Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a requested move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the requested move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

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.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

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.

Steps to list a new review request

 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the requested move on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.

2.

Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

3.

If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=18 December 2018}}. Do not tag the article.

5.

If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December}}
6.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move review

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of Requested Move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the Requested Move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

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 – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a Move Review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested Move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed

 

Active discussions

2018 December

Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One

Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

Dekimasu's justification for closing the discussion was that it was clear no consensus would be formed. While there was a fair bit of opposition, the issue being discussed was relatively complex and the discussion was closed less than three days after the move discussion was formally opened, so I felt it was premature to close the discussion at that point. Furthermore, there were still some avenues of discussion that had not been resolved: in particular, outstanding issues related to Wikipedia policy (namely WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME); an analysis of Google search results, the method and outcome of which had been given a lot of significance in a previous discussion; and editors who had expresses a willingess to change their position if certain things could (and had been) demonstrated. To close the discussion without resolving those outstanding issues on the basis of how much opposition there was effectively treated the process as a vote. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Note IP, before move review, do you discuss with RM closer? Hhkohh (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: @Hhkohh — I did query it on the WikiProject talk page and was directed here by the RM closer. The instructions for listing a move review led me to believe that by filling in parts of the template provided, the RM closer would be automatically notified. 1.129.104.76 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • IP, as RM relister. When Tvx1 tagged discussion as RM on December 9, bot will list this discussion in WP:RME. That means this discussion has run more than 7 days at that time. Hhkohh (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Also, WP:MR is not RM 2nd round. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note from closer. I replied to an expression of dissatisfaction with the close at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One earlier today, noting that reopening the discussion was unlikely to change the result. The IP did notify me upon opening the move review. The page history explains some of the IP's concern: the discussion had been proceeding for ten days and is formatted as such, but the tags had only been placed there on the 9th. However, the discussion was open long enough to make it clear that further discussion would not result in consensus in favor of enacting the proposed moves at this time. I did not feel it would be productive for us to belabor the point.
Usually less is more in a close, but it is worth noting that many of the objections referred to WP:TITLECHANGES (either explicitly or by stating there would be no benefit from the change), indicating that they did not find the argument based upon WP:COMMONNAME compelling. WP:COMMONNAME was brought up in the original post on December 2, not over the last three days. Note also that the "names" in question here are actually the same name, but formatted differently. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hhkohh, thank you for notifying me of the move review. Dekimasuよ! 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Obviously correct close. There was no chance that the discussion could be turned into a consensus to move in a finite time. Better to let it go, take a breath, and try again in a few months with a better proposal. Who is "PM". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: @SmokeyJoe — "PM" is User:Prisonermonkeys, who is me. I forgot my password a few months ago. Ordinarily I would create a new account and pick up where I left off, but I have been having lots of problems with a now-banned editor, User:GeoJoe1000. He has been incredibly abusive and comes back every few weeks or months (check the history of my talk page) because he blames me for getting him blocked. I'm concerned that creating a new account will just give him a new target to lock onto and the cycle of disruption will begin again. 1.129.104.76 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: With all due respect, but I can’t see the value of raising this topic yet again in a couple of months. This was not the first time it was raised with it gaining mostly opposition.Tvx1 09:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have to agree with Tvx1, this has been raised multiple times and PM seems to be the only editor in favor of renaming the articles. Time to let it go. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Since we are only here to evaluate the close, then I certainly would have closed it the same. PM, it is important to note that six (6) months from now, those articles will still be here, and you might find a new reason(s) to support your nomination by then. WP:CONSISTENCY for example, is a policy that was never cited and only very briefly discussed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Paradisus Judaeorum

Paradisus Judaeorum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (AfD) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

Following a no consensus to move at Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum#Requested_move_7_November_2018, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews was closed as keep and move. I find this problematic on several levels: first, the AfD was a clear forum shopping by an editor who failed to get his move at RM so he tried again at AfD and is already using the move as a reason for major rewrite/deletions (despite 'keep' outcome: [1]). AfD is not a forum for moves, and using it in such a way only leads to continued disruption in the article (I expect to see more warring about what the 'keep and move' really means with regards to article's content). It is unlikely that editors who argued for keep want to see major deletion/rewrite, yet some of those who want to see such changes may argue that move requires such changes. This weird closure is omly an invitation for some people to continue disruption. I believe that the AfD's outcome could lead to a new, dedicated RM where consensus for the move could be re-evaluated without waiting the suggested several months (since the last RM ended just a move ago), but should not be used to overturn a prior RM itself because doing so while acknowledging that the majority was also for keep is creating a confusing situation in the form of 'keep but not really'. So I suggest that the move is undone and a new RM restarted to properly judge consensus for move, without confusion of AfD. PS. I am not starting a discussion on the moving admin's talk page as he himself in closing note suggested this venue as the one for further discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Note Fixed malformed MR request Hhkohh (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Involved) Endorse move, though given state of article (extensive quotations of 17th century hate speech and WP:OR of such hate speech) - Overturn and delete (or draftify) would be preferable in my eyes - the references in article are useful, but a significant chunk of content requires WP:TNT. Accusing other editors of misconduct (forum shopping) without notifying them is not appropriate. The AfD was on notability grounds of the anti-Semitic slogan (which Piotrus, in the prior move discussed, argued was distinct from the two-word term and various 16th century "poems" (or per RSes - anti-Semitic tracts)). The prior move discussion did not address notability of the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan. Editors who argued for the move (as well as several delete (or "move or delete") !votes - Icewhiz, Dweller, Shrike, Catrìona, יניב הורון (Yaniv), and !votes for merge (or move + merge) - K.e.coffman, .E.M.Gregory, Andrew D.)) did so on the basis that the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan was not notable (in an article that was WP:REFBOMBed with passing references from WP:PRIMARY sources - some of which are virulently anti-Semitic tracts). Editors supporting the move, however, noted that much of the material in the article could be kept under a new title - Paradisus Judaeorum - while also noting a rewrite was required. Thus - the content was deemed partially salvageable under a new title. The consensus at the AfD was clear. AfD is the correct venue to discuss notability of a topic - and once opposers of the prior move discussion asserted that the chosen title was a distinct and separate topic from "Paradisus Judaeorum" (furthermore asserting that a separate article could be created on "Paradisus Judaeorum") - AfD was the correct venue to address the rather serious notability concerns of the chosen title. I will note that the initiator of the move review here argued that the 4-clause anti-Semitic slogan was notable based on an article written in 1937(!) by an anti-Semitic Polish politician who advocated at the time for the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews - most of the AfD participants viewed this as questionable and PRIMARY. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Refactored comment to make clear. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake, calling a 17th century (or 16th) satirical poem "hate speech" like you insist on doing is ridiculous. It's almost childish. There is not a single source that refers to the phrase as such. You, and only you, made that up, as part of your POV pushing on this article and topic. Which part exactly is suppose to be "hate speech"? Be specific. My Latin is rusty, so maybe it's the "luxus foeminarum" part. (That's sarcasm folks).
Neither are there any sources which refer to it as a "anti-Semitic slogan" (except maybe that one cherry picked Janicka source you managed to drudge up somewhere). You made that up too. Guess what, this may be a shocking revelation to you but the idea of there being such a thing as "hate speech" is a pretty recent invention. Which is why, again, no source makes such an absurd characterization. And for fuck's sake again, the individuals who designed and organized the Museum exhibit under this label are Jewish. The designer, Moshe Rosman is Jewish. The lede historian on the exhibit held under the name is Jewish. The program director, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, is Jewish. There are academics and representatives from the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and Jewish Historical Institute on the museum's staff. Hell, Antony Polonsky, whom you insisted we use on an article as an academic source until you found out that he doesn't quite fit in with your POV at which point you started inventing absurd reasons to remove him, he was also the chief historian for the museum.
Yet here you come and try to convince us that all these Jewish academics and scholars are pushing "anti-semitic hate speech". And they're doing this because.... why exactly? Gimme a fucking break. The truth of the matter is that it's actually you who holds an extremist POV, one which is not shared among mainstream scholars regardless of their ethnicity and religion. You are trying to exploit the lack of knowledge about the topic and the general gullibility of average Wikipedians to push your extremist POV by engaging in this hyperbolic scare-mongering. You're hoping that if you just call something "anti-semitic" people will feel compelled to support you or at least not oppose you. But it's all bullshit. This whole hoopla started because the Museum of the History of Polish Jews held an exhibition under the title "paradisus Judaeorum", which somehow offended your feelings because part of this exhibition noted that compared to Western Europe, Poland was a pretty good place for Jews... in the 16th century. And since removing ANY positive material about Poland in regard to Polish-Jewish relations (and of course consistently adding ANY negative material about the same) from Wikipedia has been your consistent WP:AGENDA for the past year+ (briefly interrupted by your topic ban) you first tried to POV the article by misrepresenting sources, and when that didn't work you went running to AfD out of spite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting viewpoint. Actual sources:
  1. "anti-Semitic phantasm" per historian of literature & cultural anthropologist Elżbieta Janicka.[2]
  2. A "17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" per Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (Cultural and historical anthropologist, religious studies scholar, professor at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences at Warsaw, Poland).[3]
  3. Antony Polonsky makes it quite clear that the 1606 text is "anti-Jewish" and that the writer "uses the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum to express his conviction that Poland is ruled by Jews and that they enjoy excessive privileges". Polonsky also notes that there was supposed to be a question mark in the museum - which was omitted by the Polish design team. In response to "Q: The content of the 17th century text which the notion Paradisus is taken from is not problematized there. It is not explained that the text is antisemitic" Polonsky says: "A: Audio-guides explain that, and I think this is clear" - so while there is a provocative title (perhaps to engage the audience? press?) it is corrected by guides in the museum.[4]
  4. Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (who was the curator) also notes - "To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.”".[5]
  5. Per Kamil Kijek (historian and sociologist - presently at University of Wrocław,[6], was a USHMM fellow - [7]) - "The criticism pertaining to the somewhat unfortunate name of the gallery dedicated to the history of Jews in the 16th and 17th centuries (until Khmelnytsky Uprising), “Paradisus Judeorum,” is justified. The name “Paradise for Jews” is given without quotation marks there. Visitors to the Museum do not have an opportunity to learn from the exhibition that its title is taken from an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change (Tokarska-Bakir, 2016, pp. 49–58).[8]
The anti-semitic context of the 1606 phrase really is not a question. Nor is its anti-Jewish use in 1636 by Szymon Starowolski,[9] or its use by Jesuit Walenty Pęski in 1672.[10] This was even used by Polish nationalists in 1940 - to describe the situation of Jews in the ghettos of the General Government as a paradisus.[11].Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the one thing missing from these citations, even the first one which is the one I mentioned above, is the absence of designation of "hate speech". It's a text from the sixteenth-freakin'-century. The phrase is four hundred years old. At various points it's been used variously by various people with various intent and context (here is some examples of the same phrase being used in a positive way [12], [13], [14], [15]). That's kind of what happens to a piece of text that is so old.
And yes, the - unknown - author meant it in a negative way. The author was complaining about the fact that 16th century Poland was a "paradise" for Jews. What makes the author anti-semitic is not the assertion that it was, but that they thought this was a "bad thing". The author also complains about numerous other things. Privileges of the nobility. Peasants had it bad. Women were loose. People were free to wonder around. Butlers were drinking. There was too much marketing. People bought farmland for glory or something. Out of the 21 two-word lines of this 16th century poem only one references Jews.
Yet somehow, you think that the article should be... deleted, because the article quotes the Latin version of the entire poem. How is that a legitimate justification for deletion? How does that even make sense? You're free to start a RfC as to whether the article should include the text of the poem or not. But here, you've just invented a nonsensical excuse for your "delete" !vote which otherwise does not make sense (since the topic is obviously notable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Three of four of those sources (I couldn't get to the third) say nothing about any version of 'the phrase Paradisuse Judaeorum/paradise for the Jews is positive' (or the opposite.) All of them simply use the phrase -- which again supports the notability of the phrase and says zero about the notability of the parable -- and the fact they use it does NOTHING to support the idea it is positive (or negative). It is original research to assume that because they use it without designating it as anti-semitic proves the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Valeree, yes, these were instances for where the phrase is used in a positive way. Icewhiz provided instances where it was used in a negative way (like by 1940s nationalists or whatever). My links demonstrate that he just cherry picked these instances out of all the times the phrase has been used over its 400+ years history. I am not proposing that we use the sources I provided in the article itself, for the exact reason which you bring up. Icewhiz claims this is a "antisemitic slogan" (sic). Yet you have prominent Jewish historians using this "antisemitic slogan" in an affirmative way. Hence, it's Icewhiz who's full of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I provided a URL link for each of the multiple sources I cited above - well and above what is required for a talk-page discussion. antisemitic and anti-Jewish are generally synonymous, and are a type of hate speech. Presentation of an anti-semitic slogan as something else (an issue in the present article - as some editors are edit-warring the well-sourced antisemitic out of the lede and body) is a WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE issue (not grounds for deletion). Inclusion of long antisemitic primary tracts - NPOV/PROFRINGE - and WP:NOFULLTEXT issue. The present contents of the article - are in the WP:TNT zone. However, if we are to return to notability policy - WP:GNG requires

