Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September

< 2014 August	Move review archives	2014 October >

2014 September

edit

Budweiser – Closure endorsed. Of those commenting here, the predominating argument is that the closer accurately judged policy-and-guideline-based arguments provided by participants as part of the close. Incidentally, several opposing the closure have cited incidental content issues as a basis for overturning; however, using requested moves to settle content issues is outside its scope (and would be outside the scope of the closer to factor in). For complex content decisions, consider opening a request for comment, which can have multiple options, including a proposal to move various articles around. – slakr^\ talk / 09:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Four editors supported the move, five disagrees and five said redirect it to the trademark dispute. Four vs. nine is not a consensus, A.B. option received least. Cuchullain's contest of users validity is not justifying. Admin relied too much on his preferable option. Both are big selling beers and the Czech Brewery won an absolute majority of disputes over the name. Budwaiser is in much of the world known as Czech beer, not just AB. Move should be reconsidered, arguments are mentioned at the talk pages.Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that AB should probably be the primary topic in English. The close was consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. p b p 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. It's disappointing User:Jirka.h23 did not reach out to me as per the MR procedure. I explained my reasoning in detail in my close and to another editor on my talk page. As I said, this was a very difficult close with no easy answer, and I put a huge amount of thought into it. To copy what I said on my talk page,

"...By my count there were 3 participants who wanted the dab page to stay at the base name: In ictu oculi, IJA, and Yaksar (I actually miscounted this in my close; a fourth participant, Edwardx, went on to support one of the move options). Several of these fail to take into account English-language use, and I considered their arguments less convincing. The other 12 participants favored one or the other move options. Of them, the majority, 7, favored the proposed move: Purplebackpack89, bd2412, Calidum, AjaxSmack, Red_Slash, Born2Cycle, and SilkTork. 5 more participants felt there should be a move of Budweiser trademark dispute (back) to Budweiser: 65.94.169.222, Jenks24, Wbm1058, Edwardx, and Gregkaye. In general, I found the arguments supporting a move to be stronger than those against. And of the two, the proposed move had the better support.

Leaving the dab page at the base name may initially seem like the obvious result, but it would have been going with an option favored by only 3 of 15 participants. There's also a matter I chose not to get into in my close, that the articles were recently moved around without discussion,[1] which further confuses things. In other words, the proper result of a "no consensus" close would have been to move the concept dab page back to Budweiser, rather than leave the dab page there. This could be an acceptable result, but again, I felt consensus leaned roughly toward the proposed move: some move was clearly favored, and this was the best supported of the two discussed move options, it was the best supported individual option, and the !voters had strong arguments.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. It's clear from the request what the primary topic for "Budweiser" is in the English speaking world. Many of the oppose votes were not based on any sort of policy or guideline and should be ignored. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose close or Relist, I think that the move was unsubstantiated according to comments by Cúchullain.

"By my count there were 3 participants who wanted the dab page to stay at the base name: In ictu oculi, IJA, and Yaksar"

Comment: there was also IP:65.94.169.222, who stated Oppose per IJA and added further recommendation.

"Several of these fail to take into account English-language use, and I considered their arguments less convincing. The other 12 participants favored one or the other move options.

The others were not favouring move options but a continued use of a historically altered page.

"Of them, the majority,

7, favored the proposed move: Purplebackpack89, bd2412, Calidum, AjaxSmack, Red_Slash, Born2Cycle, and SilkTork.

5 more participants felt there should be a move of Budweiser trademark dispute (back) to Budweiser: 65.94.169.222, Jenks24, Wbm1058, Edwardx, and Gregkaye. ...

Leaving the dab page at the base name may initially seem like the obvious result, but it would have been going with an option favored by only 3 of 15 participants."

(65.94.169.222 as oppose?) The DAB page was essentially the WP:CONCEPTDAB page that was previously butchered. The link was made by In ictu oculi in the first comment in the discussion and again by Jenks24 a couple of weeks later.

All comments were made in this context. I commented: "Also agree, and comment, beer can be a big part of local culture. We have the relatively small and historic Harveys Brewery near us. If a newer multinational company adopted the same name and took over the Wikipedia name space I would be less than impressed." Other supporters of the CONCEPTDAB can similarly be considered to oppose the move that has now been made.

"There's also a matter I chose not to get into in my close, that the articles were recently moved around without discussion,"

The page was altered with a deletion of substantial text which certainly happened without discussion.

"which further confuses things."

Another interpretation is that, in context to its reference in the discussion, it brings the mention of the change of page use from CONCEPTDAB at an early stage in the discussion brings two opposing arguments even closer together.

"In other words, the proper result of a "no consensus" close would have been to move the concept dab page back to Budweiser, rather than leave the dab page there. This could be an acceptable result, but again, I felt consensus leaned roughly toward the proposed move: some move was clearly favored, and this was the best supported of the two discussed move options, it was the best supported individual option, and the !voters had strong arguments."

