their position with empirical data (ngrams, encyclopedias, maps), rather than anecdotal evidence (but my local paper had it in the headline once!). Nothing wrong with that. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse policy-based closure. SerialNumber54129 16:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Policy based? I'm not sure what that means since nothing is really policy related here. Care to elaborate? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (involved) per others. Svampesky (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). Common English name has always been Ivory Coast and the consensus did not seem to formulate efficiently in the previous discussion. Ecpiandy (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). I can't see any consensus to move developed at all. There is a very clear disagreement regarding policy and evidence etc. The only reasonable closure in this case is no consensus, which means no move should take place. --Spekkios (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus I don't see a consensus in the vote totals, and the closer's arguments are unconvincing. I'm seeing claims here that looking at individual sources would be cherry-picking, but I see that a majority of the most respected English news sources using Ivory Coast. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, and I say this as someone who fully supports the current title, but opposes vociferously the means by which it has arrived there. The ill-advised move to "Ivory Coast" took place years ago, when Beeblebrox chose to ignore a clear "no consensus" result, and moved the page to the title he preferred via supervote. This never should have happened, but the fact is that it did, and for many years, the page has remained at the stable (albeit erroneous) title of "Ivory Coast". Now, we have this latest farce, via NAC, to again change the title of the page through supervote. This is unacceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Genocide of indigenous peoples|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Genocide of indigenous peoples}}|rm_section=Requested_move_25_May_2024}} (Discussion with closer)

This was a protacted, verbose, contentious discussion with both sides deeply entrenched, and yet Red Slash moved the article and stated, {{green|" Arguably, there was a consensus to move to the lower-case title; many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the 'i' should be lowercase."}} There was absolutely not a consensus. Nonetheless, Red Slash moved the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples&diff=1233654609&oldid=1233578772 diff]] The article had previously been at Genocide of Indigenous peoples, and a previous discussion to move to Genocide of indigenous peoples had failed.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1183457164#Requested_move_30_October_2023]. On their talk page, Red Slash wrote, {{Green|"The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus."}} Yes, WP consensuses don't need to be unaminous, but this was not a consensus. Being a highly controversial discussion, this should have had an administrator close the discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment(involved) Assuming for the moment that a nocon outcome is possible, then the close asserts that there is a stable uncapitalized I title but this seems not to be the case. The move to a capitalized I was done on 7 August 2023 and there was a subsequent RM to move it to an uncapitalized I that was closed on 7 November as "not moved". Then it seems that a capitalized I is indeed the stable title, it's not just weeks or even a couple of months. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The trouble with this discussion is that we have two competing points of view on a topic where views have changed over time, and we've reached a consensus in a rather conservative manner - namely, the SMcCandlish argument that the term is used consistently in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. While it's a generally good rule, Wikipedia often struggles to navigate change as a result, as the site is a trailing indicator of what's happening in the real world, and these discussions can get very political. However, reading the discussion carefully and then doing some fact finding, I don't see a consensus here. Those opposing base their opposition on style guides, which now consistently recommend using the uppercase I in English usage. Many of the support !votes provide opinions without providing evidence-based support or even referencing the argument against - the style guides clearly show this is not a common adjective, for instance - and those opposing generally, for the most part, cited the style guides. (It also doesn't help that SMcCandlish provided a link to one of the opposition votes which was mostly just opinion showing lowercase is used more in academia since 2020 - your mileage may vary, but every single one of those articles on the first page of my results uses a capital I, with the exception of one journal title which uses a capital I in text, but every word in the title is lowercase, and the only one on the second page which uses a lowercase i was originally published in 1998 but revised in 2020.) Downweighting the votes on both sides where the facts don't match the opinion, you get a no consensus result. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Even if it were "no consensus", the article would be moved back to its longstanding title. Red Slash 04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::That's not true, see my comment below. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). "Arguably there is consensus to move" is not a particularly strong closing statement. Sure "many people agreed" with lowercasing "i" in this instance, but many people also disagreed, and the closer fails to explain why the opposition can be discounted. The claim that "the longstanding title lacks the capital "I", so this article would have to be moved back, anyway" is also wrong, because it ignores a requested move from October that was closed in favor of the upper-case title. Finally, Red Slash's response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Slash&diff=prev&oldid=1233846149 here] when questioned about the close is condescending, contemptuous, and makes me question whether he should be closing any requested moves, let alone controversial ones. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) From what I can see there was actually a clear consensus to move with strong arguments. Nothing arguable about it. The close was correct although the phrasing could have been stronger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: (uninvolved) Appears to be clear consensus to move from my observation. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{ping|Yuchitown}} Would you care to complete the Move Review process by tagging the RM discussion itself so involved editors can actually see it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Never mind. I've done it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Thank you. My apologies; I’ve never had to initiate a move review before. Yuchitown (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per Necrothesp. My reading of the discussion was that there is consensus to move, but the closer could've explained it much better. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (involved) It was difficult to create a consensus because of one user (Gwillhickers) failing to understand Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, a number of editors, including myself, warned them about it: "Bludgeoning at Genocide of Indigenous peoples RFC" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwillhickers&diff=1231353809&oldid=1230699789 diff of them removing the discussion]. They had contributed #1 30% of the edits to the talkpage and also #2 edits by text size (16.2%). This move should be overturned and administration action involved to ensure a less contentious discussion.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (I'm possibly involved? I participated in the RfC above this one at the same Talk and have discussed this capitalization elsewhere on WP, but did not join this discussion.) Unfortunately too much of the close rationale lacks support, from the absence of an explanation as to why the corollary, '{{tq|many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the "i" should be}} UPPERcase', isn't just as worthy of a conclusion (despite also being an accurate evaluation of the discussion), to the fact that there was a previous move request that affirmed the current capital-I title (thus negating any pleas to some "longstanding" lowercase consensus). Their response to the initial discussion on their talk (the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Slash&diff=prev&oldid=1233846149 second half] of their responding message) leaves much to be desired as well, as it is full of equivocations and conceded points, which pretty strongly indicate a lack of consensus in the move discussion. Indeed, the discussion itself contains solid arguments on both titles, with plenty of support for both. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. I concede that the close was lacking. Policies/guidelines that were cited in favor of the capitalized title include things like WP:INDIGENOUS, which doesn't support capitalization of "indigenous" except when specifically dealing with Native Americans. When not in that specific context, consensus was that the common usage was uncapitalized. Red Slash 04:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Comment: WP:INDIGENOUS calls for capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people; no where does it say that is limited only to Native Americans. Yuchitown (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Comment: I just like to point out that after the debate started, editors started to remove information from WP:Indigenous so that it couldn't be used in the debate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28ethnicities_and_tribes%29&diff=1229629921&oldid=1189167845 (diff)] and attempts to change information at other MOS to reflect their arguments. It has lead to numerous changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28ethnicities_and_tribes%29&diff=1229629921&oldid=1189167845 diff]), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FCapital_letters&diff=1234207688&oldid=1233857346 diff)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FBiography&diff=1226448750&oldid=1226279775 an attempt] to remove tribal citizenship from WP:MOSBIO (the length discussion that followed). I can't think of a time on Wikipedia where editors started to change all the policies to attempt to undermine style guides and tribal sovereignty over a Move Request discussion. These recent edits by those opposing capitalization on so many policies pages feels like an attempt at Wikipedia:Gaming the system.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Regarding these edits, the policy WP:PGBOLD (its second paragraph) may be of help to whomever ends up closing this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::I think you misunderstand how I got involved in this RM. I came in as a neutral, just scrolling through the list on WP:RM when I came across this one. I read through the discussion and saw claims that the changes to WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS were inserted without following the proper procedures for obtaining community consensus. I researched the history of the discussions and confirmed that those claims were true, so I reverted the illegitimate changes. If there's any gaming the system here, it took place in August 2023 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=&tagfilter=&type=move&user=Bohemian_Baltimore&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&wpdate=&wpfilters%5B0%5D=newusers&offset=&limit=500 a massive sequence] of undiscussed moves of "indigenous" to "Indigenous" by a single editor to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI that would be very difficult to undo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I also see that your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_7#Requested_move_30_October_2023 comment in the last move request for this same page] was merely a request for information and you did not ultimately share your thoughts at that time. But I don't see how August 2023 page moves could be seen as gaming the system of a May-July 2024 move request. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (to no consensus). This means that the title reverts to the longstanding stable original “Genocide of indigenous peoples”, the status quo. Advise Red Slash that he appears to be regressing to headstrong impetuous mindsets when closing, and his replies at User talk:Red Slash#Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples%23Requested move 25 May 2024 read poorly, boastful and arrogant. An NAC-er should not be boasting about being taken so often to MRV. If your closes result in lengthy MRV discussions, you are not helping by doing these closes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• :That's not the status quo, though, there was a move request back to that title in October 2023 and it was not moved, so the title with the capital I is indeed the stable title. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 7#Requested move 30 October 2023. That complicates things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Wikipedia should have an academic bias on things of this nature and follow modern scholarship norms. Simply surprised to see the rejection by so many of academic protocols. Moxy🍁 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::WP:NOTJOURNAL says different ("Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.") —  AjaxSmack  03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::The quoted section from NOTJOURNAL is clearly in reference to academic jargon and not capitalization conventions. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for digging that up - I'd forgotten about that. Since we're at MR anyways, I think we can discuss the validity of that RM as well. There were 4 supports for reverting the move and 7 opposes, plus a comment from me questioning whether the initial capitalization was ever discussed. Since a substantial portion of the opposition's argument hinges on the changes to MOS:RACECAPS and WP:TRIBE which were made without adequate community consensus, that portion should be thrown out, leaving behind "no consensus" rather than "not moved". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Is it appropriate to directly challenge another (8-month-old) Move Request close within an existing Move Review, especially without all the usual steps required, such as discussion with the closer prior to the challenge? -Pinchme123 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::It's just a thought experiment, since I do believe there has been consensus in the present RM, rendering this point moot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::There was crystal clear consensus in that move request, though, to the point where your 10 June revert on WP:INDIGENOUS may have been the incorrect edit. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::{{bcc|SportingFlyer|King of Hearts|Pinchme123|SmokeyJoe}}As a "thought experiment", it's "appropriate to directly challenge" or at least discuss the October 2023 RM since that nomination was malformed (it should have been WP:RMUM-based to put the burden of the argument on those favoring capital {{serif|I}}), was based evidently on guidelines in flux and was closed with a "not moved" that did not mention consensus. Though the !votes in that discussion favored the capital {{serif|I}}, the process far from ideal, so saying that the last stable title was the one with a lowercase i is not that unreasonable. —  AjaxSmack  20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::The consensus there was clear enough that WP:RMUM wouldn't apply, though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Both the nomination and the closing rationale were sound and based on WP guidelines that tend to favor lowercase. Importantly (to me), this is a WP:RMUM case of reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1169217737 this undiscussed move,] so an overturn here should also result in a reverion to the last stable title, i.e. the lowercase i. —  AjaxSmack  03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The move was discussed and affirmed. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::That may not in fact be true - I've replied in SmokeyJoe's section. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'll respond there, but am noting here that I disagree with you completely there. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). There is a clear numerical majority in support of the move, so to close the discussion as anything other than "moved", it would require either the side with the numerical majority to be particularly weak. For example, most of the WP:NCROY-related RMs were closed in favor of titling monarchs as Edward IV without the country unless disambiguation was required, often despite the lack of a clear majority or even with a minority of the !votes at the RM. The difference here is that while the guideline changes at WP:NCROY were passed with a clear community consensus with a well-advertised RfC, the changes to WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:CAPS from 2022 were not made with the support of any sort of consensus; the few discussions that did take place were never properly closed and most likely would have been closed as "no consensus" had they been, meaning no change to guidelines. Therefore, given the lack of clear policy prescription on what to do, we rely on first principles. While both sides gave good arguments, one side clearly managed to convince more people to agree with them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Supporters collectively had a clear majority and reasoned justification for their theory of the case; I think "moved" is a fair reading of consensus. In the event that the move review finds no consensus, however, the status quo ante is the capitalized title, which has been in place for almost a year and was affirmed in the October 2023 RM. The October 2023 RM validly represented the consensus at the time. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - If we are not going to follow academic scholarship in this then at least let's get the close right. It should have been closed as "No consensus". Both sides had compelling arguments, even the closer stated this. If the decision is that "No consensus" means we do not have a policy of capitalization so be it. As stated and restated by myself, I will always capitalize in my edits and discussions regardless of the disrespect shown Indigenous people and the incivility directed at particularly one side of these discussions. --ARoseWolf 14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > The nomination was clear, and the closure was concise, to the point and reasonably spot on. In addition, the closing instructions were well-followed. I am mystified by people who read things into things that just aren't there. The lowercasing of a common noun that is not a proper noun has absolutely nothing to do with respect nor disrespect of any peoples. If that were true, then the people in the US can disrespect a lot of {p}residents as well as people in the UK may dishonor many {k}ings and {q}ueens. Sorry if Anybody here incorrectly thinks that I've disrespected Anybody. WP can be so much fun at times, eh? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• :That remark was incredibly unfunny and displays a lack of good faith while ignoring the actual discussion and closing. Yuchitown (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Again, I'm truly mystified. My first two sentences above take care of "the actual discussion and closing", so no, they were not ignored. The rest? Just a mere opinion. Feel better, friend and fellow volunteer editor, Yuchitown. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'll feel better when you actually apologize for your mocking tone and disrespect of Indigenous people. Being Indigenous is not a common noun, like a president and king. It is specific and proper, similar to other races and ethnicities. All Indigenous people are citizens of sovereign nations that were here long before the colonial powers began their empire building. If you are an Indigenous person that becomes a president you are an Indigenous president, the same as being a (insert race) president or (insert nationality) president. Indigenous is treated as a race/ethnicity or a nationality even though it is so much more complex than that. We have Indigenous representatives, Indigenous mothers/fathers, Indigenous school teachers, Indigenous religious leaders. No one read into anything. This is disrespectful because we wouldn't dare say this about other races of people. The mocking and belittling of Indigenous editors and non-Indigenous supporters that has taken place in these discussions is shameful. We are not the same as an indigenous plant species or indigenous rock sample. --ARoseWolf 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Sorry you feel that way, as there was no mocking tone meant, especially considering that I have three groups of Native Americans in my ancestry. And yet I still see no reason to capitalize this adjective in that manner – it's too broad a term and overall, the sources don't seem to justify it. So sorry to disagree, editor ARoseWolf, and I adore your username! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - to "no consensus", as stated above, {{tq|There was absolutely not a consensus}} I fully agree with this. The closer's justification had little merit {{tq|"The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus."}}. Those opposed to the move presented strong arguments and presented numerous examples showing that current reliable sources, style guides, newspapers, dictionaries, academic literature, n-grams, etc. capitalize "I" in the word, "Indigenous" when referring to people (rather than rocks and plants) - this is the preferred style. (To my mind, lumping together Indigenous people with rocks and plants is questionable and is borderline dehumanizing.) In the past, lower case was accepted, but times have changed. The argument for the move was bludgeoned repeatedly claiming the opposers were displaying "favoritism" and POV which was not the case. Numerically, there were 4 supports for reverting the move to ;over-case "i" and 7 opposes arguing for letting the upper case "I" stand. Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) Broad consensus based on lengthy discussions, the review largely hinges on a previous discussion with fewer editors involved. Killuminator (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Closer did not err, and this venue is for addressing closer error. This is not a venue for relitigating what one wished the consensus had turned out to be. It's clear that the source-supported and general-consensus position is that "Indigenous", "Native", or "Aboriginal" is capitalized when in reference to a specific people who have adopted the term as a proper name for themselves, but not capitalized as a generic adjective in reference to human populations in general. This is also consistent with WP:MOSCAPS (in particular its lead principle {{tq|only words and phrases that are {{em|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}} are capitalized in Wikipedia}} [emphasis in original], and more narrowly both MOS:SIGCAPS and MOS:DOCTCAPS), WP:NCCAPS, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. WP is not a platform for activism, neither with regard to indigenous peoples nor toward English-language "reform".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Any sources for this POV? Moxy🍁 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I believe the previous statement exemplifies a blatant POV. However, in the close discussions, we (Indigenous editors) demonstrated several times that capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people is found in the majority of recent sources. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22indigenous+peoples%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&as_ylo=2020 Google Scholar for "Indigenous peoples" 2020 to present]. We aren't using Wikipedia as activism or reform; that has already happened in past years out in the world and is reflected in style guides. We've even been using this style for years (and I will continue to do so because it is the correct English-language capitalization for the term). This discussion was not a consensus and erasure is not appropriate here. Yuchitown (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Exactly this. The activism has happened in the world. I am never a proponent for activism on Wikipedia. I understand we follow reliable sources for the topic. But we can't say we follow sources in one instance and then say we can literally deny using sources in the next. Consensus can not overrule policy because policy is consensus. If we use sources in one case then we use sources in all cases. We can't pick and choose. I'm not asking the English language be reformed. It has been reformed within the language and style guides of many sources, including the United Nations. As I stated, I will continue to use the style guides of the sources I edit with and I will continue to show the respect due Indigenous people and communities, as I do with other races, ethnicities, and nationalities.