"Sources"[1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

As such - antisemitic WP:PRIMARY sources - beyond the reliability questions, do not count towards notability as they are not secondary. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Your continued insistence that the historians, curators and directors of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews are knowingly and purposefully trying to spread a "anti-semitic slogan" (sic) is, well, it's just bonkers. And the fact that you keep on with this insinuation, really just reveals how extremist your own POV is in regard to this topic. There's plenty of instances where this "slogan" is used in a positive way (here, again: [16], [17], [18], [19])
Other "issues" you bring up are BS as well. WP:NOFULLTEXT applies to "lengthy" primary sources. This isn't lengthy. There's no "fringe theories" being promoted, except perhaps by yourself. And aside from the UNDUE section on the Museum, the article is well sourced and balanced. It is certainly NOT in "TNT territory". That's false assertion is just your way of trying to force through your own views after having failed to obtain consensus to delete the article or to turn it into a WP:COATRACK about some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse As one of the editors who voted "delete or move" I concur: (1) the 4-clause slogan was not notable per Icewhiz and (2) for the article to be successful at its current location, it has to be rewritten. I would also not object to redirecting. Catrìona (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion and well explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It was not an end run nor a forum shop, as it was a valid AfD nomination. AfD has a higher standing that WP:RM, AfD has always had the option to rename, and anyway, process questions do not limit WP:IAR (the rename demonstrably leads to a better product) or WP:CONSENSUS (evident in the better participated discussion, as the closer noted). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. (uninvolved) Agree with the closer that "A more difficult question is whether there is consensus to move the page to Paradisus Judaeorum." In the RM the choices were to move or not to move; however, in the AfD the choices were to delete or not to delete. And while there was a clear consensus not to delete, whether or not to keep the article as is or to rename it and edit to conform to the new title was less clear. Tough choice yet definitely correct. The upcoming situation will be interesting when further options are considered by editors. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  12:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. - the move to be undone and a new RM restarted due to the confusion and immediate undiscussed rewrite [20], [21], [22] of now moved article by the initial nominator. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    GizzyCatBella participated in the AfD as a "Keep". Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    As noted I initially voted "keep" believing that the article should be under its original title (full proverb) and guessing that if moved, the article might be rewritten entirely. It seems that I was correct. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Most (if not all) of the move !voters noted that a rewrite (ranging from cleanup to major re-write or event TNT) would be necessary (but that retaining references and some of the content would be useful). Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    "Move" !voters didn't advocate for the removal of every citation [23], [24] specifying the entire poverb and didn't endorse almost complete rewrite of the article nearly instantly [25] after the article has been migrated to the current title. I would like to point out again that "move" nominator and rewriter is the same user (Icewhiz).GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The vote was in regards to deletion not to changing of the title.The article should be kept and a new RM started in due time--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    MyMoloboaccount was invovled in the AfD - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. To clarify, this MRV is to review the decision/result of the AfD, not the previous RM. So "endorse" here means that the reviewer agrees with the AfD result. If editors want the page move reverted to the previous title, then "overturn" would be used to denote that review choice. To write "endorse", and then to write "the move to be undone" or similar is very confusing. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn - AfD and RM are two different things and shouldn't be mixed up. Especially since there already WAS an RM on the article. This is rewarding disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING, on top of being against policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Volunteer Marek was involved in the AfD diff.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Icewhiz is trying to prejudice the closing of this MR by sniping at people who disagree with him with these little snippets of small text underneath their !votes which is just a continuation of his extensive WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviorVolunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Or, Icewhiz is just noting what editors have been asked to disclose but just forgot to do so. Editors are asked to say whether or not they were involved as a courtesy to the closer of this MRV, as well as to other commenters. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn (I was not involved in either the RM or AfD discussion.) WP:FORUMSHOPPING at its worst. Consider sanctioning Icewhiz under WP:ARBEE for his disruptive behavior at this article and related articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sanction him for what, exactly? This isn't forum shopping by any stretch of the imagination. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you explain why this is FORUMSHOPPING? Icewhiz's deletion request did not recommend a move, rather deleting the article. AfD is the appropriate venue for when a subject is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I voted in the AfD, against deletion of the article on "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews". The decision was not to delete the article. Regrettably, an additional decision was gratuitously made, to move the article to the inappropriate, subject-restrictive title, "Paradisus Judaeorum". The result was flawed as to procedure, and misleading as to the article's subject matter. At the time of the AfD, I suggested, among other things: "Write, if you wish to, a separate article on 'Paradise for the Jews', an expression which may or may not have been cognate with the principal saying under discussion here." I stand by my suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse Correct reading of the consensus the AFD could have many different outcomes per WP:AFD including "renamed/moved to another title" So I don't understand those who oppose the close how it can be "out of process" as there was clear consensus for move -- Shrike (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse This unusual sequence of events is well explained in the AfD. The AfD had to consider the notability of the term as it was and found it was not notable, but that there was valuable, well sourced material, that related to a broader term. Hence participants tended to !vote for delete or move in some combination. The closing admin had no choice but to follow the consensus. Process was correctly followed ... therefore endorse. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse (note I commended in both previous discussions). Consensus in the AfD was clear that the longer term was not notable and that the sources demonstrate notability for the shorter term only so the article should be moved. If the nominator here regards the AfD was forum shopping (it should actually be interpreted as a relisting of an RM that failed to reach a consensus), then I do not understand why MRV is not also forum shopping? Do we really need discussions in three separate venues in quick succession? Are we going to ANI after this one? Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Dweller and Thryduulf hit the nail on the head. The consensus of the community got it right. "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" is not notable. The sources demonstrate notability for "Paradisus Judaeorum". (I participated in the AfD, but I disagree with the silly notion that doing so in any way lessens my ability to judge whether the closer correctly evaluated the consensus -- whether the consensus agreed with my !vote or not.) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse: (note I said Move at AFD) I think the available sources for the longer phrase are limited, while the available sources for "Paradisus Judaeorum" are more extensive. Given the limited sourcing for the longer phrase, I think it is best dealt with as a section in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article. And some of the existing text and refs could be used as a base for such an article, including that section. As such, I support move both at AFD and here. Regarding the "forum-shopping" claim, the reality is there are a lot of people (myself included) who pay more attention to AFD than RM, so raising the issue at AFD was appropriate as a way to get the attention of a larger audience. SJK (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse (I voted to move at AfD) The original title was NOT adequately referenced in the supporting citations at all. The topic was notable however, so I voted to move to this newly titled page, which more accurately reflects the reference material. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse (previously voted "move"). I'm unaware of a policy for dealing with cases where people vote (overwhelmingly) for an option not listed by an OP (eg. "move" in a deletion discussion). However, considering the democratic nature of Wikipedia, I would respect such a vote even if it was unexpected and even unintended. As for double jeopardy - since the second discussion brought new evidence to the table - an in-depth analysis of the sources - jeopardy doesn't apply. François Robere (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse as an appropriate close and reading of the community consensus. However the community consensus was not correct. As I pointed out at both discussions there are ample references of the kind used in proverb articles to support the proverb part of the article. The discussion was complicated by the feeling that the proverb is utterly anti-Semitic. If that were true it is unlikely the proverb would have been used in the POLIN Museum exhibit, which has a Jewish program director. Piotrus, the history and culture of the Jews in the Commonwealth is almost completely absent from Wikipedia. An article covering the golden age of Judaism in Poland, omitting both the proverb and the term Paradisus Judaeorum, should be here. There are historians of the period who have written in English. As Gershon Hundert points out, there is resistance in the Jewish community to this history, but writing such an article might avoid some of the controversies that plagued this one. After the dust has settled and the context is adequately covered in Wikipedia might be the time to reconsider the proverb. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn AfD and RM are two different things. For a record, I voted against the deletion in the AfD.--Darwinek (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse Paradisus Judaeorum is a more common term and used sometimes in a positive fashion.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regardless of the outcome, could I ask the "Endorse" preferring editors to keep an eye on the article and share their expertise/knowledge to its development, please? Most of you are focusing on the title itself without further analysis what is actually happening after the move [26]. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn (I was not involved in either the RM or AfD discussion.). There are can be problems with treating an AFD as an RM ex post facto. One, not all participants may have been aware that they were participating in what would be taken as an RM. Two, votes like "move or delete" are incoherent and amount to "if I can't have the title I want, I want the article deleted". Srnec (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    I read them as delete the article, because it's not notable, or move the content to a title that is notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    But it isn't titles that are notable, but topics. If the article was about a notable topic, then it should be kept. Delete is not an option. You cannot say, as you just did, "delete [the content] because it's not notable [but] move the content to a [different] title".
    To clarify why I said "overturn": I don't dispute that (a) Sandstein's close was reasonable, since it clearly was, or (b) an AFD can sometimes result in a move, which it clearly can, but I think that (c) this AFD was contaminated by impermissible votes like "move or delete" that cannot be taken simply as good-faith votes for a move. By "overturn" I mean simply move the article back and open another RM on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the nominator of this discussion, I hope it is clear that my opinion is for overturning. Again, I am recommend that a new RM is started instead. There is indeed consensus for a new, wider RM - but due to confusion of how to interpret various AfD votes, I don't think there consensus for move in the AfD is as clear as some people suggest. If there is clear consensus for move, well, why not confirm it through a proper RM rather than confusing AfD? It is easy to start a new RM, ping everyone who participated in this and prior discussion, and then count simple 'for move' and 'against move' votes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    AfD was the correct forum - as the "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" fails notability standards - specifically WP:GNG (not covered in depth in secondary sources) and WP:NOTDIC. That the content of the article could be re-purposed with a re-write to something else ("Paradisus Judaeorum" - a notable two word term), does not make RM the correct venue. Refactoring of articles, as WP:ATD, is quite common in AfD discussions - e.g. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E are commonly re-purposed to the event, non-notable entrepreneurs are re-purposed to their notable founded companies (and vice-versa). The view endorsed by the AfD participants wasn't that the article was notable, but rather that it could be repurposed into something notable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"AfD was the correct forum - as the "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" fails notability standards" - yeah, except that AfD actually disagreed with you there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. One thing I'm seeing here is that overturners are not always clear on their preferred outcome. This is a review of the AfD, which decided to keep and move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Do overturners want to delete? or to revert the move? Just as AfD sometimes dispositions to move an article, this MRV can, in a case like this, decide to "overturn and delete". So it would be more helpful if commenters were a bit more detailed about their preferences. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  06:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think it is pretty clear that all overturners want to revert the move, not a delete. You may want to ping people so that they clarify their votes. This further illustrates potential confusion through the use of AfD for a RM, which is why I said that the proper outcome should be 'keep and a new RM', not a 'keep and move'. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, "it is what it is" I've heard people say. And it is rare for AfD to deliver a page move, and even rarer for that outcome to result in a move review. We are experiencing an ultra-rare event and difficulty in the overlapping; however, I think the process will probably live through it. I second your sigh. Sighs have been moved and seconded – all in favor say "sigh" ;>) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sigh. It will all be ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
          • The sighs have it. Motion carried.  Paine  16:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. The closer faithfully assessed the consensus, which leaned significantly in favor of the resulting move. The participation was far greater than in the last move request, so there is no compelling reason for a do-over.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved) Paradisus Judaeorum is notable, parable sources support that notability rather than demonstrating notability for the parable valereee (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't we all assume good faith on the part of both sides? Yes, this is an ongoing disagreement among multiple editors over a controversial issue that may involve emotions, but that doesn't mean anyone is intentionally acting in bad faith. The fact it's messy doesn't mean anyone is at fault for that messiness. valereee (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    I for one ignored all the arguments about antisemitism and focused entirely on the GNG arguments. Others did too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry that in an attempt not to single anyone out I seemed to be including everyone in, that wasn't my intention. valereee (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - it seems that there is a consensus that there is a viable article topic here... but disagreement over what that article’s topic should be. Disagreement on what the article should be about. Everyone is trying to coatrack their concept of what the article should be about under the existing title. I think this is a mistake... a better way forward is to first write the article you want, and then figure out what to call it. So... I offer the following suggestion:
  1. Temporarily uphold the current article and title... if for no other reason than to maintain references... but halt editing.
  2. Go to your user pages and draft the article you think is viable... supporting it with sources.
  3. Call others in for comments and suggestions, and incorporate those suggestions you like into your draft (at this stage, since “your” draft is still in “your” user space, you can reject suggestions that would change the focus too dramatically).
  4. Read the drafts made by others and offer your suggestions.
  5. Work with others to Merge those drafts that essentially cover similar ground (consolidate drafts)
  6. Discuss the most appropriate titles for the resulting new combined drafts (you may find that the current title is not actually the best.)
  7. Finally, discuss Deleteing the current article, and replacing it with the various new articles.
Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I like your thinking. The AfD reviewed the sources brought by those in favour of "keep". The AfD result implies that a) the old title isnt notable b) the current term is notable. If one or two non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources can be found, we could work on a second article on the narrower topic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dweller: I agree that part of the problem here is that there are several potential "topics" involved here. One is the original 16th century poem and its history. I think it's notable and a good part of the rationale for moving it to the shorter "Paradisus Judaeorum" was not that the poem wasn't notable but rather that the full title - characteristically long for pieces written in that time - was too long. Second potential topic is the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" which has to a significant extent become detached from its origin in the poem and has been used in various way by various people for four hundred years, in both a "positive" and a "negative" sense. My opinion is that these first two topics can be combined into a single article, which is what the present article does, but I can understand it if people feel differently. Third, we have the topic of the actual situation of Jews in 16th century Poland that the phrase refers to. This period has also been called "Golden Age of Jews in Poland" (there's currently a disambig page Jewish Golden Age which includes this as a red link) and that too is a notable topic on its own. Finally, we have the topic of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews exhibition which came under this name and the supposed "controversy" (sic) - which really just consists of a couple polemical pieces in a single issue of a fairly obscure journal. That is best covered in the article on the museum itself POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, with an eye towards WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.
I like the idea of people working on these articles in their user space and refraining from making controversial changes to the existing article in the mean time (or agitating for its out-of-process deletion) but I also know enough about how Wikipedia works to know that as soon as I write these words and hit "Publish changes" someone might go running to the article to make last-minute-changes-to-reflect-their-POV before this "no editing for now" agreement takes place. WP:GAME and all that. (Personally I think the article could use some clean up on some of the UNDUE parts regarding the Museum but I'm happy to leave it be for now, if others are willing to likewise act in a reciprocal manner).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  2. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.