If anything that option to "move the concept dab page back to Budweiser" could have been proposed as an alternative to the move of page.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the close, the trademark dispute was no longer at the base name "Budweiser". It would have had to have been moved back. The point is, only 3 participants wanted existing arrangement of a dab page at "Budweiser", the other 12 wanted one of two moves. And 65.94.169.222 actually advocated moving the trademark dispute page to "Budweiser", as I said.[2]--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Agree with the reading of a consensus to do something, and a rough consensus to move as proposed. The close was well within admin discretion, and I detect no hint of a closer's prejudicial bias. This is an not unfamiliar case where the status quo was defeated as a viable outcome. The current situation is not the result of a strong consensus, and so the door is open for a new proposal. Incremental improvement is the wiki way. I welcome the clear closing explanation. If any criticism of anyone is given, it should be directed at the RM nominator for the nomination brevity. I hope that the anticipated follow-up RM is opened with a nomination that thoroughly reviews all factors and the summarises the discussing in the previous RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not an easy RM to close, but I think the decision was within admin discretion and was well explained. I also think SmokeyJoe makes a good point directly above that, as the discussion only found a rough consensus, a future RM to try and find a strong consensus is certainly possible. And for what it's worth, I voted in the RM in favour of having the trademark dispute/concept dab back at the base location. Jenks24 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information: Currently Budweiser is about the American beer, and Budweiser trademark dispute is about the tradename dispute, and other meanings are linked to from Budweiser (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose close because the decision to close and rule in favour of the US beer failed to reflect any consensus to move to a particular target. There was no consensus for any of the options. I think that there was a consensus against having a simple disambiguation article as the primary but that is not enough to justify choosing one of the others. 'This is the English language wikipedia' does not mean that the English (let alone US) national conventions should always take priority: we should take a world-wide view since English is the most common second language. (Had I seen the original RfC, I would have voted to reinstate the Concept-DAB, having argued against its destruction at the time). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and congratulate closer, but put forth no prejudice against a new move request. It is extremely difficult to close a three-way decision like this, which is the reason why I usually dislike introducing other options mid-discussion. Anyway, the concept dab is a legitimate option. I would recommend supporters of that option to list a new RM and see if consensus develops to replace the American beer article with that. Red Slash 02:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close with reservations - While I'm endorsing the close ( as reasonable and within closer discretion ), I have a slight concern with the implications of saying there something like; Given there are three different choices A, B and C; and B+C > A; and B > C implies that consensus is B. PaleAqua (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close – As one who voted for the conceptdab/tradename as primary topic, I got it wrong. Frankly I was unaware of that dispute until I saw the RM, so that kind of skewered my judgement. I probably also skimmed the other comments too quickly before !voting. "The King of Beers" is the primary topic, at least in the U.S. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist - The closer's statement that "a majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo" did not reflect the even greater majority of 8 !votes that argued that neither page should be at the primary which should instead reflect the options, either through the status quo disambiguation page or the proposed "broad concept article". To argue that the editors preferring a "broad concept article" would prefer the American beer to be the primary seems to be a likely incorrect assumption.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Anti-Semitism – "Overturn close, move back to Antisemitism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
The above closer should have done this way. – George Ho (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The result of the move request was:

Overturn Close: See: Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move (previous) & Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves (current). 1 This is a discussion about a "hyphen" that is "to be, or not to be"! Most reasonable people would agree that there is no real major difference between the two terms "Antisemitism" and "Anti-Semitism" however some people feel that they must create big waves to get one way over the other that only disrupts WP and wastes time on useless discussions. Personally I have no favorites here and I do not have a dog in this race. 2 This started with a "simple" requested move at Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move by User:Gregkaye to move one article Antisemitism to Anti-Semitism. NOTE: He did not initially include anything else. 3 Once that was approved he then quickly moved at Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves to list multiple articles for requested moves that has engendered a heated discussion. 4 The roots of the original "Anti-Semitism" article goes back to 8 October 2001. 5 As indicated at information page it was subsequently moved to "Antisemitism" on 26 October 2006 and then coming full-circle it returned to "Anti-Semitism" on 27 August 2014 -- EIGHT years later. 6 That time span from FIVE years from 2001 to 2006 then EIGHT years on to 2014 is in itself indicative of the evolution how "Antisemitism" is now used on WP as well as universally that it is no different to "Anti-Semitism" since if it ain't broke, don't fix it (from WP's own DICTIONARY Wiktionary: "Leave something alone; avoid attempting to correct, fix, or improve what is already sufficient. Often with an implication that the attempted improvement is risky and might backfire.") 7 The recent hasty ill-considered reverse that was just done frivolously violates long-standing 8+ years of solid WP:CONSENSUS that effects hundreds of articles. While the Category:Antisemitism was moved without any connected discussions, as one can see at Category:Anti-Semitism still has all the sub-categories named as "Antisemitism". 8 What is of great concern is that User:Gregkaye has by self-admission on his user page turned himself into a virtual POV Wikipedia:Single-purpose account as he openly states at User:Gregkaye#Arabic-Jewish interest: "From mid 2014 I began to transfer my long standing interest in Arabic-Jewish relations and Israel to Wikipedia in relation to pages dealing with such topics as "anti-Semitism" [sic] with current discussion at 3D Test of Antisemitism" -- meaning he is coming from one set of controversial topics to get involved and create other controversies that clearly would be of concern if WP:NPOV is to be adhered to. 8 In a nutshell given that his initial seemingly "simple" request was merely the start of a larger sweeping process, based on a self-admitted agenda best known to himself that only serves to disrupt WP and embroil others in heated debates, the initial requested move was faulty and should have been denied because he failed to abide by (at a minimum) (a) Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves as well as (b) Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and (c) should have noted that the related category would also be moved and that (d) he had a much broader sweeping agenda. 9 Thus this was a radical move that is a violation of WP:DONOTDISRUPT & WP:BATTLEGROUND to make a WP:POINT. 10 Please overturn the recent hasty ill-considered reverse that was just done that violates long-standing 8+ years of solid WP:CONSENSUS whereby hundreds of editors worked with that term in dozens of articles and categories and found no problems with it whatsoever. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A change to the use of hyphenation and Capitalisation (as is consistently used by other articles on similar topics and as is most commonly used in a wide range of credible and neutral sources) does not create "big waves". Making inappropriate and inappropriately timed move reviews does. The page move concerned is currently active and can appropriately be conducted under Wikipedia procedure. The veracity of the move can be decided in the current discussion. I think it is pointless to make a repetition of current discussion. Thank you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: 1 This is a tricky situation. FYI: This is a fair discussion about a decision that was already made and can only be held here as it goes back to the beginning. 2 By the way it also led to the hasty renaming of Category:Antisemitism per misuse of "WP:CFDS", how and why did that happen without due discourse? as you can see the issue of all the sub-categories remains in limbo. 3 On the one hand there is the closed Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move which is now being used and foisted by you as a springboard for the next set of Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves. 4 Unfortunately you are not playing fairly. You should have from the outset listed all of them for the kind/s of move/s you wanted. Why didn't you??!! But perhaps as you can see that would not have helped you because many editors monitor the dozens of articles and more are already clearly opposing you. 5 You cannot have it both ways by wanting to have a split discussion on your terms while opposing a discussion (here) that wishes to overturn your original requested move that started all this disruption. 6 And by the way, your reams and reams of never-ending retorts to every last little comment are also part of the problem, as you cite all sorts of irrelevant "policies" that no one is contravening such as "lobbying" or "identity theft" of names or whatever else pops into your head. 7 Bottom line, please stop screwing up WP for your own ends using all sorts of WP:LAWYERING and violating WP:NOTFACEBOOK when all you are doing is wasting everyone's time over your irrational obsession about a stupid hyphen when no one but you cares so much, it makes it even more worrisome given your "mission statement" on your own user page to get involved in this topic feverishly as if it's some mythological "next stage" for you in the "Arab-Jewish conflict" or whatever it is you mean by that and that quite honestly WP does not need. Sorry, but that is the way I see it. Thank you and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shabbas @IZAK:, Tricky? A move request was made. People made comments. A decision was made and an article title was chosen. Hasty? In Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves Timrollpickering even commented: "Most if not all of thse could have been moved without needing to go throw another RM. The decision on whether or not it should be hyphenated has already been taken on the main article and the subordinate articles' titling should not be a protest against that consensus." as link. I reasonably replied with the proposal that a more gradual approach be taken, as link. Foisted? There was a request, there was a decision and there is new request. Procedure has been followed at every point. I further object to unfounded accusation of not playing fair. Are you claiming mind reading? Similar unjustified comments were made in the first RM. I raised challenge to the unfounded claims then (which was not contested) and I do the same now. It is not me that is not playing fair. At the time that I made the first move request I had no knowledge of the multiple request procedure and, even when I got around to the second move request, I still made technical mistakes. My gratitude remains for the actions of Steel1943 who saved the situation, see link. The article has content as at page Anti-Semitism. The article features: Template:Anti-Semitism and the article content has several links throughout to related articles. There was clearly a subject area involved.

I agree that I should not need a WP:LAWYER or need to act in that capacity to field unjust irrelevant accusations.