• :::In this case the closer did get it wrong though. They said there was numerical consensus but Wikipedia doesn't work on pure numbers. Everyone I see says both sides had compelling arguments and valid points but they won't give specifics as to why one was chosen over the other. The closer even says reasonable people may see it as if there were no consensus. So are they saying that they aren't reasonable? That the side they favored isn't reasonable? Why aren't we making reasonable closes? I would thin that would be the goal. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) After a lengthy and heated discussion, the page was moved by a non-administrator on a basis he himself admits was flimsy. There was no consensus. The page move should be reverted. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|Irish hunger strike|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Irish hunger strike}}|rm_section=Requested move 22 June 2024}} (Discussion with closer)

On the basis of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2023-03-23&end=2024-06-21&pages=1981_Irish_hunger_strike|1923_Irish_hunger_strikes|1920_Cork_hunger_strike page views], 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear primary topic by usage. The pages "1920 Cork hunger strike" and "1923 Irish hunger strikes" were both created in 2021 and have 37 and 42 incoming links respectively, while "1981 Irish hunger strike" was created in 2004 and has 1,162. Until recent changes, "Irish hunger strike" had been a stable redirect to "1981 Irish hunger strike" since 2007.

While the two opposing editors cited "recentism" as a reason to disregard that evidence, WP:RECENTISM is an essay without the status of guideline or policy, and little attempt was made to justify the assertion. The most recent of these events took place over 40 years ago. The Irish media describe the 1920 and 1923 hunger strikes as "forgotten", and "among the least well remembered" of their kind.

The move request was initially closed as "not moved" without further comment. When I asked the mover to consider reopening the discussion, the comment, "Consensus there is no primary topic for 'Irish hunger strike'. The events in 1920 and 1923 in particular have a long-term significance similar to that of the events in 1981" was added. My feeling is that, given the lack of evidence for that long-term significance, the evidence of page views should have been given more weight, per WP:RMCIDC. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this second attempt to move by the same editor, endorse the current name WP:RECENTISM. Hunger strikes from 1920 and 1923 (more then a hundred years ago) does not gain the same internet coverage as the most recent one. But they were just as important in Irish history as the 1981 strike. The Banner talk 16:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse retaining the current name. With multiple hunger strikes in Irish history, there is logic in keeping a consistent format (per the article naming WP:CRITERIA); in fact, the current title ticks all the boxes of CRITERIA and is more clear and logical. So much for "{{tq|I guess I'll let it go}}". - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :So much for "I guess I'll let it go": Well, I thought about it for a week and decided it was worth exploring further. Please note again though that this move request has nothing to do with the consistent names of the various articles: it's just about the correct location for the disambiguation page. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved). WP:RECENTISM is an essay and, even if it weren't, it strains credulity to apply it to something that happened 40 years ago. Given how few editors actually participated (though there was certainly a lot of back and forth between them) I think a relist is appropriate rather than overturning it. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) there was no support at all for this move in that move discussion, and overturning would essentially require a supervote. Best course of action here is to try again in a few months' time. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > This closure was reasonable and in line with the closing instructions. A waiting period of one year or so before trying again to effect a name change might better ensure success. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• :If an 11:1 majority of page views isn't a convincing argument now, why should it be convincing a year from now? If "recentism" is a valid objection 43 years after the fact, why should it be invalid after 44? The only likely difference is that a different small and random group of editors might see the question differently, but that's a coin toss. Frankly, my time is more valuable than that. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Page views is not everything to measure the importance. And it favours recent events above older events. The Banner talk 13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::I agree with your first sentence. The second is debatable, but this probably isn't the place for that debate. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{move review links|ABC News (United States)|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:ABC News (United States)}}|rm_section=Requested move 1 August 2024}} (Discussion with closer)

Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse. I believe that the arguments in favor of moving the page that I brought up are stronger than the arguments in opposition to moving the page that were brought up. It is true that more individuals supported moving the page than opposed moving the page (it was over a 2-1 margin in favor of moving). A bean count, of course, is not enough; consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. But since the quality of the arguments made by those involved in supporting the move (including myself) were higher than those of those who opposed the move, I see a consensus attained, and I believe that the close faithfully reflects the consensus attained in the move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::I've notified those who participated in the requested move and also those who participated in the ensuing discussion on closer's talk about this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Overturn (uninvolved). Clearly not a solid consensus for a move of this nature. For reasons, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilledMammal#c-MrSchimpf-20240703233200-BilledMammal-20240703232500 here]. There have been many RMs in the past. One as poorly attended and poorly argued as this one, open for only one week, does not create a consensus for a massive change. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::The move request was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AABC_News_%28United_States%29&diff=1229812973&oldid=1197137117 opened] on 18 June 2024 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ABC_News_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232336853 closed] on 3 July 2024. That is to say, the discussion was not {{tq|open for only one week}}, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::You are correct. I was looking at something dated 24 June, but evidently not the close... Srnec (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::There have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation, and even those not by much - and generally, seven participants is a good number for an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Emphasis on {{tq|poorly argued}}. For example: {{xt|The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts.}} I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that {{xt|oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview}} bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add {{xt|per nom}} and {{xt|as above}}. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::::To explain my consideration of that as closer, I saw that as evidence backing the supporters claims that there was no primary topic; they don't establish which is more popular - more significant - because they aren't directly comparable they do establish that both have very large audiences that are comparable in size.