QUESTION: In his decision to keep the article, "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews", but to move it to a different title, "Paradisus Judaeorum", Sandstein wrote: [27] "As has been pointed out, AfD is not the forum for renaming discussions..." So why did he move it? Nihil novi (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"renamed/moved to another title" is a "common outcome".
Another answer is "per WP:Consensus expressed in the discussion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. When more than one question is raised, I wonder whether, for clarity in discussion and resolution, they would not be better addressed in step-wise fashion, rather than in one free-for-all. Nihil novi (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Nihil novi, is that directed at me, or more generally at this whole Move Review process? I agree that these Move Review discussions are compromised by the free-for-all style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a general observation. I appreciate your and Dekimasu's insightful comments, to the extent that I understand them. (My participation on Wikipedia has been on the editing rather than on the administrative side—hence my limited knowledge of some procedures, which you have helped me understand better.) Nihil novi (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment from original closer. Even as the (uninvolved) closer of the RM discussion, a notification would have been nice. I had no idea this discussion was taking place. I do agree that at first glance this has the appearance of forum shopping. However, it is not necessarily bad form to reinitiate a move discussion after a no consensus close, and I generally agree with the AfD closer that consensus was more clear in the AfD than in the original RM discussion. This is not really a question of AfD being a "higher level" process than RM. Rather, the AfD took place after the no consensus RM close, and WP:CCC and all that. Thus I would be inclined to endorse the closure of the AfD–while noting that MR is for determining whether the closer acted appropriately, not for determining the "proper" outcome of any given discussion. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu is well justified in his complaint of non-notification.
Maybe I have peculiar hierarchical views, but the "higher level" comment reflects the reality, that RM discussions defer to AfD discussions, and not vice versa, and the importance of that is to counter the argument that discussion and deciding a page rename question at AfD so soon after a RM was improper. At AfD, the participants minds are supposedly focused on more important matters of topic sourcing, not mere name-use.
Absolutely agree that "MR is for determining whether the closer acted appropriately, not for determining the "proper" outcome of any given discussion", and I wonder whether anything should be actively done to counter the recent trend of re-arguing the facts at MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree. My main point is that IMHO the closer of the AfD should have (re)started a new RM. Using AfD to decide whether there is a consensus for move or not is problematic because not all people who commented in AfD felt the need or even realize there is a side discussion about a move going on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by the "closer acted appropriately" vs. "determining the proper outcome of a discussion" thing that's been said. MR is absolutely not about the closer in any way shape nor form, it's about the close of the discussion at hand, in this case, it's about the AfD close. And we are here to determine if that close was reasonable. So it appears that we are indeed here to determine if the outcome of the AfD discussion was correct, and not to determine anything at all about the closer's behavior. Am I missing something? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  12:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
By "determining whether the closer acted appropriately," I mean whether the closer accurately gauged the outcome of the discussion, not whether the closer should be chided. "Determining the 'proper' outcome of a discussion," with scare quotes around "proper," was a reference to the tendency of editors to attempt to right great wrongs and relitigate the discussions themselves at MR. Dekimasuよ! 04:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Suppose it's all in the "spin", then. Thank you for ridding me of confusion, Dekimasu! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse while perhaps procedurally anomalous, the discussion showed a consensus to move the page away from its incendiary title, which implied Jews were profiting while peasants experienced "Hell" (newsflash: Jewish is not a socioeconomic class). Whatever hand wavy way someone explains this is not anti-semitic, it is going to come off that way inevitably, and it was an incendiary title, a point that many people agreed on, including people who had been arguing against the proposer of deletion.--Calthinus (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Calthinus: It's terrifying to see the censorship by political correctness descend on Wikipedia. What would you like to move next? And you are lynching Negros? Nigger? Kike? So many incendiary-titled articles to make non-offensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Piotrus: It's hurtful to see you think that I would do that -- actually I deeply respect your work on Wiki as a whole. Personally I think this is different as the other three titles you mentioned are known as slurs and described as so, while this page is taking the stance that the view is not necessarily anti-semitic-- meaning that can be interpreted as giving it credence. This is a thing we will just have to agree to disagree on. We each have only one vote anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Calthinus, the Jews were indeed a separate social and economic class in the Commonwealth at the time of the proverb. In their role as managers of the landed notabilities' flour and lumber mills, operators of the notabilities' taverns and town businesses, collectors of the taxes, and traveling merchants, the entire production of the peasants passed through the Jews to the nobility. It was about the only way the Jews were allowed to make a living. In return the nobility provided protection. That is what the proverb means. It was paradise for the Jews because they were allowed to live there free from persecution. The rest of Europe was expelling Jews if they were lucky and massacring them if they weren't. "Paradise for the Jews" because they were allowed to stay alive. Icewhiz, I can see it could get twisted into anti-Semitic use in later times, but at the time of the proverb it meant we were allowed to live. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @StarryGrandma: Not later - it was anti-semitic at the time . The use of paradise meant it was "too good" [28] or "an anti-Jewish text, which claims that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should change".[29] Jews had a wretched existence elsewhere in Europe (and in Poland - not so great - but comparatively much better than elsewhere) - the cleric writing this (which is why there is heaven and hell) - was advocating for a change - for the relative safety in Poland to be modified. It is factual to say Jews were relatively safe in Poland (until 1648) - it wasn't quite a "paradise" - and by saying "paradise" - the writer was advocating for a change (back to "normal" conditions for Jews at the time). All this is neither here nor there in terms of notability/title of course - the 4 clause phrase is simply not notable - it is not really discussed as a phrase - the 2 word term is.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • StarryGrandma -- no, Jews were an ethnoreligious group that did have different economic behavior than other ethnic and religious groups but still had considerable internal diversity, and indeed in the period in question, countless Jews lived their whole lives in poverty.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
          • The original poem was xenophobic and antisemitic, but it became forgotten as the proverb endured - and the proverb, just like the 'Jewish Paradise' phrase, moved beyond pejorative, xenophobic associations and became neutral, if not positive, synonyms for the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Seriously, if they were antisemitic they wouldn't be used as such references by museums, academic publications, and press (including Israeli and Jewish-American). You think some of them might have balked at using an anti-semitic term, huh? The entire anti-semitic accusation is really just 2-3 scholars making this claim, and they didn't manage to convince anyone (hence Polin Museum still using this proverb in its exhibition's title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
COMMENT: The point about the POLIN Museum and other latter-day venues and authors apparently using the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" (Iudaeorum?) in a laudatory sense seems an excellent one. But I don't know whether the text, "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews", of which "Paradisus Judaeorum" is part, should be called a "poem". Wikipedia editors have seemed unsure what to call it. In Polish, it has been termed a paszkwil, which is a defamatory, calumniatory, libelous screed. Given this screed's mixed critical reception over the past 400 years and currently, I think I would just call it a "screed". Nihil novi (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: Paszkwil (pasquil - article need a split and expansion) refers to the original, mostly forgotten poem (several lines of verse). The phrase you cite above is commonly described as a proverb. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there a Polish or English standard short title, for the complete verse, which could serve as the Wikipedia article title? E.g., "1606 Pasquillus" (the original Latin—the verse was written in Latin), "1606 Pasquillo" (Italian), "1606 Pasquinade" (French), "1606 Pasquinada" (Spanish), "1606 Pasquille" (Dutch)? Nihil novi (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The 1606 Latin poem is called Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone (I couldn't find if it had a Latin name). But that name refers to the poem only, not to the better known proverb. Two academic in-depth works that nearly everyone seems to ignore are about the proverb. I am not aware of any in-depth work about either the original proverb or the term 'Jewish Paradise' (despite claims by several editors, nobody actually presented any in-depth works supporting notability of the new title, not that it seems to have been an issue for most people...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
One of the works being a directory style collections of saying from 1960, the other being a 1937 paper by an antisemitic politician who advocated for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland. AfD participants rejection the notion that these were secondary reliable sources. As for "Paradisus Judaeorum"/"Paradisus Iudaeorum" - multiple academic works are available - as evident in even a cursory google scholar search. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse move as a straightforward reading of the consensus at the recent AfD (I participated.) I note that the article continues to be highly problematic because many of the references are patent hate speech.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    Can you identify for us "obvious/patented hate speech" references, please? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete, per WP:TNT. This may not be a popular opinion, but I feel that the article has been sucking time that could have been spent elsewhere. Wikipedia has been doing just fine without this page, until it was created a few months ago. Since then, the following discussions have occurred:
There does not seem to be an end in sight. Wikipedia is better off without this page, while suitable content has already been added elsewhere. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's delete everything that's controversial and generates much discussion. Then at last! Wikipedia will be one boring read. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I’ve noticed too, filibustering is a thing in RM, MRV, and DRV. Maybe we should follow arbcom’s antifilibuster style: Each person posts only in their section, from which they may respond to others, and each person is subject to a word limit, after which they can link to a longer statement in their userspace. In communication, concision is important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand all the administrative jargon ("RM, MRV, DRV") but I can certainly endorse the final sentence. (In a previous employ, I suggested that, in the interest of reducing the number of needless emails, email authors should be required to pay for sending them, out of pocket.) Nihil novi (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Just fyi... RM = requested move, MRV = move review (this here forum) and DRV = deletion review, just different subjects for discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Guess I'm guiltier than most. My loving daughter once told her friend, "Don't ask my dad what time it is, he'll describe the inner workings of a clock." Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
All because one user is creating a storm in a teacup, and a number of others seem hijacked by political correctness. WP:NOTCENSORED. The article is not a problem, certain editors are, and I am afraid I have lost a good amount of respect for certain editors in this debacle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
So true, so sad. Nihil novi (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I think a big part of the problem here is that the vast majority of editors, most likely acting in good faith, certainly didn't hear the saying in real life, in Polish. In Poland, the saying has nothing to do with antisemitism (literally ZERO) and holds a positive end towards the Jews altogether. That's why the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw used the proverb for one of its exhibits. It never even crossed my mind that the saying could be described as an antisemitic rant. Never. Sadly the meaning of the poverb has been presented here in a much-twisted way, backed by 1 or 2 bizarre sources and a view of one persistent editor. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


2018 November

Jaggi Vasudev

Jaggi Vasudev (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he repeated the vastly refuted points in closing this requested move.

I have edited the talk page but not the requested move discussion because it seemed that the page was obviously going to be moved. However this outcome was not expected.

Two points have been made by the closure[30]:

1. "independent reliable sources – i.e. those not written by innerengineering, etc – typically write out the subject's name": Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the "independent reliable sources" referred him as Sadhguru.[31][32][33][34] We cannot find any reliable English sources that referred him as "Jaggi Vasudev" in the story's title during this month or the even the previous month. Overall, search hits "Sadhguru" (80 million) are many much higher compared to "Jaggi Vasudev" (7 million).

2. "No real argument has been made here that there is some reason why this article should go against the the manual of style entry" : See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is a clear absence of any other "Sadhguru" than this individual. No one else is referred as "Sadhguru", except this individual. No reliable sources have used "Sadhguru" and "Satguru" as interchangeable terms so far. The argument of "honorific" was completely WP:OR and misleading. If there was really any honorific called "Sadhguru" then we should seeing other any notable individual being referred as "Sadhguru".

That was about the strength of policy related argument. Overall there were 14 editors (including uninvolved ones like Marcocapelle, Amakuru, Arbor to SJ) who clearly supported the move, while there were only 6 editors (all deeply involved in the subject area) who opposed the move. The difference between oppose and support count is high. It can be said that mass badgering by a couple of opposing editors must have discouraged many potential support votes.