Again, there is a current RM discussion in progress and, in that context, I continue in dispute of the point of the current thread. Any relevant points can be raised in the CURRENT DISCUSSION. This is the waste of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing the term which we are discussing to what you are considering similar terms but it is not similar to those terms. Antisemitism does not mean opposition to Semitic languages. Antisemitism does not mean opposition to Semitic people. You've listed terms that you are considering similar to the term we are discussing but the terms that you have listed have meanings that are obvious simply by looking at their component parts. Not so with "antisemitism". It means prejudice against Jews, but that is not knowable simply by looking at its component parts. Yes, Jews are "Semites", but they represent a small minority of the Semites in the world. Nor is this term unrecognizable, therefore its use is not in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. In fact all of the organizations that have as their raison d'être the combating of prejudice against Jews use the unhyphenated version in their title. I argue that these are the best quality sources and these are the sources that we should be following. I argue against the argument that mere quantity should carry the day. In this dispute I don't see the great importance of number of Google hits or even n-grams. It is reasonable to think that many of those instances of the hyphenated form of the word are fairly low-quality occurrences. These are the best quality occurrences:

Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy

Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism

Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism

Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism

Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism

Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism

Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism

An argument opposing using the unhyphenated version should be accompanied by examples of good quality sources using the hyphenated version. (I've underlined the term as it is found in the titles of the above organizations.) Bus stop (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Overturn Close I echo all of IZAK's sentiments, but I would like to emphasize two points. First, I agree that Gregkaye's behavior is suspect and that his is a single-purpose account creating POV issues. Second, per Wikipedia's own article covering the topic, Origin and Use of Anti-Semitism, the term was created to be used to confuse the issues of concern about the status of Semitic races and related issues generally with the specific and very real issues of genocidal hatred of Jewish people. As the above cited WP article states, the hyphenated and unhyphenated terms are both in accepted use - suggesting there was no valid reason for the move to begin with, if it ain't broke, don't fix it and, as Bus stop states, the common name "antisemitism" causes no confusion and is widely accepted. Again, returning to WP's article on this topic:

[...] "If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words 'Semitism', 'Semite', 'Semitic' as meaningful" whereas "in antisemitic parlance, 'Semites' really stands for Jews, just that."[13][14][15][16] For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to "[dispel] the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[17] Others endorsing an unhyphenated term for the same reason include Padraic O'Hare, professor of Religious and Theological Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations at Merrimack College; Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and James Carroll, historian and novelist. According to Carroll, who first cites O'Hare and Bauer on "the existence of something called 'Semitism'", "the hyphenated word thus reflects the bipolarity that is at the heart of the problem of antisemitism".[18]

If more scholarly sources are needed, they are readily available. Norman Podhoretz, Joseph Telushkin, Shmuel Almog (cited in dozens of WP articles including the antisemitism article, etc. Further, the ADL, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (note the spelling!) and innumerable Jewish organizations (AJC, Aish, and a myriad of other Jewish organizations from the very local to international level of engagement) all support the use of "antisemitism" over "anti-Semitism" and for the very reasons discussed here. Unless Gregkaye's argument is that those who coined the term have first rights in its spelling, I see no valid reason to use the offensive spelling over the less controversial spelling when each are equally recognized and there is no chance of confusion with the use of the less controversial, unhyphenated spelling. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the close I normally avoid debates on punctuation and other matters of style, because it usually does not make much difference, and there are a great many more substantial matters that need attention. In this case, however, it does make a difference. The term Anti-Smitism or Antisemitism in any form is actually an long-perpetuated error. (except as it may be applied to a dislike for all people of the Semitic language group--an attitude which has existed, but is much less prominent than the attitude of specific dislike for Jews). But the term is the standard one in English, and we seem to be stuck with it, at least for now. But it's a conventional name , not a descriptive name, and it is proper to make that clear to the extent the style can do so: Antisemitism makes it clear, Anti-semitism does not. Clarity is important. Basically, I support Geofferic's reasoning above. The previous discussion was marked by irrelevant accusations, and therefore contaminated. It should be disregarded. To the extent that it was a close by counting votes, it was similarly improper--we go by arguments, not voting. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close I was initially shocked to learn that the main article was renamed, once the category was likewise moved and it thus came to my attention.[3] I thereafter just assumed the move had a real consensus.[4] I also plead guilty to using "anti-Semitism" as my preferred spelling as recently as 3 days ago,[5] but then I hadn't deeply thought about it for a while. IIRC, I argued for the hyphenated spelling back in 2006, but being now older and wiser,^{[citation needed]} and having read the above posts, I wholeheartedly agree with moving the article back. A hyphen sometimes makes a real difference! Despite what my hands may still tend to do on the keyboard, this move upends ~8 years of lasting WP:Consensus. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read "no consensus", which supports "Anti-Semitism" per WP:RETAIN. This is a spelling (punctuation) issue with underlying perceivable greater significance, and WP:RETAIN is the best solution until a consensus is reached. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Anti-Semitism/Archive_23#Requested_move (2006) I see a reasonable rough consensus for the move. What's changed since then?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: WP:RETAIN guides us to preserve the unhyphenated spelling, not change to the hyphenated. Unless you are overturning an eight year old move discussion? VQuakr (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN points to the first non stub version. Was the 2006 discussion a strong consensus? Unsure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the 2006 RM to have had a clearer consensus result than the 2014 RM. I am thinking that the 2014 RM did not have a sufficiently strong consensus to overturn the 2006 result. Accordingly, I !vote Overturn (no consensus). I think the 2006 RM result should stand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Well done on your important find and link to the 2006 RM at Talk:Anti-Semitism/Archive_23#Requested_move as it fully endorses and affirms what I have stated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Overturn Close. The quality of sources matters here. I have not seen any sources better than the titles of the organizations that combat antisemitism. Several are listed above. Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I have no objection to a reopening of the RM discussion even though I have a right to do so.

DrKiernan closed the discussion with the comment: "The result of the move request was: move. While there are 6 or 7 supporters and 3 opposers, regardless of the numbers the arguments of the supporters are also stronger. Evidence in support has included common name and dictionary usage, and comparison with similar articles. Whereas the oppose arguments focus on the alternative spelling also being used (but we know both forms are used and that argument does not address which is the commoner), and that the original form of the word was unhyphenated (but that is only true of the German word not the English one, and so is not pertinent for the English wikipedia)."

note: I have no reason to doubt the competence of DrKiernan to close the discussion in accordance with WP:RMCI.

Towards the end of the discussion it was an editor that was in favour of the spelling "Antisemitism" that was arguing in favour of the closure of the discussion. If it had not been for this argument or if opponents of the move request had made meaningful responses to statements made then the discussion would likely have remained open.

Please take a look at the discussion and the way it proceeded: Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move.

A request was made. It was endorsed as presenting the most relevant and meaningful arguments. It had the majority of the support given at the time. No meaningful additional content has been presented since. A relisting of the previous discussion would avoid the submission of a new request to move which would present similar arguments as were previously endorsed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: You are going around in circles and honestly, beyond wanting everything to go your way, you are not making any sense! We get the point, you agree to "relist", well for all intents and purposes I have already done that here in effect with this new RM, otherwise it seems that you are just trying a new tactic to counter the opposition to you. Could you PLEASE cut down and scale back your voluminous reams of comments and counter-attacks. Please try to make your points and arguments in a more succinct and efficient manner. Otherwise it is very difficult and confusing to figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say or trying to do. As I have previously suggested, I highly recommend that you take a look at how to avoid falling into the trap of WP:SPIDERMAN. Thanks so much in advance, IZAK (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK: I suggest that you also relate "your" sense comments to DrKiernan and seeing the context of the previous move the WP:SPIDERMAN contention hardly carries. It may be best to keep to relevant arguments and steer clear of smear tactics. Looking above, you don't do too badly with regard to reams of content yourself. My proposal is relist. A move was made on the basis of the arguments that have been previously made - take a look. Nothing that you have mentioned above contradicts my previous statement. As mentioned: "A request was made. It was endorsed as presenting the most relevant and meaningful content. It had the majority of the support given at the time. No meaningful additional content has been presented since."

Additionally, I have made no attacks as well you know. Conversely a large proportion of my writing in the previous and ongoing discussion has been in defence against unfounded attacks. It looks. The arguments that have previously been presented can certainly be presented again, either here or in a future RM. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK: Did you even read the above?: Wikipedia:Move review#What this process is not Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
...
Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
[Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.
Editors initiating a Move Review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

This is not a move review. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the principle behind this is NOT BURO. Everything at Wikipedia can be reviewed, and revised in light of new arguments; and everything of any significance is, often repeatedly. If you want to be technical, in this case the closer failed to take account that the tone of the discussion was such as to prevent a reasonable consensus, and the new information is the more specific arguments given. The very purpose of move review in a central location is to obtain a broader consensus, which can over-ride any discussion at an individual article's talk page. Those interested in a special topic do not get to decide if the general opinion of the community is otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I know that I argued various points. Following isolated quotes from the The New Republic magazine and Guardian newspaper I know I presented lists of searches of comparable magazines and searches. I know that I argued the point regarding the validity of the numbers issue in regard to Use commonly recognisable names. I genuinely regarded the numbers to have relevance and this is born out by the closers comments. I disagreed with both the rationales given and the extent to which they were asserted to say that this was not the case. Repeated comments were made that the numbers were not an issue, I repeatedly replied to say I thought they were and, yes, we were going around in circles. I did not make "you think" and "you must be" type comments, I did not make insinuations regarding the understanding of others nor I did not push for a close. Towards the end of the discussion, I think I made fair comment regarding the behaviours and approaches of a couple of editors. Non personal comments could always be freely made. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did I mention you? I was commenting on the whole discussion, not individual contributors. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approve close I voted in support of the move before it was closed. It seems like a valid close to me because the arguments of common name and dictionary usage, and comparison with similar articles, while the opposers didn't have similarly strong arguments, The arguments that were put forth by the opposers seem focused on the type of books they are, but such arguments as far as i know have no precedence on wikipedia. Emphascore (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close I believe that this has been mishandled. What is at issue here is not a simple matter of grammar, but an issue with clear political implications. It is quite apparent, from the lists provided by Bus stop above[6] and myself in the related discussion at Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism [7], that the unhyphenated form of the word is used by seemingly every institution and journal which actually deals with this topic. In addition, we have the statement by Shmuel Almog, Professor of Modern Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism: "So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests",[8] which can be contrasted with the argument by commentator Paul Eisen, who describes himself as a "Holocaust denier"[9], that "antisemitism" is a non-existent "blind, irrational hatred of Jews", while "anti-Semitism" is a legitimate "opposition to a proposed Jewish ideology or spirit".[10] There should be no equivocation here: when those opposed to a form of racism wish to use one term to describe it, while those who support it wish to use another, we should not positively decide to switch our usage from the former to the latter. RolandR (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus) - Been thinking about this one for a bit before wading in. While this is a move review and the argument should really be was the close proper, they clearly are strong arguments here against the close that shouldn't just be ignored. So citing WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, it seems like the prior consensus which resulted in the previous move to antisemitism was stronger than the RM in question. While it is not necessarily required for the closer to consider such, ( as they should focus instead of the arguments brought forward ), I don't see strong enough consensus to overturn the previous result. That said, I do think that the closer did a reasonable close based on the arguments presented, even if I think it should be overturned. ( I should note I did NOT take part in the RM or the like and personally have no preference on the title itself personally. ) PaleAqua (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE FROM CLOSE: “...regardless of the numbers the arguments of the supporters are also stronger. Evidence in support has included common name and dictionary usage, and comparison with similar articles. Whereas the oppose arguments focus on the alternative spelling also being used (but we know both forms are used and that argument does not address which is the commoner), and that the original form of the word was unhyphenated (but that is only true of the German word not the English one, and so is not pertinent for the English wikipedia). DrKiernan

ISSUES DISCUSSED on both sides of the opposing argument included: “WP:COMMONNAME”, “WP:CRITERIA” and a considerable content on “WP:CONSENSUS”. All of these issues were covered at length.

IZAK says this is a fair discussion:

Point 1.This is a discussion about a "hyphen". The discussion always had a predominant focus on the capitalisation of the people related term used, its use in grammar; and a “consistent” use of capitalisation in parallel to the use of capitalisation in descriptions of other descriptions of prejudice. A later argument was that Semitic terminologies, not being in the ownership of one group, should not be unilaterally changed. There are always options to use terminologies such as anti-Jewish sentiment which has greater similarity to clearly described terminologies commonly used in connection to parallel issues.

Having been instrumental in the discussion from the beginning I was dismayed with the content and presentation of this move review. It is launched with the loaded, weasel wording “Most reasonable people” and “some people” even though I never argued on the the issue of recognisably. My point related to the consistent application of WP:Use commonly recognizable names. In the context of other arguments, the closer fairly considered this amongst “evidence in support”.

Points 2&3 cover the same issue. A single “simple” RM was made and then subsequent RMs were made. This is exactly the same as happened in 26 October 2006 only at that time all subsequent moves were made without any RM procedure being followed. This move review relates to the “antisemitism” to “anti-Semitism” RM and procedure has been followed.
Points 5-7 relate to the history of article title. Ten hours following the beginning of the discussion Paul B provided a link to the 2006 discussion, providing date and significant relevant information. User:NebY presented that “the term as originally created was unhyphenated.” At the time I presented a rundown of usages of “anti-Semite” based terminologies with mention of a mention of “antisemitism” and, not knowing what to make of the situation, wrote: “I am not sure what has happened with regard to the title.” If anything the view of historical consensus was more favourable to an opposition to the move than it is now. A repetition of a consensus contention was made with rhetorical repetition in the move discussion and this was despite a predominant !Vote in favour of the change. The terminology Anti-Semitism has had consistent use by credible organisations like the Encyclopædia Britannica. What has backfired?
Point 8 is an “in a nutshell” repetition of points already made. It also contained: “he had a much broader sweeping agenda”. I think it is fair to comment here that there are “agendas” on both sides. My RM related to a change from “antisemitism” to “anti-Semitism” the version used in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and neutral sources. We can always ask all the contributors to the original discussion if they understood the implications of the move but, on the basis of the assumption that Wikipedia editors aren't stupid, I think that this would be superfluous.
Point 9: claim is made to disruptive editing, Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The actuality was that I made a RM request, people commented and a decision was made. The discussion involved many disruptive edits including a manipulative “Hatting” of the discussion” Which had the effect of hiding the all discussion text bar that of the discussion hatter.
Point 10: describes a “hasty ill-considered reverse”. Again, the issues of: “WP:COMMONNAME”, “WP:CRITERIA” and “WP:CONSENSUS” were discussed at length and a decision was made. I was not the person arguing for a close.

PaleAqua the 2006 discussion makes no reference to WP:CRITERIA and consistency which amongst DrKirkland's justifications for endorsing the change. My conjecture has been that, if Wikipedia policy had been correctly applied then the original changes would never have been made. The only justification for WP:IAR involves the endorsement of terminologies chosen by organisations and groups not typically set up not to deal with broad issues of prejudice and discrimination and typically have single issue focus.

Despite instruction in regarding move reviews above, Bus Stop presented a list of references that had previously been presented in both discussions. There is nothing new here. I have presented information regarding use on the Web, quoted categories of political magazines and broadsheet newspapers and dictionaries.

I am also sticking with my statement in the current RM discussion: “... that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are in in favour of the Anti-Semitism title. This is the most frequently form of name used for the topic. It is, for instance, the predominantly used term by organisations who deal with issues on two sides within Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict with the important inclusion of those in Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. These organisations broker between both sides and I contest that they are likely to have greater neutrality in comparison to other groups and organisations mentioned. Also in the new discussion reply was made in context of Bus Stop's list as: not seeing evidence that some sources are “better than others”. So, which sources are better? This is an issue of POV with related content already having been covered. I don't see it as justification for a move review.

There IS an RM currently in discussion. This current discussion constitutes little more than duplication. One option would be to leave decision to that discussion as would have happened anyway. Should that proposal fail, in that situation, as would have otherwise have been the case, a speedy move from "anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism" would be clearly justified.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: At this page you say:

WP:CRITERIA - “The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles”

A listing relevant terminologies in Wikipedia is as follows: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment. Items on the list were not cherry picked but displays content as it came to hand.

Other relevant terminologies include: Anti-Jewish laws and similar, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism, Philo-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, Non-Zionism, Post-Zionism, Proto-Zionism and, present time re-direct page, Anti-Jewish sentiment.

And at this page you say:

The less disputable issue is WP:CRITERIA: in relation to Consistency. A listing relevant terminologies in Wikipedia is as follows: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment.

You are claiming that the term we are discussing is similar to the above terms. But it is not. The above terms have obvious meanings. But the term that we are discussing does not have an obvious meaning. The term we are discussing does not mean opposition to Semitism or opposition to something of a Semitic nature. You are making a comparison that is imperfect. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Anti-Jewish sentiment is the terminology that has the obvious meaning. This is the straightforward terminology. There has always been a choice related to the continued to use of Semitic terminologies. I personally don't think there should be a further choice related to the manipulation of terminologies. It's a case of use it and abuse it. I don't think its right to do either let alone both.

Your current topic is already covered in the original discussion. Even in the opening statement of the first discussion I wrote: "The fact that anti-Semitism/antisemitism is a misnomer or the fact that the term takes reference from a relatively large group (Semites) and applies it to a relatively small group of people (Jews) is not a justification for giving the term different linguistic treatment to the rest of the English language." I also stated: "Semite is a demonym no matter the size of the group of people referenced". All this ground has been covered in the original discussion. The term is still used to describe a Semitic group of people, just a smaller subsection of a whole. There is nothing new.

Your quoted texts above both relate to RM discussions. This page has presents the ruling: " this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Issues mentioned have been fairly and honestly covered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: You are listing many terms of the "anti-" something form. I just reproduced your posts of those lists of terms immediately above. Can you please tell me the purpose of those lists? What point are you trying to make in posting those lists of terms? Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose: That the same rules may apply to all. I saw guideline content and looked within parent category: Prejudice and discrimination which has sub categories including: Category:Discrimination; Category:Anti-national sentiment. "Items on the list were not cherry picked but displays content as it came to hand." My purpose was to provide a fair representation of similar articles' titles and I hope I succeeded.

I also produced the list with items: Anti-Jewish laws, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism, Philo-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, Non-Zionism, Post-Zionism, Proto-Zionism and Anti-Jewish sentiment.) through individual searches on relevant terms. This was done for the same purpose and to illustrate various terms which by, your definition, have "obvious meanings".

Point: Consistency as in WP:Deciding on an article title... Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Also, from what I have perceived so far, there is a difference in content between articles such as anti-Americanism, anti-British sentiment and anti-Semitism and perhaps others. My belief is that the use of the title anti-Semitism is not helpful in keeping this title stay "on the same page" as everyone else.

My overriding purpose is to support real peace in the Middle-East in any way I can. edited: Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: You have made your points very clear and we hear you loud and clear. Please stop repeating yourself dozens of times with the same arguments. The level of noise your are generating plus the reams of verbiage you are submitting only serves to reinforce the impression that you are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:POINT behavior. As I have advised twice already, you need to stop veering into WP:SPIDERMAN. Kindly stop, step back, and WP:KEEPCOOL, and allow this MR to proceed and arrive at its natural conclusion. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK you would think so yet I'm asked: "What point are you trying to make in posting those lists of terms?" If you want to make a constructive reply please refer to these unanswered posts: [11], [12], [13]. All relevant issues were covered in the original request move and you are entitled to request a move back. Once you've looked at the unanswered posts I would be interested to know your policy based reasons for thinking the move was not valid? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye: The best answer to your ongoing, repetitive, disruptive interjections and interrogations is stated best, to the point, and most succinctly by User NebY (talk · contribs): "The close [of the RM] did not consider that the title had been stable ever since the RM discussion in 2006 and that with a clear lack of consensus now the close should therefore default to "no move" per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Determining consensus." And to that I say "Amen" and "'nuff said"!! IZAK (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK: Did you understand? I asked about "your policy based reasons for thinking the move was not valid?" Wikipedia:Requested moves#Determining consensus is a broken link that simply goes to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Yes we know it was a Requested move and we know it had a consensus. We also know that WP:CONSENSUS The purpose of consensus in here is to achieve Wikipedia's goals... while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I repeat myself when asked a direct question, in answer to points that are presented as if they are conclusive when they are not and when there is a failure to respond to points made. The closer made a decision, in the context of majority support, on the arguments presented.

Again you mention the history and again I mention the argument that if policy issues like WP:CRITERIA had been rightly considered then the article title may never have been changed.

Again I repeat content that I think needs a fair and direct response:

"IZAK says this is a fair discussion: ...

Points 5-7 relate to the history of article title. Ten hours following the beginning of the discussion Paul B provided a link to the 2006 discussion, providing date and significant relevant information. User:NebY presented that “the term as originally created was unhyphenated.” At the time I presented a rundown of usages of “anti-Semite” based terminologies with mention of a mention of “antisemitism” and, not knowing what to make of the situation, wrote: “I am not sure what has happened with regard to the title.” If anything the view of historical consensus was more favourable to an opposition to the move than it is now. A repetition of a consensus contention was made with rhetorical repetition in the move discussion and this was despite a predominant !Vote in favour of the change. ..."

Please respond.

Please give "your policy based reasons for thinking the move was not valid?". Consensus has to have a valid purpose. What?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Close The close did not consider that the title had been stable ever since the RM discussion in 2006 and that with a clear lack of consensus now the close should therefore default to "no move" per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Determining consensus. NebY (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Close The user who initiated the close tried afterwards to move every page with Antisemitism in the title to Anti-Semitism versions. There was a consensus not to do so, and it's clear that there's a consensus as well against the move decision. It should be overturned. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close Apparently this is non-trivial enough that efforts are being made to subvert community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn:, I have already said that I am more than happy to abide by the decision of the current RM discussion and this is despite the fact that the discussion is tainted by a top of section banner linking to IZAK's spiel above. All I am saying is that the right actions should be taken in the right places and in the right ways. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close this renaming procedure with marginal participation was wrongly closed at anti-Semitism, making the article inconsistent (and not consistent as claimed above) with the other "anti" articles. A quick look at the list above shows that in all cases where the anti is against a well defined group or ideology it is hyphenated, including for example anti-Zionism, while in cases where the group or ideology isn't well defined, Wikipedia uses an unhyphenated one word format: antihaitianismo, antiziganism, as well as antisemitism until this poorly closed discussion. Please bring the article back to its consistent, stable state since 2006. gidonb (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close: I believe that the decision to move Antisemitism to Anti-Semitism was unwarranted. I agree with all points raised by IZAK except I do not see the applicability of WP:POINT. In particular, I agree with IZAK that Wikipedia ethics do not support the sneaky strategy of first quietly moving Antisemitism (hoping few people will notice the discussion until it's a done deal) and then using that as a launching pad to move a whole bunch more articles. There was never a valid consensus for the 2014 move. DrKiernan's analysis was based on a discussion artificially limited by discussing one article before the many; a broader discussion would have made it more obvious that there is no consensus, that the change would be extremely disruptive and raise major consistency problems across Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and that the reasons upon which the move was proposed are quite dubious.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new move discussion at Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move 15 September 2014. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.