::::Importantly, this wasn't disputed by the editors opposing the move, one of whom even interpreted the figures as meaning that the Australian source is more popular. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::Going to chime in here, using views to determine an article merger/move makes no sense in this case. There needs to be a better argument developed. This move discussion was a lame duck one (no offense) based on the number of views a network / program received. Soafy234 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:Relist (uninvolved). I originally outlined my thoughts on the closer's talk page after the various moves started to popup in my watchlist. I don't think there was a clear consensus and it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted. The non-admin closer (BilledMammal) gave equal weight to the two "per nom"/"as above" comments as the other 2 support comments & the nominator (they stated: "{{xt|If someone writes an effective argument, it would be a waste of editor time to require those who agree with that argument to rewrite it rather than saying "per x"}}"). But this shouldn't come down to a WP:VOTE & should instead be judged based on the quality of the discussion. Remove those two "per nom" comments and it becomes 2 support and 2 oppose with BilledMammal as a tie breaker determining the discussion should be closed as "support"; there also wasn't really a discussion between the editors who stated their thoughts. There really only seemed to be two higher quality comments (one oppose, one support) arguing about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so I think further discussion to determine what the primary topic is would be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::FYI, when closing RM's the nominator is also considered to support the proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist pointedly not because I think the closure was wrong at the time, but because the ensuing discussion on BilledMammal's talk page should have made clear that interested editors had not fully had their say. The closure was procedurally correct, but I don't think "you snooze, you lose" is the right answer in this situation, particularly since there's no evidence people were trying to game the system by waiting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you, Extraordinary Writ. I don't have much to say here, and I certainly have no opinion on the underlying matter, but if I had been asked to close that request I would have relisted it. The subsequent discussion on the editor's talk page made that abundantly clear, IMO. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :One concern I have with a relist is that it means participation won't be representative of the community. This is because editors who see the link corrections are more likely to check the discussion if they oppose the move, because they may want to overturn the result. In contrast, those who support the move are likely to consider it settled. This can be seen in comments like this one. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :How ... How in the world is two weeks not enough time?? RM policy is for a minimum of a week. Come on, man, people had enough time. People miss out on important move requests all the time, you shrug and move on because we can't keep every request open for months waiting for everyone to chime in. Red Slash 05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Red Slash There is no policy, or even guideline, that states that RMs should be open for a minimum of a week. WP:RM is a process page and WP:RMCLOSE is an essay. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist I wasn't involved in the discussion but figured it would certainly be a lot longer considering the past discussions to move American Broadcasting Company to the ABC title itself were a lot deeper, more involved, and considered the gravity of moving an article with WLH numbers in the thousands. But looking at a couple of the votes specifically, one of them was from an editor with fewer than 200 edits (most of them in mainly one talk page, not at all in article space for several years), one was from a British editor with no skin in the game complaining about the opposers as having a 'US-centric worldview' and nothing else, and then one simply saying 'as above'. Considering that the WLH for either the US or AU orgs are well into the ten-thousands combined with sources, this definitely needed much more notice and much more time, and much better consensus than 'per nom' (see Disney Jr. for an example of a recent discussion which was properly done even if I opposed the move as pointless because we're not a marketing arm of The Walt Disney Company or any corporation). This doesn't involve an obscure Asian version of an MTV video channel whose links are less than 50 at the most with none of its website being used to source items, but two major news organizations which are used in thousands of articles as sources, and the close and overall botching of the move definitely requires a much deeper discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :With respect to {{tq|one was from a British editor}}, I didn't think that we discounted arguments on the basis of nationality. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::or if they have "no skin in the game". TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::@Red-tailed hawk @TarnishedPath thanks for the back up. Not sure what 'skin in the game' is, sounds like an Americanism to me. I'm off for a cup of Earl Grey and some crumpets now, followed by possibly some fish and chips and delivering a few googlies. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{ec}} Endorse. < uninvolved > There appears to be a good bit of overreacting to this move request, and after reading all of it, I still cannot figure out why. Seems clearcut to me, and I would have closed this RM the exact same way. Who cares about the 5/2 count, the args were greater on the support side. This closure was perfectly reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. What's with all the freakin' freak outs and block for??? Please, everybody just calm down! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• {{U|Paine Ellsworth}}, I believe there was a very good reason for the block, and your arguments are a bit on the emotional side. When an editor is asked to stop, they should probably stop--and note that I unblocked immediately after being assured that it would not continue, for which I am grateful. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :You did only give me four minutes to stop, which personally I felt was a little short given it took me five minutes to notice, but nevermind BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::You were warned by {{noping|SilverLocust}} that you were in violation of the bot policy 10 hours before the block. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Based on discussion at WT:BOTPOL, I am not convinced I was in violation of the BOTPOL; this seems to fall under what is acceptable for user scripts, though just for the benefit of hiding it from watchlists it will be better to run larger tasks on a bot account in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Forgive me please, editor {{u|Drmies}}, I really am not the emotional one in this discussion, and have noted a good deal of seemingly unjustified and heated emotion on the closer's talk page. I have asked for a calm down, and I would dearly appreciate it if everybody would just dial it down a notch or two, so this move review can get to the gist of this matter. Your block of the closer, one of WP's best page movers, appears to have been just a teensy bit unjustified, but please don't go into it here. I don't really need an explanation, but my talk page is always open, when and if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I think the block was about stopping the script since unlike a bot, there wasn't a clear off switch. Regardless of how this discussion goes, a lot of editors have flagged more efficient tools BilledMammal (and various page lurkers) can use going forwards. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::You, and other editors, may be interested in participating in participating in this discussion that I opened at WT:BOTPOL about the link correction feature of Move+. I believe that it is currently the most efficient tool for this, although there are some modifications and additional features that I intend to add to improve it further.
• :::Regarding the block, if I hadn't been active at the time I would have agreed with it - before stepping away I even considered leaving a note saying "I'm currently AFK. If Move+ starts breaking things, or otherwise needs to stop, block me" - but since I was active I wish they had waited a little longer. Waiting ten or fifteen minutes would have been reasonable in my opinion. However, it doesn't really matter, and this is the wrong location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse (uninvolved) the discussion was active for more than 7 days, the minimum required. A RM banner was placed on the article for the duration of the discussion. Given the high amount of visitors, one would think more would participate in the discussion. No further notifications are required in the RM process. The last substantial discussion was years ago and consensus can change over time. This nom was backed by figures rather than 'it should be this way' nom like we saw in the previous discussions. After determining the quality of arguments, the close is reasonable and I would have closed the discussion in the same direction. (although I would utilise the aid of other editors to help update the links via dabsort tool. In my experience when dealing with similar moves that had thousands of links, there would be a minority portion of them wrongly linked in the first place and this would be an opportunity to correct the links). – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Overturn (uninvolved). I don't think this move was appropriate considering by far, the American station is the primary topic, and gets much more page views than the Australian one. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): It's clear from the RM discussion that those supporting the move were both numerically superior and had stronger arguments than those who opposed the move. Consensus in the discussion is clear. TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The Consensus policy states: {{xt|Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight}}. I am only seeing one argument that uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the original discussion supporting the move, which is that of the nominator. It seems disingenuous to suggest one side had "stronger arguments" given that. I would be interested to know which multiple arguments you are seeing that I am not. Οἶδα (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I saw no strength of argument in the oppose votes. I did see a couple of move voters rebutting the oppose votes, without answer. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist : Besides the dearth of explanations (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines), the original discussion had little to no actual back-and-forth. You create a requested move discussion and wait patiently but receive only scant engagement to this end. Irritating, I know. Nonetheless inappropriate for a non-admin closure of this magnitude after such little development. Nothing about the discussion could be described as fully developed. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves that. So I am inclined to co-sign {{u|Extraordinary Writ}}'s message. The discussion is evidently waiting to happen. Unfortunately it took watchlists getting loaded with thousands of backlink changes to awaken it. Οἶδα (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :One week is typical. Two weeks is long. This was longer than that. I wouldn't have blinked at closing it. Red Slash 05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per User:Paine Ellesworth. The objections to the RM on the talk page seem to have been a lot of excitement that some procedure or convention wasn't followed, but a less excited/excitable look at this situation doesn't make it obvious that there is anything that wasn't followed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved): It's clear that the move was rushed. It was opened only 2 weeks before and no previous editors that opposed it before were notified that a new review was ongoing. Previous consensus thus still needs to be included unless new information is presented that invalidates that previous consensus. No such new information was presented. Ergzay (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :2 weeks is not rushed for a RM, as they generally go for a week. Also, there is absolutely no policy requiring previous editors that opposed be notified. In fact only notifying editors who opposed previously could be considered WP:CANVASSING if editors who were previously supportive of a move weren't also notified. TarnishedPath^talk 07:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::@TarnishedPath In the last two reviews there was only opposing viewpoints so that would still be a full notification of all previously involved editors. Ergzay (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::And the previous two RMs had less participation. If you were suggesting that all previous RM participants should have been notified (which there is exactly zero policy requirement for) then I would expect to go back further than two RMs. In any case that is not a policy based argument that there was anything deficient in the RM. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::There is no requirement that past discussion participants be notified for any discussion on Wikipedia. If someone cared that much about the ABC article(s) in question, they were free to put those articles on their watchlist. The mere fact that notifying past discussion participants is permitted in many cases (so long as it is neutral) does not impose a requirement to do so, and failing to identify any policy-based argument that it was a requirement here, it is not appropriate to use the fact that was not done as a "deficiency" in the move request by the opener. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse . Clear majority to move (hardly "50-50"!) and clearly superior arguments given the Australian one is a national broadcaster and this is not USpedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist - I was the one who relisted the ABC discussion and after having a look at the pageviews, you can see why the US one is more popular than the AU one. I also stated that the page should have been move first so that other people like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rodw Rodw] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Onel5969 Onel5969] can also fix it. I was thinking that its fine for one to fix the links if there are less than 100, but 10,000? Maybe relisting the discussion would help because of the large pageviews between the US and AU news agencys?. One reason why Wikipedia doesn't work by (only) counting votes. (I have learnt it in my first time closing RMs.) JuniperChill (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist: This looks like a coup to me. Small participation, short duration, closing editor accused of bias, !votes in favor ignoring these criticisms. Calls to shut this down with the argument "everything was done properly so this should not be reopened" completely miss the point that this was hustled through with minimal participation. I see two sides use various statistics to bludgeon their opponents, completely missing the point: that both sides have a case. To me, it is clear that AUS visitors to Wikipedia expect the AUS ABC while US visitors expect the US ABC (and it's unclear what international visitors expect). To me the solution is obvious: there is no primary topic, meaning ABC News should redirect to the disambig page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse (uninvolved). Overdue move. Supporting arguments were sound per WP:WORLDVIEW/WP:GLOBALIZE and brings the title into line with Consistency principle per WP:CRITERIA. This is EN.WP, not US.WP. If it were only a tie between US/Aus then I'd be more reticent but as the disambig page now lists many news orgs and channels/outlets using "ABC" (Philippines, Albania, Spain), it's beneficial (or at the very least does no harm) for the US article to be explicitly labelled. PRIMARYTOPIC may have applied 5 years ago but I think that is now eroded far enough to no longer apply. The fact that the American article grabbed the "ABC News" title in 2003 when the overwhelming majority of contributors and visitors were US-based ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_titles&oldid=1442202 and there was no Consistency principle]) does not mean it is appropriate to retain that today ("first-come-first-served"), given global internet penetration and global users/contributions. Hemmers (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist so we can have a proper discussion. There was one argument to move based on a misunderstanding of the source information - oddly it was even stated as a reason to move "The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts" - which, yes, does say that the US ABC News gets seven times as many viewers as the Australian one. Even though the move !vote was based on serious misunderstanding of the source, its logic was rebutted by an !vote in which it was pointed out that we apply different criteria when assessing which articles are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only that one !vote quoted appropriate policy - the other comments were not policy based, and/or were not focused on why a title was the primary topic or why the primary topic status should be changed. There was no accurate policy based argument to make the move, though there was one correct policy based reason not to make the move. When discussing and deciding which title should be primary we follow the guidance at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which if followed would have clearly indicated that the US news station is clearly primary in terms of number of readers (the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K, and the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station). I think an incident like this should flag up that a requirement of EVERY move request should be that the stats are examined or displayed before a close can be made so we don't make obvious mistakes like this in future. Also, that if there are more than 1,000 links that need changing (or whichever number is agreed), that only an admin experienced in move requests should close the discussion. It appears that considerable disruption was caused by the amount of links that needed changing, and the mover encountered a number of complaints, a whale sized trout, and was briefly blocked. What's done is done, and it appears to me that everyone involved in this was working with the best interests of the project at heart, but we need to learn from this incident so something like this doesn't happen again. SilkTork (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :I do agree with you on this. I think all page moves that do require a significant amount of changing links should require an administrator to close the discussion and not by a non-administrator. I think an amendment to the process should be made in order to prevent situations like this from happening. Soafy234 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::This is flawed. There are a number of admins here endorsing the close. What's next, scrape WP:NAC? – robertsky (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::No, Silk is right. Admins (vs trusted laymen editors) should be closing the toughest moves... not the toughest decision-wise, but logistically. This one was screaming for an admin close. I don't think BilledMammal realized the scope of how many things would have to be changed.
• :::The substance of the close itself, however, is flawless, and should not be overturned. Red Slash 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|The substance of the close}} amounted to "moved". No further justification was provided in the closer's statement. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Even admins would find it hard to work with 10,000 links logistically. The last I checked, admins don't have a magic tool to update 10,000 articles at once. (Move+ as it was, was the next best tool followed by dabsort, other than getting a BOTREQ done). – robertsky (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :{{tqb|the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K}}
• :Because the ABC News is still a redirect to ABC News (United States), it's possible to get the values by setting "Include redirects"; see [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2023-07&end=2024-06&pages=ABC_News_(United_States)%7CABC_News_(Australia)%7CABC_News_(Albanian_TV_channel)%7CABC_NewsRadio%7CABC_News_(Australian_TV_channel)%7CABC_(newspaper)%7CABCnews.com.co%7CNews5%7CABC_News_Live%7CABC_News_Radio here].
• :It appears that in the past year articles related to "ABC News" have been viewed almost 399,000 times. Of these 219,000, or 52%, were to the American publication. The next largest was the Australian publication with 50,000, or 12%.
• :{{tqb|the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station}}
• :These are still available; adding together the linkcount for both [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=ABC%20News%20(United%20States)&namespaces=0%2C10%2C14 ABC News (United States)] and [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=ABC%20News&namespaces=0%2C10%2C14 ABC News], we get 11,000 links. The [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=ABC%20News%20(Australia)&namespaces=0%2C10%2C14 Australian publication gets 7,000], and the [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=ABC%20(newspaper)&namespaces=0%2C10%2C14 Spanish newspaper gets 3,000]. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The numbers are more skewed than that. Looking at the '8 digit' [https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/communications-and-the-arts/australian-broadcasting-corporation/australian-broadcasting-corporation-annual-report-2022-23/audience-data-%26-analysis-/audience-reach- citation], the majority (7.742M) of the 13.039M users were counted because they were using an app an average of nine minutes a week, and then all their secondary news outlets were also included in the total. Contrariwise, they only mention the 7.3M times five (36.5M) half-hour top program from their citation but neglect to mention the [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2024/07/03/abc-news-is-the-no-1-news-network-in-america-for-the-2nd-quarter-of-2024-580513/20240703abc01/ many other programs] produced by US ABC News, the daily 2 hour 2.777M Good Morning America program, the daily 1 hour 2.364 million for The View, the daily hour-long GMA3 morning program at 1.329M, and the nightly half-hour [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2024/07/02/abc-news-nightline-ranks-no-1-in-total-viewers-vs-cbs-after-midnight-and-nbcs-late-night-with-seth-meyers-for-6th-consecutive-week-188412/20240702abc02/ Nightline] (0.787M). ABC News US is well into the 8 digit range of daily viewership, and all of these shows are top-rated in their respective timeslots. Those five times a week shows aren't even comprehensive for its television programs, ABC News also produces [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2023/09/26/20-20-is-fridays-no-1-newsmagazine-for-the-2022-2023-season-across-total-viewers-adults-25-54-and-adults-18-49-686312/20230926abc02/ 20/20], a two hour show once a week. I'm not aware of the data for the [https://abcnews.go.com/ ABC News website] but I suspect it's not zero.--Noren (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist I just involved with discussion regarding the article name change and many "supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic, and some other comments saying that they "support" the move because the opposer comment are US-centric worldview. IMO, this discussion should be reopen again to attract more users to discuss the name change. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :{{tq|"supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic}}. I also failed to see any reasonable argument from you as to why American ABC News must be the primary topic. Your argument was merely that when searching ABC News on the internet (presumably you mean Google or some other search engine) that more results come up for the American ABC News than for the Australian ABC News. That happens because presumably you are in America, because when I search for ABC News on the internet, the absolute opposite occurs for me. That is to say your subjective experience of using search engines is not universal and hence wasn't a good argument. The other oppose argument was that there had been too many discussions and therefore the status quo should remain. Again, not a good argument. Both of the oppose arguments were weak arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::And I only see one other argument, which is from the nominator, one which I believe is flawed. So why do you wish to truncate the discussion on the topic? I can understand if you agree with the move result, but I do not understand being satisfied with the discussion (or truly lack thereof) that led to it. The RM discussion was not rushed, but it developed virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. The magnitude of this move review should indicate that. As I stated above, I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You seem to disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::As discussed by @BilledMammal in a comment above, {{tq|[t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation}}. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::And I've seen a plethora of RM discussions of this magnitude that received the attention and deliberation they deserved. I don't care that you've seen other discussions get rubber-stamped without deeper consideration. Other stuff exists, I am aware. I'll repeat myself again, this generated little engagement from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You proudly disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:* Overturn / re list (not involved). I was not involved whatsoever in the discussion. However, based on the discussion that did happen, there was not consensus whatsoever. Whenever there are moving page discussions, there is more than "per nom" / "per above" on why a page move is needed and not just a few words. I do think that if the discussion were to be reopen, the editors that did edit the page should be pinged (even if it not required) to see if they changed their mind or not. In addition, we should also consider the previous discussions that happen years ago on this same subject which can be found here: Talk:ABC News (United States)/Archive 2.