I was thinking that I should wait for the reply from the closer, but it seemed that it would be fair to start a discussion here since the closer's contribution history is sporadic (50 edits since 30 November 2017). Qualitist (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse (talk page watcher) (who participated in the RM) The closer has done an excellent job of articulating the community consensus for a discussion that was open for more than 5 weeks.
FYI, Since it has been pointed, Some very reliable English + Hindi sources that referred him as "Jaggi Vasudev" in the story's title
  • Jaggi Vasudev’s interaction with FTII Pune students cancelled indianexpress
  • Jaggi Vasudev gives fitness challenge to Rajinikanth timesofindia
  • अब जग्गी वासुदेव का स्टरलाइट का समर्थन navbharattimes
  • Ranveer Singh to be seen in conversation with Jaggi Vasudev at IIM-B firstpost
  • River inter-linking must be scientific, not political: Jaggi Vasudev economictimes
  • अब जग्गी वासुदेव भी देंगे बीएसएफ को योग का प्रशिक्षण amarujala
  • Jaggi Vasudev joins Baba Ramdev in support of Sterlite indianexpress
  • Jaggi Vasudev, out on Youth and Truth tour, will speak in JNU telegraph
  • 'No one should talk about unemployment in India': Jaggi Vasudev says problem arises due to preference for certain jobs firstpost
  • From Baba Ramdev to Jaggi Vasudev, BSF’s yoga quest changes direction indianexpress
  • I can go on but you get the idea.
  • Funny to read that every editor opposing this person's POV is "heavily involved", their factual evidence based comment are OR and everyone supporting is "uninvolved". As for me I am a Page Mover and regularly participate in RM discussions and WP:RMT, also I have never edited that page before this RM discussion. But hey, why let facts come in front of a good story. --DBigXray 11:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
All these sources are not recent but from 2 years, and each of them are at least 3 months old. Since this is all you could discover from 2017 - present, this was indeed my point that "Jaggi Vasudev" is not the common name. Here I presented reliable sources from this month alone that use "Sadhguru" as the story's title, while no one has used "Jaggi Vasudev" from this month or even the previous month. Hindi sources (which are way higher for "Sadhguru") are irrelevant since this is an English Wikipedia. By saying "deeply involved" I was saying that you edit this subject (India as a whole) too frequently, and in fact you have strong feelings about this individual, as shown by your own edits to the article.[35][36] This is not a requested move discussion round second, so it would be more better if you focus on the closer. Qualitist (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
talking about the dates and 2 years.
  • September 19, 2018
  • Jun 20, 2018
  • Jun 28, 2018
  • July 18, 2018
  • Nov 28, 2017
  • 25 Jun 2018
  • June 28, 2018
  • 22 September 2018
  • Sep 16, 2018
  • June 25, 2018
  • 22 Nov 2018
  • 8 Nov 2018
--DBigXray 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Your last two sources("22 Nov 2018", "8 Nov 2018") only makes a passing mention and that is not what I was referring. I was talking about "story's title", because "Jaggi Vasudev" is not used as a title of the story by any reliable source, not only this month but also the previous month. Why Wikipedia should use a less common name? It looks like you are now badgering this move review just like you badgered entire RM since you are working to make your petty comment look longer than it is. You made your comments on RM and here, now let uninvolved editors judge. Qualitist (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • notes from closer—couple comments:
    • did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he repeated the vastly refuted points in closing this requested move. – I don't understand this statement; if I'm doing something wrong please let me know.
    • Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the "independent reliable sources" referred him as Sadhguru... All 4 sources you listed do spell out his name. That is all I said. (And one of them is not independent.)
    • PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't say "use a title if the subject is the primary topic for the phrase" – e.g. President Obama is not the title of that page. (Also that note doesn't address what I said: no argument is given for going against WP:HONORIFIC.)
    • re. Honorifics: there is a strange claim here and in the rm that Sadhguru is not an honorific. Aside from whether this question has anything to do with how the article should be titled, this is just plain false: it is an honorific; it's an alternate spelling of Satguru. Am I missing something? Is like a nickname or something, having nothing to do with Satguru? Why do people keep saying it is not an honorific? Indian honorifics – should we fix that?
    • It is not a vote.
    Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Arent we supposed to discuss the page move? If so, then we should rather focus on name used as title as well as the most common name reliable sources have used to mostly refer the subject which is "Sadhguru". Not all 4 sources spell out the name because India Post made no mention of "Jaggi Vasudev". Even if the page was moved, we won't be omitting mention of his real name but only using title as "Sadhguru" like majority of reliable sources. Do reliable sources refer him as "Sadhguru" or "Jaggi Vasudev" when it comes to more common name? Answer is Sadhguru. Mention of "Satguru" is completely an irrelevant WP:OR since no reliable sources call this individual a "Satguru". Which reliable sources call him "satguru" and which reliable sources use "satguru" and "sadhguru" as interchangeable terms? None. Obviously page move is not a vote, but when minority has made no sensible argument then we really need to consider that there wqs no impact of unconvincing argument. Qualitist (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    Not all 4 sources spell out the name – ah, right – that one is the non-independent one. I think the rest has been addressed: it's independent sources we're looking at. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • So first you misrepresent sources then call independented sources "non-independent"? So far how many recent sources have you discovered which use "Jaggi Vasudev" as title? I am still waiting. Qualitist (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    then call independented sources "non-independent"? – See at the bottom of the article there where it says " contact us at [email protected]"?
    So far how many recent sources have you discovered – I'm the closer, not a participant – I don't think I discovered any. The RM discussion stands on its own; I think there were plenty listed there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You should highlight your rebuttal when your closer is objected. Simply suggesting that argument might have been made without providing any diff is insufficient. Rzvas (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're referring to; if there's something you're asking me to link to specifically? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • " I think there were plenty listed there". What were they? No reason to believe that they could counter the sources provided by supporters of RM. Rzvas (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    There are tons; look just above – DBigXray's 12:29, 27 Nov post has a bunch. But you know that. I don't understand what you're asking me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and rename. To me, this is a close one between "no consensus" and "moved", but certainly not a consensus to not move, as the close suggests. Should disclose that I am an uninvolved relister, and that I have been interested in meditation subjects since the 70s. So I am familiar with this person's lectures, and yet I've only known him as "Sadhguru" until I relisted this RM. At least on the circuits I travel, he is commonly known by that name. While it is likely that the name "Sadhguru" began as an honorific for this individual, many sources have been shown to indicate that it has become a common name for him. And so far as can be determined, as another spelling of "Satguru", that particular spelling, "Sadhguru", has only been reserved for this individual. Therefore, the supporters' args with policy (WP:COMMONNAME) seem to outweigh the opposers' guideline args (WP:HONORIFIC) in this case. Not in any sense trying to reargue the RM here, just explaining my reasons why the close of this RM should be rethought. [page move logs] Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was noted in the RM that people who interact with him primarily by consuming his services would know him as "Sadhguru". Of course, as a closer I would not count that for much vs. "hey all these independent reliable sources use his name instead". BTW I can live with "Hey Erik you should have closed it as 'no consensus'" – in that case we leave it where it is (and where it had been for years before the moves). It was certainly not the most firm consensus I've seen. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. The thing is, I can't in good conscience live with a "no consensus" close, although that would mean that a follow-up non-out-of-process RM could happen sooner rather than later. The arguments for COMMONNAME still seem to outweigh anything from the opposition, so it still seems to me that the move request should have been granted. Forgive me, as I fail to see how you could have concluded that there was in any way a consensus to not move. What may be needed here from you is a detailed, explicit explanation of how you came to that conclusion. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  04:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Paine Ellsworth, it is very heavy of you to put your life and conscience on the line over this move review. Are you sure you are a dispassionate reviewer here? What would the sadhguru advise with respect to this disagreement? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Making a joke at an MRV? ;>) What do those ngrams say to you, SmokeyJoe? They say to me, few or no books can be found that have been written about a fellow named "Sadhguru". And they also say that as a term, "Sadhguru" doesn't appear to be even remotely synonymous with the two "general" honorifics that did register. What do they say to you?Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  06:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Joke? I’m deadly serious about this topic of love and beauty. What does the ngram say? I read: possibly a neologism or a unique SMALLDIFF name, but we mustn’t go there becuase these words weren’t in the RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    What may be needed here from you is a detailed, explicit explanation of how you came to that conclusion. – I'm happy to elaborate or clarify or retract as appropriate if you have any specific questions about my detailed explicit explanations that I've given so far. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Where we seem to disagree is re. the strength of the policy arg COMMONNAME plus the guideline arg PTOPIC vs. the strength of the guideline arg. HONORIFIC. Still don't see how that can fly as a consensus to not move. Forgive me, but your close seems to be way off base. The only thing that makes me question my own bar is SmokeyJoe's endorsement, which I also cannot fathom. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  04:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    As discussed elsewhere in this MRV, COMMONNAME (note there it says "significant majority of independent...sources") and HONORIFIC both point to the close I made. PTOPIC is of course totally irrelevant to this RM (note that Sadhguru is still a redirect to the subject; that's all PTOPIC would say). I don't understand what you're saying. Do you feel I'm wrong to weigh independent sources more per COMMONNAME? Can you elaborate? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Where I think you've erred is simply in incorrectly assessing the strength of the COMMONNAME policy args in the RM. I don't understand how you could possibly come up with anything besides "moved", or at the very least "no consensus"? Just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose we're at a standstill and will have to wait and see what the MRV closer decides. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    I can see you aren't buying my discussion of how I applied COMMONNAME :) If there's anything specific about it I can address please let me know! (And like I said, I'd be happy to recharacterize this as no consensus; I feel like there is a global consensus about the issues involved, but even after subtracting out the SPAs there is clearly a high percentage of people that have issues with applying them in this particular case. It won't matter much, though; the current title is the longstanding one.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Nothing specific other than we disagree on the strength of those COMMONNAME policy args in the RM. And don't change your close to "no consensus" on my account, because while I think "no consensus" would make more sense than your seeing a consensus to not move, the RM to me is a classic case of consensus to move the article title to "Sadhguru". I could be wrong, heaven knows it's happened before; however, this time I'm not the single, lost voice in the wilderness. There are others here who agree that the consensus was to rename to Sadhguru, which makes me think I just might be correct in this case. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn what a mess. There are basically only two arguments presented. The main argument supporting a title of Sadhguru is that it is the WP:COMMONNAME for this person, and that this person is the primary topic for this spelling. Nobody seems to dispute that the person is often referred to this way, and this spelling (as opposed to Satguru) appears to primarily refer to this person. The argument supporting a title of Jaggi Vasudev is that Sadhguru is an religious honorific and cannot be used. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics is clear that Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev would not be an acceptable title, but doesn't seem to forbid a stand-alone title being a common name.
    While they're not quite fair comparisons, we have both Saint Peter and 14th Dalai Lama as titles of articles, suggesting that there's no site-wide rule against religious titles in article titles. Articles are titled Jesus and Muhammed (and more recently Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Sadhguru appears to be a title more akin to "Saint" than "Messiah", I don't see an inherent NPOV issue in using that title. Overall, the arguments for Sadhguru are stronger, and there's a 2-1 numerical majority supporting that position. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    Notes: No! As noted in my close, another argument was that Sadhguru is *not* the common name in independent sources, and Jaggi Vasudev is. site-wide rule – WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also: wp:NOTAVOTE applies, especially with a number of SPAs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparent misleading POV pushing doesnt count as sensible "argument". It is completely absurd to claim that "Sadhguru" is not the more common name. All 6 opposes came from those who are deeply involved in the subject. OSE don't apply here. Qualitist (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @ErikHaugen: It seems fairly easy through Google search to verify that this person is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the spelling "Sadhguru". There's no easy way to verify whether this is the COMMONNAME. I noticed after my first comment that at least one of the editors advocating for this change has been site-banned, and highly recommend any commenters read the ENTIRE talk page and not just the RM section. Overall, "consensus" seemed to be that newspapers calling him Sadhguru in a title and then Jaggi Vasudev in the article doesn't mean that the common name can't be Sadhguru; I don't see "independent sources" mentioned anywhere other than the close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    —Suppose we determine that the PRIMARYTOPIC for the spelling variant Sadhguru is this subject (i.e., we determine through consensus that WP:SMALLDETAILS applies here in this way). That would not mean that the title of the article should be Sadhguru. It would mean that Sadhguru should redirect to this article. I hope that clears up why PRIMARYTOPIC is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, no. It needs to be both the PRIMARYTOPIC for Sadhguru, and the COMMONNAME for the person. One is easily proved. The other is disputed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    point remains – that wasn't really relevant to the RM, and if everyone agrees this is the PT for sadhguru this does not in any way imply that we should move the article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see "independent sources" mentioned anywhere other than the close. – Independent sources are the gold standard on Wikipedia. Specifically as it relates to titling decisions – what to "call" something – WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear about independent sources: as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. I hope that clarifies why I have been talking about independent sources this whole time. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Their own sources seem to use Sadhguru, independent sources tend to use both approximately equally. Overall, I see this as closer to Lorde instead of Ella Yelich-O'Connor than an argument to use Rebbe instead of Menachem Mendel Schneerson. If it were purely up to my whim, I'd have both of those (and this article) to the given name. But the question isn't about my whim. It's what the consensus about how site policy is regarding names, and site policy is very lenient towards allowing people to use chosen names, even if absurd. I note XXYYXX as an example with a current open move discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Regarding Lorde – see my comment below about calling myself Th3 P0P3 – independent sources call her Lorde, so COMMONNAME would suggest Lorde, and HONORIFIC even agrees with that. independent sources tend to use both approximately equally – exactly, and many of those use both, so HONORIFIC comes in to play. All this analysis is in the RM, I think. allowing people to use chosen names – sure! as long as independent sources also use it, Per COMMONNAME. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and independent ENGLISH sources refer to Sadhguru as Sadhguru (and to no one else as Sadhguru). Just because non-independent sources do so as well does not dilute the relevance of this fact. I think you're trying to make a distinction of no difference between Lorde and Sadhguru. The fact that Sadhguru and Satguru are spelling variations of the same word in Hindi does not matter. Languages evolve. English seems particularly prone to borrowing words from other languages and using them differently. Heck, look at the differences between varieties of English. In this case a particular spelling of a Hindi word, an honorific in that language, has evolved into a name for a particular person in English, that person's most COMMONNAME in English in fact. COMMONNAME applies here, an opinion supported by a consensus of the RM participants, one supported by policy, guidelines and conventions, and one you dismissed in your supervote close. --В²C 17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    I think you have a point: there's a pretty good case to be made that Sadhguru should redirect to Jaggi Vasudev (which it does currently). The distinction between Lorde and Jaggi Vasudev is that independent RS regularly use Lorde without mentioning her given name. Definitely COMMONNAME applies in both cases :) – I've gone on at length already about how I've applied it in this close. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    If Sadhguru should at least redirect to this article, that blows the HONORIFIC objection to using it as the title out of the water, because the same objection would apply identically to use of the alleged honorific as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT as does to its use as a title. I don't think this was stated explicitly in the RM discussion, but it's certainly implied by all who discounted or dismissed the HONORIFIC objection and relied on COMMONNAME. Also, while Lorde is used more often in RS without mentioning her given name than is the case for Sadhguru, that's a difference in degree, not in kind. --В²C 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    It doesn't blow the HONORIFIC objection out of the water; why would the HONORIFIC objection apply to redirects? What are you talking about? that's a difference in degree, not in kind – Right, but COMMONNAME is all about degree. Hence the name. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    A redirect is an alternative title (if it's not an alternative title - a name, term or phrase someone is likely to enter to search or link with to find or reference the given article on the give topic - it shouldn't be a redirect). With some notable exceptions, most of the same rules/expectations that apply to actual titles also apply to redirects. If Sadhguru is really a common alternative English spelling of the honorific Satguru, a notion rejected in the RM discussion and ignored by the closer, then it should redirect to Satguru because we don't refer to people with honorifics on WP. On the other hand, if it's not a violation of HONORIFIC to redirect Sadhguru to the article about the person, because that name is used more often as a name to refer to the person than as an alternative spelling of the honorific, then HONORIFIC also cannot be an objection to using that name as the actual title. --В²C 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    Nope; no idea where you got that idea. I don't think there's any policy/guideline suggesting that there is such restriction on redirects. As you said, if it's a "term or phrase someone is likely to enter to search" – maybe it's ok for it to be a redirect. In any case, not really relevant to this RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    It's not spelled out, but it's like any other objection to a title. If there is a BLP objection, for example, to referring to someone in a certain way in a title, then we almost certainly can't use that in a redirect either. Basically, if a title is unacceptable for a particular reason, then it's almost certainly not acceptable as a redirect either. And just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it needs to be the title, of course, just that that reason is not valid to reject it (as redirect or as title). --В²C 22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    You're just making up rules :) We make redirects all the time that we wouldn't use as titles. That's why we make redirects :) misspellings, names that aren't the common name, etc, etc, etc. You know all this, though. Anyway this isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. My reading of the discussion is "no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move". The closer's call is within admin discretion.reaffirming the underlined -SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC) I think "consensus to move" is definitely not a correct reading. In support of not moving, with no or poor consensus, no one made a case that the status quo has a real problem and that something urgently needed doing. The page should be left at the long term stable title, as it was before User:Anthony Appleyard's 04:17, 6 August 2018 move on the basis of ghits. This is a case for: Wait six months at least, and if you still feel that the community got the decision wrong, start a fresh proposal with a better rationale that covers all the unresolved issues in the discussion of Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Requested_move_20_October_2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I didnt came here to verify if the action was within admin discretion or not, since page moves needs no admin actions either. It is to verify if the closer was done properly or not, and it was completely improper since the closing editor inaccurately claims that "Satguru" is the alternative name for "Sadhguru" without providing a single source and thinks that passing mention equates to use of the term as page title per their comment here. Closer seems nothing more than a supervote at this stage. We are not here for righting great wrongs. Qualitist (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Admins are vetted at RfA on their experience and ability to recognize consensus, and they deserve that little bit more respect in calling a rough consensus. If this were a WP:NAC I would not be giving a happy comment. "Satguru"/"Sadguru"/"Sadhguru" are all interchangeable close-enough homophone transliterations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Being an admin gives you no special privelege in closer. Which reliable source calls "Jaggi Vasudev" a "Satguru" or "Sadguru"? They all call him "Sadhguru". This is exactly what I said, that the argument for "oppose" was petty and misleading. Qualitist (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Being an admin gives a special privilege in calling a rough consensus on a controversial discussion. See WP:NAC. Calling a rough consensus is a fairly advanced skill, mixed with a fair bit of arbitrary discretion. Which reliable source calls "Jaggi Vasudev" a "Satguru" or "Sadguru"? I'm talking from my reading of the discussion and google searches, particularly google image searches. They all return the same pictures. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Being an admin gives you no special privelege to right great wrongs. I didnt asked for Google images but "reliable source" (see WP:RS), which in fact you are misrepresenting because "Sadhguru" shows images of this individual, while "Satguru" shows more images of Guru Nanak and few others. Qualitist (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Right great wrongs? What is the great wrong? I don't think the discussion includes a clear distinction between "Sadhguru" and "Satguru", but if you feel there is one, and that it is important, make the case more clearly in a fresh RM in six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My reading of the discussion is "no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move".
Yes, I can see a possible case for no consensus; however, please explain how the policy of COMMONNAME, for which I think a very strong case has been made in this RM, can be overwhelmed by the guideline of HONORIFIC? The closer has not yet been able to explain this, so perhaps you can?
...if you still feel that the community got the decision wrong...
Actually, it seems to me that the community got the decision right; it was the close that was not synched to the community's decision.
If this were a WP:NAC I would not be giving a happy comment.
Which seems to make the case that the close is even worse having been made by someone who should have known better?
"Satguru"/"Sadguru"/"Sadhguru" are all interchangeable close-enough homophone transliterations.
Not to compare a mere guru with a deity, however the two terms "god" and "God" sound exactly the same, and yet they have very different meanings, don't they? Countless such examples exist. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  05:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Rereading the discussion. Capt.a.Haddock’s analysis was convincing both to me and to other participants, strongly backed up by DBigXRay, with much better source analysis than any opposers who too frequently refer to ghits, which are unreliable, and certainly don’t distinguish quality sources. Sources admit Sadhguru is an honorific, which is to say, not a real proper name. Evidence is presented that it is a mere transliteration variation of Satguru and Sadguru, and it is a very subtle variation, t -> d -> dh in the middle of a word is an accepted accent variation within English around the world. COMMONNAME? Jaggi Vasudev has a perfectly good COMMONNAME claim, no one challenged that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
More ... the discussion is was too contested and complicated for a NAC close. No NACer should have touched it. On HONORIFIC, I read that as a red herring, both at the RM and here. Honorifics are generally avoided, but that is not a deciding factor. Saint Peter, for example. It does not take much analysis to work out that Sadhguru is a honorific. Contested was whether it is meaningfully distinguished from Satguru and Sadguru. Also contested was whether quality sources use it for introduction without need for “Jaggi Vasudev”, and how “quality” sources relates to “independence” of sources is not settled. Also complicating is how different people read source introductions, because both headlinese and repeated subsequent shorthand use with the same document, has to be downweighted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Another note from closer – I gave more weight to WP:HONORIFIC/WP:UCRN (e.g. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)) than to the vote count. I'm a believer in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Jaggi Vasudev, and Sadhguru are used more or less uniformly across independent sources, then the argument was made that you go with Jaggi Vasudev. Evidence was supplied, no coherent rebuttal seemed to get much support, etc. That's how I think closes should be done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet you have failed to find a single source from this month or past month which use "Jaggi Vasudev" as the title of the story. Evidence doesn't means misrepresenting search result and badgering to right great wrongs. Thats what all 6 opposing editors did who are deeply involved in the subject. 6 oppose against 14 support after mass badgering is opposite to your assertion that rebuttal didnt "seemed to get much support, etc."(what "etc."?) Qualitist (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Source article title vs. in-article text isn't an important distinction. (AFAICT, that was stated in the RM and nobody disputed it?) seemed to get much support – I'm referring specifically to a coherent rebuttal to the argument that HONORIFIC has something to do with how we title this page. A !vote count on the overall question is a separate matter entirely. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and rename to the proposed title. The two arguments seemed very weak and made up against WP:COMMONNAME. Inaccuracies within oppose votes also show that they agreed that "Sadhguru" is more common name but falsely claimed it as a honorific despite the name is used only for this very particular subject. Use of Hindi language sources to counter arguments favoring English wiki naming convention seemed like grasping at straws and lack of policy based argument by opposes. Overall the oppose' argument was incoherent and unconvinving. The difference between support and oppose count also speaks volumes. Rzvas (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Couple questions:
    The two arguments seemed very weak and made up against WP:COMMONNAME–common name talks about determining the "prevalence in a significant majority of independent" sources – are you saying here that you think that distiction is weak? Should we change COMMONNAME to not prefer considering independent sources? Or – are you suggesting that the conclusion that independent sources use "Jaggi Vasudev" is itself weak and made up? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    falsely claimed it as a honorific despite the name is used only for this very particular subjectvery compelling arguments were made that this is a minor spelling variant of an honorific that is used for several people. One editor, @Born2cycle:, did argue that spelling variants could potentially render honorifics as not honorifics. (e.g., suppose I call myself Th3 P0P3 – maybe that is not an honorific, and could be the title of my page if it catches on per COMMONNAME.) However, this argument was rather thoroughly countered in the RM: e.g. noting that this spelling is occasionally used for other Satgurus, etc, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Any comment that improperly used Hindi language sources to counter naming convention for English Wikipedia deserved to be ignored per WP:NHC yet you simply imposed such ignorance in the closer since oppose votes were entirely depending on such non-policy based argument. Disingenuous arguments like "current news articles still routinely refer to Jaggi Vasudev", where posted enough times[37][38] when it cited only two sources from last year and anyone can tell those sources are not "current". Let us not argue against the established fact that proposed title is a common name where as the present name has low amount of significance. No argument seems to have been made to establish that there is one another person who is also referred as Sadhguru. You need to take some time to evaluate the validity of oppose argument than citing mere existence. Rzvas (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
We do use non-english sources sometimes (although not to determine common name) – what usage of Hindi sources are you referring to? I don't think my close relied on anything inappropriate in this area. The RM did link to references that used Sadhguru to refer to someone else; e.g. diff, not that this is a particularly important point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
We can't use non-English sources to determine common name in this Wikipedia, and editors opposed to RM were going against that rule. That diff pretty much says something like "sky is red" because it is aimed to confuse readers and misrepresent 3 different English spellings than identify existence of any other notable or even non-notable "Sadhguru". Assessment of the validity of the argument is important, not just dependance on mere existence of the argument because chances are high that arguments can be disingenuous. This is why I also said that difference between support and oppose count clearly speaks volumes. Rzvas (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you point to the problematic argument that you have in mind? I didn't notice one, and I don't think I took such an argument into account when closing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The RM did link to references that used Sadhguru to refer to someone else... ErikHaugen, were any of those references found in reliable sources? Certainly the ones cited in the diff you quoted above are not. Proboards.com doesn't make the cut, LOL. In any case, you're right it doesn't matter much, because even if Sadhguru refers to others, this use is clearly primary. I'll just add that just because it's used as an honorific in some cases, it is clearly used as his most common name in independent reliable sources like in the NY Times I cited below. That does matter, and much. --В²C 01:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, but I don't think it matters much. It's totally obvious that this is an alternate romanization. It's सद्गुरु (Satguru) in Hindi sources, so we know the intent here is the same word. Sources were mentioned in the RM that use Satguru for this subject. etc. Also, just what is this? Do you really think this is a different word? Why are we spending so much time discussing this question?? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It’s the American silent T spreading into Indian English. See for example http://www.confidentvoice.com/blog/the-dropped-t-sound/, Americans actually think this poor pronunciation makes for better English. As a developing dialect effect in transliteration, this Satguru vs Sadhguru spelling is most definitely TOOSMALL a SMALLDETAIL. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And yet your own ngrams check and the fact that no one else goes by the name that is specifically spelled "Sadhguru" appear to indicate that it is very much more than just too small a small detail, n'est-ce pas? "Sadhguru" really does seem to be this guy's COMMONNAME, and no amount of rationalizing can change that. The Article titles policy should very much rule in this case! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  14:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That observation speaks to PRIMARYTOPIC, not COMMONNAME. This is largely irrelevant to the question at hand: this has more to do with e.g. whether Sadhguru should redirect to Jaggi Vasudev (incidentally, it does currently). There is another discussion about that point – if Sadhguru should redirect to Satguru: I think that discussion is mostly about "it's obviously just another romanization even if Vasudev's camp is largely the only to use it" versus SMALLDETAILS. That discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but maybe y'all could revive it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, here is where some editors disagree with your close. Admittedly, part of my disagreement does stem from my own experience with this subject having been involved in meditation since the 70s. I've followed this man for some time, now, and I've only known him as "Sadhguru". Didn't know his actual name until I relisted this RM. So, for me, the COMMONNAME args in the RM blast the rest out of the water, and the article should be titled with the name he is commonly known by, "Sadhguru". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and to expand on a point I made above, regardless of what the semantics are in Hindi, what's relevant here is usage in reliable/independent English sources. And there, while sometimes Sadhguru is also used as an honorific, it also commonly used as his name, so commonly that it is his most COMMONNAME, while the other spellings are not. So just because in Hindi Sadhguru is a variant spelling of Satguru etc., in ENGLISH it has evolved into being a particular person's COMMONNAME. And that was the consensus of the RM discussion that the closer ignored in his supervote. WP:SMALLDETAILS, by the way, is a section of WP:AT, where COMMONNAME is also found, not at WP:D, where PRIMARYTOPIC is found. The point of SMALLDETAILS is that two names differing only in small details can never-the-less each be used titles for different articles. --В²C 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and rename to the proposed title. I was involved: originally closed in favor of the move, reverted my close upon learning the discussion was still ongoing, and eventually weighed in in favor of the move. I was so taken aback when I read this close that I even commented about it on a colleague's talk page, asking for SmokeyJoe to do a "sanity check"[39]. Upon further reflection the closing comment still seems like a super vote to me. In fact, you could copy/paste the words verbatim into a !vote comment and it would work just fine. I don't see much evidence of a reading of consensus. I think the close reflects the opinion of the closer about what should happen, not a reflection of what consensus is about what should happen. The closer takes it as a given that "Sadhguru" is an honorific despite that very point being challenged (in this case this particular spelling has become this particular person's name) and largely not accepted by the participants. And on that basis alone he decided the title should not be changed. This was a super vote, not a good close, and the call was opposite of consensus. --В²C 18:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    I can't argue with much in SmokeyJoe's reply, although some of it is slightly off topic. I think most of it is repeated in SJ's section above; definitely worth a read. I would say most of my closes read like a !vote, since I explain the rationale. Hopefully explaining is ok to do :) You did challenge whether it is an honorific, true, but a) I don't think your argument was compelling, b) I don't think anyone else thought it was, and c.) there was a very compelling counterargument (including noting that the subject is sometimes referred to by the other spellings!). Ultimately, this line of reasoning for discarding WP:HONORIFIC simply did not carry the day. I think the rest of this has been addressed above; e.g. you seem to be brushing off the main arguments such as COMMONNAME's insistence on independent sources, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    You keep bringing that up as if it’s relevant here. First, the only person bringing up this distinction of usage in “independent“ sources in the original discussion was you in your supervote close; it was not an argument at the RM, much less a “main” one. Second, many independent sources confirm he is known as Sadhguru, including The NY Times[1]. Third, it doesn’t matter that they also give his other name. They explicitly say he is known as Sadhguru and that’s how they refer to him in the rest of the article. That’s the ‘’quintessential’’ example of WP:COMMONNAME. Finally, we’re not supposed to re-argue the original RM here; note I’m countering the closer’s arguments. I’m really just demonstrating how the close was a supervote, perhaps the most blatant one I’ve ever seen. —В²C 06:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Beddie, Allaina (April 25, 2016). "My Meditation Binge, in a nutshell". NY Times. Retrieved November 26, 2018. the Indian yogi and mystic Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru
  • The need for independent sources was discussed quite at length in the RM; it really seems like you haven't read it, if you didn't notice that. this is but one example. as if it’s relevant here – it's kind of central to COMMONNAME. ‘’quintessential’’ example of WP:COMMONNAME – yes, some articles do that! Many others don't; see the RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    My point: nobody but you used the term independent in the original RM discussion, yet you relied on that heavily in your closing "explanation" of your supposed reading of consensus. The duty to rely on reliable sources (like the NY Times I just cited above, and many others cited in the original discussion) to determine WP:COMMONNAME goes without saying in all RM discussions involving COMMONNAME determination. Reliable sources were used to support the COMMONNAME argument. Here's another one, from the CBC: [40]. The bottom line is this: the definition of COMMONNAME is "a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article". Further, COMMONNAME states: Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" It was repeatedly and abundantly shown in the RM discussion that Sadhguru indicates the subject of the article AND is most commonly used in independent, reliable sources to refer to this subject, and you, the closer, simply ignored all that. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you're not acknowledging your obvious error. --В²C 19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    My point: nobody but you used the term independent – Wha? Why on earth would it matter if other words were used to express the same idea? If that is your point, then frankly, I'm disappointed in your point. :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    shown in the RM discussion that Sadhguru ... is most commonly used in independent... sources – Much better! This is actually relevant – if you're right, then maybe I screwed up, and HONORIFIC doesn't come in to play – like Lorde or something. Power Enwiki, above, observed independent sources tend to use both approximately equally. I was basing my close on an observation similar to that after carefully reading the RM; the name and the title are both used regularly in independent rel: sometimes both, sometimes one in the title of the source and the other in the body, and so on. IF that observation is on target, HONORIFIC makes it clear what to do: don't use the title. I don't think anyone really argued in the RM that HONORIFIC doesn't say that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    COMMONNAME refers to independent and reliable sources. RM participants referred to reliable ones. You, uniquely, focused on the independent aspect. That's raising an issue others did not raise; It's not other words expressing the same idea; independent is not the same idea as reliable. That's why your close was supervoting. As to what HONORIFIC says, you're again assuming the unique spelling with the h is never-the-less an honorofic, but that aside, even if it is, consider this: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included.. Where is Sadhguru written about in independent reliable sources and NOT called Sadhguru? It's rarely found. QED. --В²C 22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    You, uniquely, focused on the independent aspect. That's raising an issue others did not raise – you said this earlier, and I replied to it, giving an example proving it wrong. Did you see that? Here's another one. What's going on here B2C? It's rarely found. – Several were given in the RM, and see just above in xray's "12:29, 27 November 2018" comment? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Both of those links to comments from the RM discussion the participant was referring to reliable sources, not independent ones. In this latest one they refer to RS, not IS. I don't deny that a few source citations can be found that don't refer to him as Sadhguru, and they have been cited. My point is they are rare, and, since they are rare, the whole argument about not using it per HONORIFIC evaporates. --В²C 23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    They say things like "Unplugged with Sadhguru" is a promotional video.... – the point being that because it is not an independent source, it does not count (much) toward COMMONNAME. (that is what COMMONNAME says, also). This editor, in the RM, is invoking a point about COMMONNAME and independent sources without using the words independent, common, or name. May seem weird, but it happens all the time. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse – I was not involved, and know nothing about this guy, but I've reviewed the RM discussion, the close, and the discussion above, and it appears to me that the close was very sensible in light of the evidence and opinions presented, and in light of our title policy and style guidelines. In short, the name is more appropriate than the honorific, as many argued and guidelines support. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: Those who argued against the proposal were only making non-policy based disingenuous argument by misrepresenting sources in Hindi language sources, which is against the policy on naming convention in this Wikipedia. Which reliable sources say that it is an "honorific"? It seems that "Sadhguru" is reserved only for this person. Unless that name is being used to refer anyone else other than him then we can dispute it as honorific, but "Sadhguru" is reserved only for this person and no one has provided any other notable or even non-notable individual who is referred as "Sadhguru". WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are not supporting an uncommon name like "Jaggi Vasudev", but "Sadhguru". Rzvas (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) sign to re-ping Rzvas (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to remind others of WP:NOTAVOTE here since the concerns raised by OP are not being answered by those who are endorsing the closer. Here are the concerns that needs to be resolved:
  • 1) If "Sadhguru" is honorific according to reliable sources and if it is really being used for any other notable individual in English language source.
  • 2) If "Jaggi Vasudev" is a more common name in English sources.
It doesn't make any sense to endorse the closer as long as these these questions lack a valid answer with proper evidence. Rzvas (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up NOTAVOTE again, and I think this is a reasonable summary: does the fact that it is an honorific matter, and what does COMMONNAME say about the sources brought up? Those are the two questions. I think you're being a bit disingenuous with " not being answered", though – these two questions have been discussed at great length here and in the RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparent rehashing and treatment of this page as RM round 2 by chief opposer of the RM -- Rzvas (talkcontribs)
Please feel free to respond to the commenter when warranted. -- Paine Ellsworth (talkcontribs)
  • Endorse, retain Jaggi Vasudev: (I participated in the RM. The article and the entire topic is sock and COI central. And then there are the people who are trying to game the system now as well.) I've presented most of my arguments in the original RM; please read through them as well as some of the replies to other users. I'm going to address the arguments posted by the only-1-month-old-but-experienced account, Qualitist, here:
  • Absolutely incorrect because this month alone, the "independent reliable sources" referred him as Sadhguru.
Firstly, boomlive.in and azertag.az are not "independent reliable sources". Neither is indiapost.com which Qualitist possibly misunderstood to be the same as indiapost.gov.in. The cited indiapost.com article is also either an advertorial or syndicated drivel which is evident from the "To learn more visit: InnerEngineering.com or contact us at [email protected]" footer text. The Isha foundation is a business built upon promoting its founder and they appear to heavily use SEO to promoted said business and founder. Wikipedia is an arm of their SEO business.
As I've noted in my RM arguments, the aggregator-in-chief of online news that is Google News classifies news about "Jaggi Vasudev" and "Sadhguru" under "Jaggi Vasudev". (1, 2)
  • There is a clear absence of any other "Sadhguru" than this individual. No one else is referred as "Sadhguru", except this individual. No reliable sources have used "Sadhguru" and "Satguru" as interchangeable terms so far. The argument of "honorific" was completely WP:OR and misleading. If there was really any honorific called "Sadhguru" then we should seeing other any notable individual being referred as "Sadhguru".
Qualitist is interestingly leaving out the homophonous Sadguru from his list of variants. And there is nothing OR about Satguru, Sadguru, or Sadhguru being honorifics. As WP:NCIN attests, Guru, Jagadguru, Gurudev etc. are honorifics. Sadguru is a lesser form of Jagadguru, the "world teacher".
I have provided a list of Satgurus and Sadgurus (plenty of whom are on Wikipedia) in my RM arguments.
And it's easy enough to find a number of references to other Sadhgurus besides Jaggi if you play with combinations of these honorifics. See for example, "Sadhguru+Swamigal" "Sadhguru Swamigal", "Sri+Sadhguru" "Sri Sadhguru" , etc. There's even one resident here on Wikipedia: Sri Sadhguru Sadhu Laxman Rao Ji Maharaj.
After my mention, someone deemed it fit to move Sri Sadhguru Sadhu Laxman Rao Ji Maharaj to draft space.
As for reliable sources not using Sadguru and Sadhguru synonymously, consider possibly the most reliable of India's newspapers, The Hindu, which also prints columns by Vasudev as Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev or just Jaggi Vasudev. It's easy enough to find this variant being used in other papers as well.
Even if you consider Vasudev's official site alone, you can see that plenty of people "sadguru" use Sadhguru and Sadguru interchangeably. They are actually spelling it correctly as it is written in Indic scripts. It is also worth noting that all the Indian language wikis I checked only use Jaggi Vasudev as the title because there is no silent h-like artefact that they can use to make the Sadguru honorific seemingly unique to Jaggi Vasudev.
Jaggi Vasudev himself calls his 'past-life persona' Sadhguru Shree Brahma. So he possibly sees himself as one in a line of Sadhgurus.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hatting this comment that you disagree with, @Rzvas:, was completely inappropriate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and rename - I have been reading this discussion for days so far I have came to conclusion that there was no reason provided in the closing note that why we should be ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. Oppose comments however obfuscated words of Hindi and English to somehow make it appear that the proposed title is a known honorific which can be best described as unconvincing original research which was not supported by reliable sources. Still the closer seems to have fell for it,[41] which is itself doing nothing but setting a bad precedent that we need to give more weight to original research than findings supported by reliable sources and ultimately WP:TITLE itself. No argument was made if the real name is more written in "independent reliable sources"(or if this was mentioned in discussion at all) contrary to the closing note. There are too many reasons to believe that the close was a supervote. Lorstaking (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    I absolutely fell for it. It is clearly an alternate romanization; there is tons of discussion about the points you raised above. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to admin It is clear to me, based on the !voters "supporting the move" at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here, that the "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev" and the members of the "Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev" have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process. What is even more interesting is that some are even tag teaming and edit warring on this page [42][43][44] to hat !votes that are against their POV. --DBigXray 06:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No one here is paid by Sadhguru. I have not seen a single RM supporter to be opposing the closer. So far I am only seeing two chief opposers of the RM bludgeoning here and attacking every participant by using non-policy based argument and fabricating evidence to push it further. Your assumption of bad faith should make it clear to those who endorsed the closer that the chief opposers were editing in bad faith and that should the final nail in the coffin. Rzvas (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for giving more evidence to my note here. It is very clear for anyone to see what is happening in the thread above and who are the ones acting in bad faith and bludgeoning. DBigXray 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I did not claim so, but your statement that "none of them are paid by Sadhguru" is interesting. I assume that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum that in my opinion, seems to be going on. It would be interesting to know what else is mentioned over there. Knowing that one of these participants on the talk page User:Regstuff has already been site banned for Paid editing.--DBigXray 08:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev ... been mobilised enmasse" is a clear accusation of paid editing and doubling down with those accusations really leaves zero doubt. If one person was banned (who didnt participated in RM), it doesnt means long term editors who participated in RM or here become paid editors. Qualitist (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Even if people are influenced by a movement, doesn't mean they're wrong. I suggest everyone focus on the arguments being presented, both here and at the RM, not who is presenting them or why. --В²C 20:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Gentle reminder that this is Move review and is not the place for personal discussions and accusations. If editors have personal stuff to discuss with or about other editors, then please take it to an appropriate user talk page. It is important to the closing admin that this discussion remain focused on the closure of the RM in question, that is whether or not it was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. That is our focus here, and nothing else. Thanks to everyone for doing their best to stay focused! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. A key assumption in the close was that "Sadhguru" is an honorific and the key finding in the close is that it was not the COMMONNAME of this person per usage in independent reliable English sources. But the NY Times introduces him like this: the Indian yogi and mystic Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru [45] That's clearly not using "Sadhguru" as an honorific, and is explicitly declaring it to be his COMMONNAME as is practically possible. I mean, it's like saying, Ella Yelich-O’Connor, better known as Lorde, which the NY Times has also said, declaring Lorde to be that persons's COMMONNAME. Here is the quintessential independent reliable source explicitly contradicting the key assumption and finding of the close we're reviewing here. And the NYT is not alone. National Geographic, another unquestionably reliable and independent source, contradicts the close as well: "Jaggi Vasudev, known as Sadhguru". An so do does NDTV, an independent Indian television company founded in 1988: "Jaggi Vasudev, better known as Sadhguru". These reliable English sources do not treat Sadhguru as an honorific and explicitly state that he is known or even is better known by this name. This was also the position expressed in the nom ("nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev" so Sadhguru serves apparently as the common name.") and by the majority of the participants in the RM that supported the proposal. The closer was simply mistaken, and the close needs to be reversed accordingly. --В²C 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the only person in the world who goes by the pseudonym "Sadhguru". To keep this article at its present title is like keeping Mark Twain at Samuel Clemens, or Cher at Cherilyn Sarkisian. The WP:COMMONNAME article title policy represents a community consensus that was ignored in this close and should not go unheeded. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    Cher is a lot like Lorde, I think; this has been hashed out above. Independent sources almost always just use those stagenames. Contrast that with this subject; as PowerEnwiki said above: "independent sources tend to use both approximately equally" – I think the RM largely settled on that assessment as well. If I'm wrong, and independent sources use sadhguru significantly more than they use the given name, then maybe the close was bad, and like you say this is like Cher. (All that analysis stands even if sadhguru exclusively applies to this subject...) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    I think everyone recognizes it's not as obvious a call as Cher or Lorde. Ultimately, purely objectively, it may be a toss up. But RM participants were asked to weigh in and the majority clearly thought Sadhguru was more commonly used. That's the consensus finding you overrode with your Supervote close, apparently significantly based on assuming Sadhguru is an honorific even in this context in which many RS clearly use it as his name, not as as an honorific. That's why your decision needs to be reversed, not because this is like Cher. --В²C 22:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to add that the strongest opposers in the original RM (who apparently influenced the closer) seemed motivated by a belief that it was only or primarily promoters of Sadhguru that use that honorific spelling variant to refer to him, but the reality is that the campaign (if that's what it is) has worked: reliable independent sources have recognized that he is known as Sadhguru, as noted above, and are using it accordingly. It's not our job to evaluate whether reliable sources were duped - we simply follow their lead. --В²C 23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • “It's not our job to evaluate whether reliable sources were duped - we simply follow their lead”?! What an absolutely stupid statement. Wikipedia needs intelligent editors who know, among many other things, how to evaluate source reliability. A duped source is not a reliable source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • First of all, I don't believe the NY Times was duped. Do you? (I should have put "duped" in quotes - didn't think anyone would take it literally - I meant "influenced by their usage to use it themselves" - all language evolves like that). Secondly, I'm not talking about a source ("duped" or not); it's many reliable sources that refer to this person that treat Sadhguru as his name, not an honorific (see examples above). Thirdly, and most importantly, it doesn't matter WHY the usage is what it is in reliable sources; it's our job to follow the usage when determining COMMONNAME. Also, I'm not talking about evaluating source reliability for content inclusion; it's about evaluating usage for COMMONNAME determination. The reliability of sources like the ones I cited - NY Times, National Geographic and NDTV - is a given, especially in the context relevant to title determination: usage/COMMONNAME evaluation. The whole point is to use the name for a given topic that is most familiar to our users, and we presume that familiarity stems from usage in reliable sources. --В²C 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You’ve only sort of clarified. It is editors’ jobs to weed out duped sources as compromised and unreliable. I disagree with your third point. How it is being used does matter, scholarly uses matter a lot, casual reference less, and repetition of promotion even more less. Secondary source use is preference, and primary / secondary source distinction depends on how it is being used. In any case, your sentence as written demanded objection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You took my sentence out of context and you are conflating examining usage in reliable sources for determining COMMONNAME with use of RS for verifiable article content. In any case my point stands. Truly reliable, independent and secondary sources indicate common usage of the “Sadhguru” variant spelling in English is as this particular person’s name (and virtually that of no one else), not as an honorific, this was the consensus of the RM participants, and the closer erred in missing all that. —В²C 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I in no way was thinking anyone was being duped by anyone to inform my close. However I did take away from the RM that independent RS don't use sadhguru significantly more often than the given name. That's all, no duping. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and rename - (disclaimer: I supported the move) the nomination statement at the top summarises the position very well. The support !votes were numerically much stronger, including more individuals who have no deep association with this topic and therefore no prejudices coming into the RM. So there would have to be very strong oppose arguments to overcome that numerical advantage. But the supports also brought strong policy arguments in the form of WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:PRECISE (since no other indivuduals seem to be known as Sadhguru with this spelling). The RM closer seems to have accepted the argument of WP:HONORIFIC without question, without considering that (a) it may not even be an honorific (nobody actually produced direct evidence that Sadhguru even means the same thing as Satguru), and (b) since the subject is commonly known by this name, it doesn't really qualify for the usual honorific rules. Much as if he was simply called "Sir" or "Doctor". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, As already stated by several editors in RM, Sadhguru is not an exclusive WP:Honorific to Jaggi. see SADHGURU DATTATREYA--DBigXray 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No one has said that "Sadhguru" is "an exclusive WP:Honorific to Jaggi". What has been said is that the specific spelling, "Sadhguru", is used as a COMMONNAME by only Jaggi. It's like there is Cher Lloyd and then there is Cher – same exact name, no spelling difference, and yet when one says "Cher", literally millions of people know who one is talking about. And when one says "Sadhguru", there are an untold number of people who know who one is talking about. The COMMONNAME policy went unheeded by the close and that community consensus should hold much more weight here. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"Sadhguru" is not used as a COMMONNAME by only Jaggi; it's also used as his COMMONNAME by many RS. It's not an honorific in those contexts, and therefore HONORIFIC does not apply. By never-the-less referring to "Sadhguru" as an honorific in his close, the closer showed that he missed this crucial point, as did the minority opposing the original RM citing HONORIFIC. --В²C 19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray, citing personal website of a non notable person is simply opposite of WP:RS. Qualitist (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a close by a responsible uninvolved admin following WP honorifics policy and not counting! votes! by followers of the guru. This is why we have admins close controverted and difficult RMs, and this Move Review should uphold this close. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: In ictu oculi has not mentioned that he participated in RM.[46][47] Qualitist (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Can I also point out again that Sadhguru "true guru" is only a spelling variation of a common Indic honorific, it is a small detail distinction. But still an honorific for an individual the secular Indian press does not so honour. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:OR. Qualitist (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't think so, In ictu oculi. If he used it solely as an honorific, then his lectures would be by "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" or similar. Instead, he just goes by "Sadhguru". It would be like a great Western religious leader being called "Reverend", and everybody knows who he is when they hear "Reverend". While that is actually true from church to church, it is not true on a global scale for any one individual. It is true on a global scale for this individual, because "Sadhguru" in his case is a name he goes by, not just an honorific. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, the undisputed fact that "Sadhguru" is a spelling variation of a common Indic honorific is not relevant here since in this context the term in question is used by RS as the person's COMMONNAME. Mr. T, Lady Gaga, Prince and Lady G are examples of how use of honorifics in titles are acceptable when they are the COMMONNAME for the person in question. This is a point the RM opposition and the closer overlooked. --В²C 20:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope folks are aware that repeated Chanting of the phrase "Sadhguru is his common name" will not automagically make it his common name. It has already been mentioned in the RM discussion that reliable international media, BBC for example uses "Jaggi Vasudev" for this person. here are some more NZ Herald, Gulf news + Washington Post.--DBigXray 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
COMMONNAME means the most commonly used name, not the universally-used-name. Just because there are some sources that don't refer to him as Sadhguru does not mean it's not his COMMONNAME. The RM subjective judgment was about which of the two names was most commonly used in RS, the majority determined it was Sadhguru, and the closer ignored this and overrode this consensus finding with a Supervote closing decision. --В²C 21:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
to clarify: "the closer ignored this and overrode this consensus" – I didn't ignore it: my take on the RM is that consensus was that independent sources use the given name roughly as often as the honorific. (They usually use both names.) @Born2cycle: – We've been over this ad nauseum above. I think I've made it clear what I was thinking wrt. this matter. I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my stated rationale for closing. It's disingenuous. I'm trying to only respond anymore when I'm mentioned or addressed specifically ;) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying again that your close was a consensus-reversal WP:SUPERVOTE and not a reading of consensus. What you say was your "take on the RM is that consensus was that..." was not your take on the consensus (of the participants) but your take on what the evidence indicated, which is appropriate to go by if you're participating and !voting in the discussion. The consensus of those participating was that the evidence indicated Sadhguru was the COMMONNAME, regardless of whether you thought most independent sources use the given name roughly as often as the honorific. That's what you were supposed to get from the discussion, not to form your opinion about what the evidence indicated and to close based on that. --В²C 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Both of your links go to the same story from two or three different outlets. There have also been given links to different stories from different outlets that either referred to this subject as "Sadhguru" or as "Jaggi Vasudev, also known as (or better known as) Sadhguru". COMMONNAME does not require that ALL reliable sources use the name a person goes by. "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." That was done in the RM. A consensus was reached that was completely ignored in the closing statement. That consensus was to move the article to the subject's COMMONNAME, "Sadhguru", as decided by reliable sources and by editors' consensus in that discussion. Why else would we be here? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Why aren't these reputed authors/media houses not using Sadhguru if that is his common name ? Consensus is not counting of the heads but on the weight of the argument. The RM discussion was canvassed with [some]updated --DBigXray 13:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) COI and SPA accounts, so the number game should not be used to claim a consensus here. --DBigXray 09:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
You are making up sources (falsely mentioned WashingtonPost), when in fact these "reputed authors/media houses" call him Sadhguru.[48] No one in the RM discussion had COI, neither anyone was an SPA. At best only 2 users were mostly interested in this subject but that doesnt makes them SPA. Certainly they showed better understanding of our policies than you do, and simply that matters. For billionth time, you are being asked to refrain from personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources. Qualitist (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray you are still misrepresenting sources and cherrypicking outdated sources. You have not mentioned any URL from Washington Post but claims you have. WashingtonPost[49] calls him only "Sadhguru" though and made no mention of "Jaggi Vasudev". Qualitist (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
To DBigXray: those are very serious accusations to make without actually providing any evidence. Nobody is saying that this is a numbers game. The only thing being said is that the community consensus that supports the obvious local consensus of this RM was not considered in the close and is not being considered here. Clouding the issue with serious accusations and potential personal attacks does not change that fact. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Updated my comment above. [50] regards. --DBigXray 13:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Who are those some? Where is the COI investigation and evidence that they were canvassed? Qualitist (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A review of a discussion isn't meant to rehash that discussion, as many folks here seem to be interested in doing, but to determine whether the closer judged consensus accurately. A number of people arguing against the merger have cited WP:HONORIFIC. No convincing argument has been provided to rebut this; many people are just saying "but it's not an honorific", which is meaningless. The discussion could possibly be stretched to "no consensus, defaulting to no move" but there's certainly no consensus in favor of moving. Vanamonde (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Many examples of its use as a name and not as an honorific were provided in the RM and in this discussion. It was also pointed out that this particular spelling is used exclusively in RS to refer to this one particular person; it's not an honorific any more than Lorde is. This too has been repeatedly pointed out. Did you miss all that? --В²C 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Re: "the merger". Something else you missed is that this a Requested Move discussion (title change), not a proposed merger discussion. --В²C 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - even if you accept the argument that Sadhguru is purely an honorific, (which in fact seems dubious at best, as no sources have been found confirming that), you still have to accept that this is a play-off between a policy (WP:COMMONNAME) on the one hand, and the MOS guideline (MOS:HONORIFIC) on the other. Given that policies usually outrank guidelines, as well as the substantial numeric advantage enjoyed by the support arguments, with no serious rebuttal of the argument that it is the common name, it should have been a clear-cut case to close as moved. No offence to the closer, and I'm sure this was closed in good faith, but to me it looks like a case of the closer inserting their own view of the issue rather than evaluating the arguments of both sides against policy, i.e. a WP:SUPERVOTE. It would have been better to have made that argument as a !vote rather than a close. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Point taken about policies vs. guidelines, but I don't think that applies in this case. As discussed in the RM, COMMONNAME gives us kind of a tossup: independent sources tend to use both approximately equally (emph mine) – both opposers and supporters seem to agree with this, I think: it could be used to defend Sadhguru, Jaggi Vasudev, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, etc. HONORIFIC comes in to play at this point; I think if you argue it doesn't, then you're really arguing that it has no bearing on anything at all. (Now, as noted earlier, if the observation about independent sources is wrong, then my close was probably bad.) I don't think my close was a new argument. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    With COMMONNAME a tossup, I suggest WP:TITLECHANGES (policy) should have been the deciding factor. I maintain that HONORIFIC has been a red herring throughout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Not involved, didn't participate in RM, not familiar with the subject. Anyway, this is a clash between a COMMONNNAME (but not an overwhelming one, he's still known and referred to as Jaggi Vasudev) and the guidance of MOS:HONORIFICS. This kind of dispute is inherently borderline, either name would work, so there needs to be a really compelling argument to overturn the status quo (and the August 2018 move doesn't really count as establishing a long-term consensus). It's a perfectly legitimate close to say that the proposers did not meet the intentionally high standard on doing a move that are intended to prevent pointless moves back & forth in borderline cases, so use the perfectly correct long-term stable title. The "other" name, whichever it is, will be in the lede anyway. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes well that argument would be fine, and I would agree with you, if the !vote were split 50-50. But precedent says that where arguments are equally valid, contrary to the essay WP:NOTAVOTE, we *do* count votes in that scenario. In this case the count was 14-6, which given equally strong arguments is a consensus to move. Instead the closer decided the argument supported by 6 people was the "better" one, and closed it with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is exactly the number game that I was referring to while responding to "User:Paine Ellsworth" few lines above, where I was assured that isn't the case. And this "number game of counting of noses" is a flaw that is utilized to its maximum by offline canvassers and tag teamers. All they need to do is to mobilize some sleeper accounts to beef up the numbers and let the numbers do the talking for them. Admins should not be rewarding such behavior, and it is precisely the fear of encouraging such behavior that counting of noses is not given priority but the actual weight of the arguments, per WP:NOTVOTE. --DBigXray 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @SnowFire: But two questions still remain unanswered. 1) which recent sources called him "Jaggi Vasudev" over "Sadhguru" the time when RM was closed. 2) Which reliable sources state that "Sadhguru" is a honorific?
There were only 6 oppose votes to RM, made by those who are deeply involved in the subject, and major opposers of the RM were instead misrepresenting non-English sources. I am really sure that opposers lacked any sense and close was a supervote since these 2 questions still remain unaswered. Qualitist (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can't help but notice that there are seven editors in this discussion who endorse/support the close of this RM. So there are seven editors who recommend going against policy. The COMMONNAME article titling policy is crystal clear on what to do when there is no one particular name that stands out in reliable sources. It has been agreed here that neither "Sadhguru" nor "Jaggi Vasudev" is more common than the other, and a consensus in this RM established that "Sadhguru" should be the title of the article. Every endorser here appears to be megavoting rather than objectively seeing to it that a close that is unreasonable and inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines is overturned. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I do not recommend going against policy, but do recommend a more careful and less absolutist reading of all policy consistent with the policy taggery. I disagree with your reading of policy (the status quo was not even alleged to not be a COMMONNAME), and with your attempt to introduce new policy arguments in the MRV; all arguments belong in the RM. These policy-line arguments were not persuasively made in the RM. The case was simply not well made; and most pointedly, User:Cpt.a.haddock's very well made points were not effectively rebutted and were further supported by several others, and this means that the case to move was not made. Your comment here on other MRV participants is crossing the line of decorum in the review. You should make your case, once, and leave it to others to agree with you or not. Excessive verbosity in these reviews is not helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Strongly, and respectfully, disagree. When it's right there in black and white, so to speak, then that means there is a strong community consensus to which to comply. The consensus in the RM was clearly to comply with COMMONNAME policy. To see anything else in it is a stretch the size of the distance to Mars. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • COMMONNAME does not mandate a move because all of Jaggi Vasudev, Sadhguru & Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev meet it, all are used in many reliable sources. I read many participants making VAGUEWAVES to COMMONNAME, and that is not persuasive. Everytime I re-read the discussion, I cannot get over User:Cpt.a.haddock's very persuasive point, and the fact that he is not rebutted, and the fact that multiple others cite his !vote and repeat his points. As I said first time, "no consensus" tending to "consensus to not move". "No consensus" would have been easily defended, "consensus to not move" is acceptable by reading the better evidence over the VAGUEWAVEs, and "consensus to move" was impossible due to the strong "oppose" arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources not "User:Cpt.a.haddock" matters and that is where people are failing because their source of information is "User:Cpt.a.haddock" who in fact misrepresented non-English languages links and couldn't even understand that this is English Wikipedia. You need to find solid reason to support the faulty closer than referring unreliable comments of an editor who lacked very basic understanding of naming convention. Qualitist (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus decision making requires interplay, debate, explanation, etc. "User:Cpt.a.haddock" was a participant, and he was not rebutted, and he was cited in agreement by others. If you think he mis-represented non-English languages, I advise you to make that argument in a fresh nomination in six months. "couldn't even understand that this is English Wikipedia" is clumsy mud throwing that makes me think you are not to be taken seriously. In supporting the closer, I look to whether Haddock's points were rebutted, not to investigating his points myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • By how many? Only 5 others who are also deeply involved in the subject. The failure to provide reliable sources or naming any other "Sadhguru" was itself a failure to make a substantial argument. His entire argument depended on unconvincing original research with which most editors disagreed. His bad faith assumption that we see here and also on article as well as clear attempt to rig !votes [51] only confirms it further. Qualitist (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Qualitist, I don't know that I need to respond to that point, "5 others who are also deeply involved in the subject". Others have commented on the degree of involvement by others, but I see no serious discussion on that line in the RM.