:Soafy234 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn / resist (not involved). The only meaningful vote/comment is the one from the IP. The rest of the discussion is basically lacking valid arguments and there is no real consensus. --Cavarrone 13:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• :"per nom" is a complete sentence Red Slash 05:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• :: WP:PERNOM. --Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (not involved): a reasonable close on both the numbers and the arguments. Lots of move discussions a closed on a similar basis - I feel this has only come here because the page has higher traffic. StAnselm (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (not involved). The two opposing arguments are not convincing — the first falls afoul of WP:CCC, and the second is incomprehensible. This move was advertised to multiple wikiprojects and nobody offered any better opposing arguments in the generous amount of time that the move request was left open, so I doubt anything good will come from relisting it. Einsof (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist/uninvolved, I was surprised to see such a limited discussion when the edits to prepare for the move hit my watchlist due to citations to the American ABC. While this may ultimately be the outcome, it needs broader discussion to call it consensus.

:Star Mississippi 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). While I kinda get the concerns about the number of editors who commented, this discussion was open more than long enough for an RM. And while this has been discussed in the past, it appears the last RM was in 2017, so that argument holds less weight. I’m also disappointed with tone of some of those arguing against the close here; calling it a coup or saying an editor’s opinion doesn’t count because of where they reside doesn’t help your cause. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Discussion had a reasonable participation and was open for two weeks, which is plenty of time. Five editors supported the move and only two editors opposed. Maybe the supporting arguments could have been better explained, but the same could be said about the opposing arguments. There was only one reasoned opposing comment, the other was just WP:STONEWALLING. There was a clear consensus to move. Vpab15 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• :I disagree that there was one reasoned opposing comment as their argument was that search engine results are evidence for a primary topic. Please see my rebuttal of 103.111.100.82 above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved). I'm surprise to see the discussion regarding the page move from ABC News to ABC News (United States). While there's a enough majority vote to move the article, most supporter voters lacked the reasonable argument why the page should be move, other than "per nom" or "per above". Maybe the discussion should be relist to have more editors involve in the discussion to reach more clear consensus. 103.144.14.16 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Noting that this IP address geolocates to Indonesia like 103.111.100.82 above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::And both to Bandar Lampung BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::@BilledMammal, what are the odds of two different editors from Bandar Lampung being interested in a yank and an aussie broadcaster? TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Some editors here (and elsewhere) do not seem to realise that "per nom" etc is a perfectly acceptable argument and always has been. It merely means that the editor completely agress with the nominator and does not feel the need to reiterate the same arguments in slightly different language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• :: I completely agree with you that "per nom" is acceptable, and when closing I have always given such !votes equal weighting with the nomination. In this case the nomination was based on a significant error - the nom was arguing that the Australian ABC News was getting an equal audience to the American one, when the source used was saying that the American ABC News has a seven times greater audience (comparing weekly Australian figures with daily American figures). As such any "per nom" !vote in that discussion carried little weight, as the person supporting the nomination had not checked, and was making the same error. It is the role of the closer to read and understand the arguments, and to weigh how they apply to the greater consensus of our guidelines and policies. It is not the job of the closer to simply count. A bot could do that. We don't use bots to close discussions because it requires a human to read, check, understand, and give weight to the arguments. SilkTork (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::: The nom's argument was {{tq|The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts}}; the sources provided showed the Australian source had 13,000,000 users per week while the American source had 7,000,000 viewers per night. When closing I interpreted this as them arguing that they had comparable audiences, and since this wasn't self-evidently contradicted by the sources, and no editor opposing the move presented an argument against it, I had no basis to consider the argument invalid.
• ::: Here, you introduce the argument that the American source had seven times the viewers, but this isn't self evident based on the sources, and as closer it would be inappropriate of me to introduce new arguments. I say it isn't self-evident because it appears that both sources are talking about unique users. This means that you can't multiply the American daily figure by seven to get the unique weekly users, as some will have watched on multiple nights. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::The source does not say that ABC News Australia has 13,000,000 users per week, the source says that ABC, the parent organisation, has that number, including other sources, such as the Kids channels. The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million. But, the main point here, is that even if the source was saying 13 million a week, that still doesn't match the 49 million a week of the US ABC News. And even if it did match the US ABC News, what really matters to us is the readership of the article. The local audience doesn't matter as much as the Wikipedia audience. These are established articles so we have clear evidence of the readership, [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2023-07&end=2024-06&pages=ABC_News_(United_States)|ABC_News_(Australia)|ABC_News_(Albanian_TV_channel)|ABC_NewsRadio|ABC_News_(Australian_TV_channel)|ABC_(newspaper)|ABCnews.com.co|News5|ABC_News_Live|ABC_News_Radio], which shows that the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together. When deciding which article is primary it is the Wikipedia audience/readership that we consider, not the audience/readership on other platforms. That is the established way of deciding these things, and is laid down in our guidelines. This is pretty much a slam dunk No Move because the Wikipedia audience/reader figures are so much higher than not just the Aussie article, but all the ABC News articles. We traditionally have also taken into account Google hits, though we don't rely on those unless it's a new article. We prefer using Wikipedia's actual viewing figures for existing articles. We also take into account links in and out, as that tends to indicate importance of the topic to Wikipedia itself, and the potential disruption which would be caused by moving an established article with thousands of links. The nom's argument, even if accurate, carries little weight, which is what the second oppose comment was saying. Wikipedia discussions are always closed by judging consensus formed by reasoned arguments which follow existing guidelines and policies. We don't just count the numbers. The main guideline for this RM discussion is WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which lists the four main indicators - WikiNav (not usable at the moment because of the page move - but I looked at it before the move, and it was very clear that the US article was primary); Wikipedia article traffic statistics, which I link above, and which shows that no move should take place by our criteria; usage in English reliable sources such as Google, etc, though Google can be tricky, as Google these days may provide response according to location and personal preference; and incoming wikilinks (of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one). Points to note include: "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience." which directly addresses and supports the comment made in the second oppose. The nom statement did not address the points which by agreed Wikipedia consensus we consider when deciding which article is the primary topic, while the second oppose made some very telling and on point comments. Now, I understand it can be difficult to close a discussion which has four supports and only two opposes as being in favour of the opposes. A question I sometimes have asked potential admins is how they would close such a discussion. And the best answer is the one who says they wouldn't close it or relist it, but would add their own oppose comment clearly explaining the relevant policies and guidelines which support an oppose. Whatever happens here, BilledMammal, I hope you will take these comments on board, and moving forward consider how the arguments in a discussion are properly reasoned in line with policies and guidelines, that sometimes putting your own comment in can be more appropriate than either relisting or closing, and that when closing what is likely to be a contentious topic (reversing the trend of previous RMs is always going to be a contentious topic, renaming an article with thousands of incoming links is always going to be a contentious topic) give a clear closing statement so people can see the rationale behind your judgement. SilkTork (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq|The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million}} You're right, I misread that - although 7.7 isn't the full picture, it misses the ABC news app etc.
• ::::::{{tqb|the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together}}
• ::::::That is true, but only just - 52% to 48%. Further, the US ABC News only has four times the views of the Australian one, and the community has no set definition of {{tq|much more likely than any other single topic}}; in some circumstances it has accepted four times as sufficient to meet that requirement, but in others it has rejected it.
• ::::::{{tqb|of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one}}
• ::::::That isn't correct; the US article has 11,000, the Australian has 7,000, and several other ABC's also have thousands.
• ::::::However, the biggest issue is that no editor made these arguments. What you're asking me to do is to introduce novel arguments, and then rule that the arguments I just made are the "right" arguments - to WP:SUPERVOTE.
• ::::::Further, even if these arguments had been made by one of the editors opposing, I wouldn't have been able to give them additional weight for two reasons. First, it is reasonable for editors to argue that 52% doesn't sufficiently meet the definition of {{tq|more likely than all the other topics combined}}, and editors have successfully argued that in other discussions. Second, I interpreted the supporting arguments as implicitly arguing that there is no primary topic by {{tq|long-term significance}}, and since there is no consensus on which aspect takes precedence I wouldn't be able to give either sides !votes additional weight.
• ::::::I will take your comments on board in the future, but aside from leaving a closing comment there is nothing I would have done differently in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::::7 million daily viewers does not translate into 49 million a week. If the same 7 million people watch ABC news (US) every day, they still only have 7 million actual viewers each week. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Necrothesp WP:PERNOM disagrees a little bit, but if an argument has already been made, you agree with it, and there's little to add I see little value in padding personally. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::What SilkTork said. I have no problem with "per nom", but it cannot strengthen a bad case. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): The supporting arguments are clearly stronger, and the opposing arguments are clearly US-centric, a frequent issue on Wikipedia. This wasn't a discussion to determine which ABC News is the primary topic – it was a discussion to determine if the American one is, and there is clearly no consensus that the American one should remain the primary topic. The obvious solution is to disambiguate both. MClay1 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• :Are you looking at the same RM as I am? The first oppose comment reads {{xt|This has gone through many requested moves and all of them were to keep the status quo.}} What is "US-centric" about that? The other, posted by an Indonesian IP with imperfect English, reads: {{xt|While ABC News owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had considerable more audiences in absolute terms than the U.S. counterpart with similar name, we don't considered that, because without specify the country that originated when we searched on internet, "ABC News" is overhelmingly referred to the American one instead of Australian, even when we included the digital and social media platforms.}} How is it US-centric to (mistakenly) assert that the Australian ABC is more watched than the American one? Or to inform us that the American ABC dominates internet search results in Indonesia? Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::US-centrism is the basis behind many of the opposing comments in previous RMs referred to by the first comment (and also in comments on this discussion). The nonsensical IP comment is possibly rooted in the same thing – what metric are they using to determine that ABC News overwhelming refers to the American company instead of the Australian one on internet searches? Most major search engines are American and results are often tailored to the user. When I search in Australia, I get the opposite result. It's not a good argument. MClay1 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::The IP's comment is no more nonsensical or irrelevant than the nominator's. That is why performing the move was wrong. The whole RM is just bad. It is not a solid basis for a major change, which is what this was given the number of pageviews, incoming links and prior RMs. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• STRONG Endorse (uninvolved). It's never been a part of Wikipedia closing policy to have to read through all the previous RM attempts. This move request was posted publicly, crossposted to the relevant projects, even relisted!!. What more would you want? See you in six months when someone requests to move it back, but until then, the ayes have it, and this move was correctly closed. (Side note: come on!!' This is more than two entire weeks! How long were they supposed to leave it up for?) ... (Second side note: let this be a lesson to all y'all: "this has been requested and rejected before", in and of itself, is not' a valid argument that will lead to you convincing anyone. Indeed, only one opposer even attempted to make a convincing point as to why to oppose the move. Come on! What could anyone do with this request but to close it as moved? Only one person even attempted to justify why it should not be moved!) Red Slash 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

::The "only one person who opposed the move" is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion}}. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. TarnishedPath^talk 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The IP questioned the assumption that (current) TV audience counts towards being a primary topic, referred to WP:PT1, and also directly linked a previous discussion about that point. Is this a irrefutable argument? Probably no, because the IP should had linked some evidence corraborating their point. But is it a policy-based argument? Certainly yes, up to the point that the policy is actually linked. But if you want make the point the whole discussion at that stage was extremely poor, I second that, and that's the reason the closure was premature. Cavarrone 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::An RM being open for two weeks and having 7 editors involved does not speak to a premature close. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::If almost all the comments are flimsy to the extreme, anecdotical and non-policy based, it actually is (WP:NOTAVOTE). At best at that stage there was a NC because of the general inconsistency of the comments, but I am not advocating that, as the most reasonable option was to relist the discussion. Cavarrone 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Per above comment by Necrothesp above, "per nom" is a perfectly valid argument and always has been. Editors shouldn't be forced to rewrite what someone else argued, when they entirely agree with it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist (uninvolved) because the sheer length of this discussion relative to the discussion it is reviewing means the "closure" has failed to actually close anything. I think on principle I would consider the closure reasonable, but closures, especially ones that result in over 10,000 edits being made to implement them, need to be broadly accepted by the community and if people are writing 50K of text about whether the closure is valid then it hasn't been. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

::This argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:::The discussion did not convince the broader community that the action is right (WP:CONLEVEL). It convinced (also debatable given that consensus is not determined by a simple counted majority) a limited group of editors in which the quality of arguments have now been called into question and resulted in this massive pushback. In determining consensus, we must consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CONSENSUS). In a discussion with virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny and with arguments from both sides having already been demonstrated above to be flawed or even innaccurate, I'm not sure how you can conclude that consensus was reached. The discussion is patently waiting to take place. But instead we waste our time listening to desperate attempts to frame the discussion as being fully developed with ample quality arguments that have been broadly accepted by the community. The magnitude of this move review is becoming preposterous. It is fine to be in agreement with the move result, but let us not suppress community discussion and consensus building. There will never be a convincing argument to that end. Οἶδα (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The question - per Wikipedia:Move review - is whether the close was "within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion". The fact that there is pushback from people who feel like they missed out in having their say is irrelevant. You are making WP:CONLEVEL mean something it was never meant to mean: there was nothing in the discussion or the close that "overrode community consensus on a wider scale". StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::And BilledMammal did not reasonably interpret consensus in the discussion, as outlined repeatedly above by Srnec and SilkTork. Refer to these posts and perhaps respond to them (you have not). Οἶδα (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

::That is precisely the issue. But you won't receive any interesting responses, just editors obfuscating the fact that they wish to stifle discussion. Unfortunately, several editors here are unwavering on the topic. They are adamant to suppress community consensus on a wider scale. Because apparently what constitutes consensus to them is a discussion from a limited group of editors that resulted in virtually no substantive discussion (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And when you demonstrate that it has not been broadly accepted by the community nor is it sufficient to cause the revision of over 10,000 articles they will just tell you that plenty of other paltry discussions have been accepted as consensus in the past so we needn't go into the matter further. Οἶδα (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Look, if the community wants to establish a policy requiring that RM requests be held open for a longer time, or held open for a longer time with respect to some particular class of articles (based on number of incoming links, page views, past discussions, or whatever else), that's fine, implement that policy. As it stands, however, this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion. BD2412 T 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist per WP:CONLOCAL and Pppery. My inclination is that this was the "right" outcome but given the scale of the change and the amount of discussion in the initial move request compared to here suggests there's more the community wants to consider in this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

::But that's not the way move reviews are supposed to work, is it? StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I absolutely think it's the purpose of move review to assess if the correct consensus was determined as determined by appropriate weighting of policies, of which Consensus and its subsection about Local Consensus being one that is relevant here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse. I find the closer’s arguments reasonable and I do not believe there is one clear primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:Endorse (uninvolved). The closer accurately evaluated the consensus. The mere fact prior discussions did not come to the same conclusion does not mean that consensus here was not different. The discussion was listed appropriately at all applicable areas, and others had their chance over 2+ weeks to comment in favor of or against the move proposal(s). I believe BD2412 puts it very well above. If the community wants to discuss different requirements for how long move requests must be open, or for a required notification of all past editors if a new move request is opened on a page they had previously commented on a move request, then that's fine. But this closure was made in line with current policies and procedure, and people feeling bad/regretting that they didn't go to comment before it was closed does not change that fact. This MR here is not the place to re-hash the arguments in favor of or opposed, and even the "new" information that was presented does not actually support overturning (weekly viewers cannot be extrapolated from daily viewers, for example). Thus the close should stand, and normal procedures for beginning a new move review followed if editors feel it is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist per above. I had mistakenly thought that this was settled, but it seems to not be the case. For a majorly disruptive page move like this (with so many incoming links), perhaps there should be a mandatory extended discussion period and a central watchlist rather than solely relying on project notices. SounderBruce 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The discussion period was already extended. As for central watchlist, there is the WP:RMC for now. Anything beyond is a separate discussion on refining the WP:RM process. – robertsky (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :You do realize, don't you, that all the incoming links have been fixed now? StAnselm (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus). The discussion was inadequate. The nomination was confusing with obliquely presented facts, to a fault. The sole pertinent question of “is there a PrimaryTopic” was not sufficiently examined.
  As the nomination is at fault, do not relist, but allow a fresh nomination after a short pause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse the close was clearly correct; the arguments for the move were stronger and had 5-2 support. None of the "overturn" arguments here have brought compelling and factually-accurate arguments; the larger participation here is thus not cause to relist. In particular: (a) because the move is moving a DAB page to the previous title, the temporary "broken links" are not an inconvenience; (b) the two-week listing period was sufficient, and longer than most moves; (c) while the "8-digit viewership" argument in the nomination is confusing, it is beyond dispute that the two stations have viewing figures that are comparable in scale; (d) neither the 2011 nor 2017 move requests have compelling arguments against this move; in general the appeals to a prior consensus do not justify a relist. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :It is not he point of move review to relitigate the move, but to determine if the close was correct. So it isn't anyone's job to bring {{tq|compelling and factually-accurate arguments}} for or against the move here. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :: At this point, enough people have complained about the outcome that a new discussion appears inevitable, regardless of where consensus is. I see no reason to prevent that discussion. Walsh90210 (talk)
• Overturn/relist (uninvolved). The closure was not wrong at the time (as Extraordinary Writ argues), but that's not the only valid basis for a move review. Equally valid is {{tq|significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion}}. It's clear from the length and substance of the commentary here, that significant information was not discussed in the RM. For example, editors have begun to debate assessments of page views and incoming links. No matter whether you agree any of that information should ultimately change the outcome, a reopened RM the place for it to be discussed. The closer is right that the closure could not have considered arguments that had not yet been made by any editor, but it is wrong not to reopen the discussion now that they are being made. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :I don't think page views or incoming links are "significant additional information" as both were readily available during the move request. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). The closure correctly analyzed the consensus in the discussion; on my read of it, I don't see any strong arguments for the American network retaining its primary topic status. The procedural objections to the move are poorly founded as well. Two weeks is an above-average duration for an RM to be open, and gestures to past discussion results are not especially compelling – particularly since the last RM before this one was seven years ago. Consensus can change, especially over more than half a decade. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). Per the above, I don't see any strong arguments in the original thread for the US channel to retain the primary topic. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) (Italic section added at SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC))
• :This is move review. It isn't anyone's job to provide such arguments here. If you want to see some, you should probably ask for a relist. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I’m well aware of what this page is and its purpose, and don’t need the lessons, thanks. I’ve clarified for the hard of understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. {{u|BD2412}} has said it very well: {{tq|this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion.}} I said very little in my own !vote, because it seemed sufficiently clear where the stronger argument was; I cannot fault the closer for judging likewise. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) this was a move discussion which needed to be closed, was relisted twice, and the arguments against weren't necessarily very strong. I don't see any problem with this at all. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• :I will also note given that this seems to have triggered a lot of discussion, starting a new move request immediately may not be a bad idea with the old request as the status quo. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Agreed! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::I would suggest the closer strongly consider this idea as I do think it's consensus of what I've seen here - what happened is endorsed but it is allowed for a new discussion to be immediately be opened. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• :What are you talking about? It wasn't relisted twice and there were no arguments made against it at all in _this_ move request, even though many arguments were made against it in previous requests. Also the request to move only ever appeared on the talk page. This was a "stealth" move. Ergzay (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC_News_(United_States)&oldid=1229819012]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved with the move discussion, although I did express some opinions on the post-close link retargeting). Two reasons I support reilsting. First, when a large number of editors express to the closer that they would've voted had they seen the discussion, reopening is the right thing to do per WP:NOTBUREAU. Second, I'm just not seeing any strong arguments for the move. The nomination is based on data that is both wrong (ABC News Australia doesn't get 8-digit viewership per week) and presented in a misleading manner (comparing weeks to days), there is one "per nom" which is agreeing that a broadcaster with 7.7 million weekly views is on equal footing to one that gets 49 million weekly views, there is one that is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, one that is anecdotal, and one that is "as above" (which would be valid if any of the above actually had a strong policy-based argument). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• :The move was listed correctly and ran for over two weeks (double the advised norm) and included a relist too. The voting was clean and clear and the closer followed practice and policy in doing the close (despite your mischaracterisation of the !votes). How many bites of the cherry do you want to turn this into US.WP, rather than EN.WP? - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::@SchroCat That's quite a bit of WP:ABF there. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::Not really. Your mischaracterisation of the arguments of other editors, however, isn't exactly a shining beacon good faith, so I wouldn't press the point too far. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::@SchroCat The move was not listed correctly. No banner was placed on the top of the page. Ergzay (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::There was a banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC_News_(United_States)&oldid=1229819012]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• :::{{ec}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC_News_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229819012 Are you sure about that??] I'll repeat: the move was listed correctly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• :7 million daily viewers does not necessarily equate to 49 million weekly viewers. If the same 7 million people watch ABC (US) every night of the week without fail, they only have 7 million weekly viewers. In other words, you cannot compare apples to oranges just by painting the apples orange. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn - This move discussion is highly contentius that should be closed by an admin. I believed given the 50/50 chance this should be relisted for the final time. I am uninvolved. Toadette^Edit! 19:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). This discussion was open for more than two weeks and projects notified. Closing as move was completely reasonable given the arguments. People are pointing at the nationality of editors and saying it should be relisted on that basis. Seriously? Tom B (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• :It was also never published with a banner pointing to the discussion on the relevant pages. Ergzay (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC_News_(United_States)&oldid=1229819012] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved) - This is a significant move and we can ensure a lot more people are happy with the outcome by giving it some more time and gather more input. -- Netoholic @ 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Relist (uninvolved). Yes, the close was fine in a vacuum. But the result is surprising and contested. Per WP:NOTBURO, this is not "you snooze you lose", there was a late surge of supports and it's possible people ignored the request as unlikely to succeed. Just relist it, which should have happened for a close RM anyway as a courtesy rather than going to MR. SnowFire (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): Only because relisting will result in some obvious participation bias. People who oppose the move are much more likely to look at the discussion than people who support the move (because it has already been done). The additional attention at this MRV doesn't help. The only way I would support a relist is if it's done at a global scale so it is not obviously skewed one way. C F A 💬 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• :How is participation bias relevant to policy? The move discussion was never published on the relevant pages as a banner to notify people that it was occurring. Ergzay (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• ::Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC_News_(United_States)&oldid=1229819012] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist (uninvolved): Stating my opinion again here as I've just realized that there was never a banner placed on top of the ABC News (now ABC News (United States)) page. That means that editors would have had to manually go on to the talk page to discover that a move discussion was taking place, severely limiting the audience of the discussion. Edit: Apologies I appear to have missed the banner even in the edit log. Ergzay (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)