"failure to provide reliable sources or naming any other "Sadhguru" was itself a failure to make a substantial argument"? I think you are carrying that inference too far. Way too far. On a reading of the RM, I see no reason to serious doubt the contention that "Sadhguru", "Satguru" & "Sadguru" are interchangeable transliterations, same word, very slight difference in pronunciation. "Sadhguru" is a unique spelling for Jaggi Vasudev, the only recent well-known Satguru. Will the next Satguru also be associated with the "Sadhguru" spelling? I don't agree that most others disagreed, many did disagree, but they did not wikt:rebut. Haddock supplied evidence of something, the disagreers did not seriously rebut. I disagree that that his links have WP:NOR issues, he did not personally create the results he linked, and the synthesis was very reasonable for a talk page discussion. I support this edit as appropriate, and call your comment about it unreasonable.
I have read the RM and this MRV too many times, can you please just be assured that you are not close to convincing me to change my !vote? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME actually (and clearly) does mandate the page move as nominated. It was up to the closer to know the policy and to see its strength even if the involved editors did express the policy and the accompanying community consensus only "vaguely" and "unpersuasively". The policy is not vague and is in place just for situations like this. If there is no clear COMMONNAME, then it is decided by consensus, and the consensus in the RM was decidedly strong in favor of the page move. I am not as you seem to think disparaging other commenters here, I'm just making a good faith observation about their good faith comments. Wouldn't you do the same if you thought you were backed so strongly by the community? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no single clear COMMONNAME. There was no case made for Jaggi Vasudev being a bad title.
I do not think you intend to disparage, but I have been reading all the comments, each of diminishing additional value in my opinion, and my reading of your last post was that a reasonable reader would read them as disparaging me. So I broke my intention to note make more comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
...all of Jaggi Vasudev, Sadhguru & Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev are contenders. There is no single clear COMMONNAME.
That is correct, and the policy is clear that when two or more titles are contenders and there is no single clear COMMONNAME, the article title must be decided by consensus. It was decided by consensus, but the closer ignored the debate's consensus, which was to move the article to "Sadhguru". That was not in accord with the COMMONNAME policy, and the close should be overturned because of that. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  05:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, we differ in reading the consensus. I though I explained myself, pointing to strong non-rebutted oppose !votes. I am not sure how you came about to your reading. I note that we overlap with the reasonableness of a "no consensus" call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And I thought I explained myself, pointing to the policy that goes well beyond any editor's inability to express it clearly and persuasively. The policy itself is persuasive and clear since it is the result of many years of review and change through community consensus. It is policy, and it was for all intents and purposes completely ignored in the close. I saw and still see clear consensus to rename the article to "Sadhguru". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  07:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A closer may have to override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in determining community WP:CONSENSUS regarding a given discussion outcome, but that should only occur when local consensus is clearly against policy. That was not the case here. Certainly no case was made for that, not in the RM, not in the close, and not even here in this MR. To the contrary. The local consensus clearly favored the move by a significant margin and per a strong policy-based argument: COMMONNAME. While the closer has some latitude in marginal cases, this was no marginal case. The HONORIFIC counter-argument was not even policy-based, was weak because no RS use Sadhguru to refer to anyone else (what kind of honorific is that?), and many RS use it as his name. There was no basis to overturn the clear local consensus that favored the proposal, so the close was a supervote, and thus the close must be overturned itself. —В²C 08:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move - "Sadhguru" is the more common name of this individual as attested by reliable references, as many commentators have said. The original discussion did not have a clear consensus to keep the title in the present form. Knox490 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. A lot has already been said in the RM discussion about the WP:Honorifics and to append to that list, here are more folks using the same honorific. (Please be aware that Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. see this discussion
  • Still don't see any "Sadhguru" even after carefully considering the personal websites and redirects you listed which is exactly copy of an unconvincing comment already made on RM. Quora.com is not a reliable source neither it confirms if there is any other "Sadhguru" except this individual. Qualitist (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do any of these gurus go by the single name "Sadhguru"? Does anyone else in the world besides Jaggi go by that single name? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as Sadhguru same for Sadhguru Subrahmanyananda, but that's not the point here. The point is the word Sadguru and and all its forms are honorifics used in the names of many sages, and your or someone else not believing or seeing something doesn't change the ground realities. I am sure you can find better sources in linguistic literature explaining the "addition of H after T and D" in Indian languages, than the link for discussion I gave above. --DBigXray 15:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please try to see the difference: when followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as just "Sadhguru", it is similar to me calling my dad "Father". When people around the world, whether or not they are avid followers of Jaggi, call him "Sadhguru", they use it as a single-word name for him. Most of the people who call him "Sadhguru" don't even know it's an honorific. It's the only name by which they know him! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
PS. I should further disclose that I am not a follower of Sadhguru. I've heard his lectures, I've learned from him and I've disagreed with some of his ideas. So the only stake I have in this is Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. I'm a firm believer in WP:BOLD and in WP:IAR; however, I also believe that one should have a very good reason to ignore a guideline, and a very, very good reason to ignore a policy. There is no such reason in the RM nor here at MRV. The excruciatingly constructed community consensus of COMMONNAME should take precedence in this case. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please speak only for yourself and avoid making sweeping claims such as "When people around the world," and "Most of the people who call him "Sadhguru" don't even know it's an honorific. It's the only name by which they know him!". Everyone who is familiar with Indian languages knows what Sadhguru actually means. Enough evidence has been presented that he is known as Jaggi Vasudev in the reliable independent media both National and International.
regarding PS. Glad that you have accepted, what has been quite obvious all along this thread. Regards.--DBigXray 17:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please speak only for yourself and avoid making sweeping claims...
Why the double standard? Why should I behave any differently than you? No one editor dictates what happens here; Wikipedia policy, which reflects the consensus of the community, is clear on what should be done. But hey, why let facts come in front of a good story. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please note that you are presenting your "personal opinion" as "opinion of the world".--DBigXray 18:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have presented my personal opinion based on my own experience with Sadhguru; however, there is no way that I would ever presume that the whole world shares my opinion. It is suspicious that you would even think such a thing. It is obvious that there is no changing your mind and that you are dead set on violating Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that if there are two or more contenders for COMMONNAME, then that common name must be decided by consensus. That was done in the RM, and that consensus was completely ignored in the close of the RM. The policy's community consensus guides us to rename the article to "Sadhguru". Your WP:I don't like its are noted and should also be ignored. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(1) Its not me thinking, but you writing. (2) Consensus isn't a nose count. (3) I hope your WP:ILIKEITs should be ignored as well. --DBigXray 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
That is correct, consensus is not a nose count, it's a rationale count. And the rationales that cited policy, the COMMONNAME policy and community consensus, should have determined the outcome. Since that consensus was ignored in the closing statement, the close was not reasonable and was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's COMMONNAME article title policy. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @DBigXray: do you have source for your information that the "followers of Sadhguru Dattatreya address him as Sadhguru same for Sadhguru Subrahmanyananda"? It may seem like you are vehemently opposing RM because you feel that "Sadhguru" title belongs to these highly non notable individuals since you are using unsubstantiated unreliable offline sources to argue against reliable sources. Qualitist (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. Yes, and that's not disputed. But what's phonetically the same for Indian languages is not relevant to COMMONNAME, which requires us to look at usage in English reliable sources. And in English RS Sadhguru is used exclusively to refer to this one yogi, often as a name, not as an honorific. There is ZERO BASIS for the claim that Sadhguru is used as a general WP:HONORIFIC in English RS. This was recognized in the RM by a majority of the participants who !voted in favor of the proposal, but then was overridden by the closer's supervote, which is why it needs to be overturned. --В²C 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Neutral independent English language media, which "mostly" refers to him as Jaggi Vasudev, "sometimes" refers to Jaggi Vasudev as "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" and then Sadhguru for brevity. Just because there are instances of its use does not make it a common name. The usage of his name "Jaggi Vasudev" is far more than the usage of "Sadhguru"( an alt spelling of Sadguru) which as shown above with multiple examples is infact a honorific. Both of us have made our points and we can agree to disagree with each other on this. --DBigXray 19:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a separate issue and is just re-arguing your original opposition in the RM. It was heard and soundly rejected by a consensus of the participants. The closer ignored that local consensus, agreed with you and a few others, and supervoted accordingly instead of recognizing that consensus. That's why the close needs to be overturned. --В²C 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately WP:NOTVOTE is still a thing that prevents counting of noses. --DBigXray 20:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, NOTVOTE provides basis to discount or dismiss "A 'vote' that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale". But all of the support "votes" were based on COMMONNAME implicitly if not explicitly. Last I checked COMMONNAME was reasonable rationale in RM decisions. There was no basis to give the support "votes" less consideration, but the closer did in his supervote, and that's why it needs to be overturned. --В²C 21:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately admins who deal with closures, as was in this case, are also aware how to treat !votes that merely invoke WP:JUSTAPOLICY without providing justification or solid evidence for it. The admins are also granted their discretion to make decisions. Hence the closure was perfectly valid and rightly endorsed. --DBigXray 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's why this close and Move Review of it is so important. While everyone understands and respects the discretion admins have to override local consensus when that consensus is contrary to policy, it's not supposed to be a blank check to supervote whatever an admin may feel is right. To dismiss the majority position based on a fundamental policy like COMMONNAME in favor of a minority position based on a dubious application of a style guideline like HONORIFIC (dubious because there clearly was no consensus that the term in question was even an honorific in this context, and there was consensus that it was a name, and the most commonly used name in RS) is exactly the kind of thing admins are not supposed to do, and this MR should make clear. --В²C 22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Your accusation against the closer that his move was inappropriate is not unanimously supported. Your own opinion of "clear consensus to move" on the basis of nose counting appears to me as a violation of NOTVOTE. The way some of the editors have treated Erik above is really appalling, and at the very least Erik deserves an apology from them.--DBigXray 10:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
This review is not about the closer in any way, shape nor form. The closer is an experienced, trusted admin. Unfortunately, here at Move review, it is commonly shown that even experienced admins can make mistakes. As for the move, there was no move, was there? No. The decision in the close was that the discussion yielded a consensus to not move. Please state your facts more clearly, because you have shown a tendency to include little twists in your responses. Thank you for keeping your focus on the RM close rather than on the closer or other editors who participate here. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems like this close princip'ly needed a little of your yogurt? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha, Paine Ellsworth. The Yogurt Principle does not really apply here since there is no history of "no consensus" RM results, but some of it still does apply. Certainly the part about determining community consensus based on how well arguments are founded in policy and guidelines is applicable here, but that's just standard WP:CONSENSUS determination stuff. The main point at YP is situations where there is no apparent local consensus (counting !votes it's about even), that community consensus can still be determined. But in this situation we had a strong local consensus... supporting the proposal. This supervote close was far more radical than anything promoted by the Yogurt Principle. I hope you see that. --В²C 23:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds about right. The YP covers cases where policy and guidelines have a clear answer to the naming dispute (and the answer is invariably that the article should be moved elsewhere) but repeated attempts to gather local consensus for it fail to ever achieve the numbers in support required. The other classic case was New York (state), which took years and years before it finally left its previous home at the base name New York. The one thing you know about YP cases is that once moved, there will never be the slightest possibility of the article going back to the old name again. In this case it's the first attempt to move the article, but as the proposed target is the clear WP:COMMONNAME, the policy basis is there and the numbers were there too. If this MRV ends up upholding the close, then we may end up back here again in a year's time, and the yogurt cycle might really be in motion. Whereas if it is moved to Sadhguru, that would probably be the final home. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I added New York (state) to the list of examples. It's a good one because per the traditional interpretation of PrimaryTopic there is no PT for "New York" and so it should have been disambiguated. And that's obvious as there is no PT or any other basis to move it back now, which is the point of YP. Plus, what a history of no consensus decisions. And a terrible Move Review reversal to boot. Yeah, great example. Relevance here: editors should have identified community consensus favoring the move to New York (state) in any one of the earlier moves (because no primary topic), just like the closer should have recognized community consensus favoring this move in his close (because COMMONNAME). --В²C 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
mmm, that's why I said the close needed "a little" yogurt (mainly said it just to get a "ha ha" from you and lighten things up). The epic "battle" for New York (state) should long be remembered in the annals of Wikipedia. This particular battle is "epic" only because some editors can't seem to see how the strength of policy and the community consensus behind it does not depend on how well nor badly editors describe and apply it in a local debate. The COMMONNAME policy stands well all on its own. It specifically calls for a local consensus in this case. There was a local consensus to rename the article to "Sadhguru", and that consensus was ignored in the close. The policy requires us to overturn this RM close and rename the article to its consensus-chosen title. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cars (closed)

Greco-Buddhist art (closed)

Archive

2018
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2017
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2016
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December


See also

Subpages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review&oldid=872760032"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Move review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA