Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), 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 page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page 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[edit]

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 page 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), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.


Initiating move reviews[edit]

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 discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion 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[edit]


Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion 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. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond.


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
|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-->
}}  ~~~~

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.


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}} ~~~~

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=28 May 2023}}. Do not tag the article.


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/2023 May}}

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[edit]

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 closer's 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 page 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 page 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 page move discussion.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer 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, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the MRV closer 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"; MRV closers 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 MRV closer 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[edit]

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page 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 closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
5. Relist Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM Open



  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussions[edit]

2023 May[edit]

German occupation of Hungary (closed)[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
German occupation of Hungary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The RM was for German invasion of Hungary. The current title was suggested only after two support !votes and a relist. The suggestion—which was proposed with a question mark—received one support !vote and one oppose (me). The lone unambiguous supporter of the move that the closer enacted argued that the article as it stands should be entirely revamped. The close was a supervote based on the closer's understanding of the word "invasion" and whether or not the article as it is should even exist—issues that were touched on by single participants and not deeply discussed in the RM. Given that there was no opposition to the move as proposed, I believe the closer should have gone with that. Otherwise, it should be reopened to see if a discussion on the move the closer prefers actually develops. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It did seem a tad premature, but I don't agree that it should have closed as "invasion". The discussion had not matured to that extent, and several commenters had moved the discussion forward after the initial support votes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Urge the closer to speedy relist on a reasonable request, as every NAC-er should do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Overturn. WP:BADNAC. Revert the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist - given a 50/50 split in !votes, it's rather surprising to see a "moved to X" close with not even an explanation to go with it. And to my eyes, the cited reason for using "occupation" rather than "invasion", namely Invasion suggests resistance from Hungary, even token resistance, but that doesn't appear to have happened" looks rather odd. Had Hungary been complicit in the operation and allowed Germany in with open arms, then sure... but actually according to the article, "Being a complete surprise, the occupation was quick and bloodless"... so Hungary didn't see it coming, but nonetheless clearly an invasion. So if anything consensus should favour the original proposal, both logically and numerically. But I suggest relist because that and other matters deserve more time to be debated among participants.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to relist. <uninvolved> See a solid consensus against the old status quo title; however, see little agreement as to what would be the best title yet. On the edge about this being a reasonable, endorsable closure under WP:OTHEROPTIONS; however, the closer did not specify that guide, so it would probably help to relist and continue building consensus if possible. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

King Hussein[edit]

King Hussein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Close was a supervote. There is clear support for the name actually proposed in the RM, Hussein, King of Jordan. No need to choose a name which violates a guideline. The name chosen by the closer had the explicit support of 2 out of 10 participants and was explicitly opposed by one with most not commenting on it or !voting before it was proposed. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC) N.B. I was uninvolved. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relist: Almost no alignment between the close and discussion. Also violates WP:SOVEREIGN. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn to Hussein, King of Jordan as the title actually supported by the clear majority of participants. (I'm not sure if it's improper for me to comment here as the nominator of the original rm so if it is please just remove this). estar8806 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any editor can particpate in this review process, the RM's nom, the closer, anybody. And it is good form to say whether you're involved or uninvolved, which you did. Welcome to Move review! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy close – endorse! <uninvolved> This was a tough call as all BARTENDER calls usually are. Trout the closer for not being forthcoming in the closing statement that instead of a move review, a new move request can be opened at any time. Make it two trouts for suggesting to the nom to come to move review instead of starting a fresh RM. Because of all this I ask for a speeedy close of this review so a new RM can be opened if editors can suggest a better title. Myself I prefer Amakuru's King Hussein of Jordan, but that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - the guiding policy for move discussions is WP:COMMONNAME, and I demonstrated clear evidence that not only is "King Hussein" the overwhelming name commonly used in sources for this individual, but also that the proposed "Hussein, King of Jordan" is dead last out of any of the available options - [1]. The use of a "bartender" close (new terminology for me there, I haven't seen that one before!) was entirely unnecessary here, when policy so was clearly against the original proposal, but in any case we've got the correct result, and this move review is really unnecessary. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Policy is clearly on the side of the original proposal and against the current title. COMMONNAME is not some Google results trump card. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Err no. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy here and has been since the early days of Wikipedia. And we use ngrams routinely for this, they're far more robust than a mere Google search. Practically every reliable source called him King Hussein or King Hussein of Jordan. The proposed title carried no evidence of common name at all on the other hand, indeed it is clearly vastly less common than even the original status quo title. There is no conceivable way that a closer could have found consensus for "Hussein, King of Jordan" given the evidence presented, and as you know the discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    COMMONNAME is far from the only policy regarding article titles. There are several other policies, namely WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT, the latter of which is what gives WP:SOVEREIGN any authority here. And, Hussein of Jordan is not the only King Hussein out there, by the way. estar8806 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    COMMONNAME is a part of the policy, not the whole policy. One of the things it says is: Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.Srnec (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn: As Estar8806 noted above, WP:SOVEREIGN applies. "1. Article titles are not normally prefixed with 'King', 'Queen', 'Emperor' or equivalent." (Which weighs against the title "King Hussein".) "4. ... When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used." (Which weighs in favor of the title "Hussein, King of Jordan".) Likewise, unnumbered prefatory text "For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV; their articles are titled Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on." (Viz. "Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz", reason enough why "of Jordan" should be part of the present page's title; as, arguably, should the patronymic "bin Talal".) – .Raven  .talk 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and relist <uninvolved> The option chosen should have been allowed to be discussed properly. The only proper argument I see, regarding Common name, was put forth only by the last commenter. Whether or not it is applicable hasnt been discussed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4 May 2023 Serbia shootings (closed)[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
4 May 2023 Serbia shootings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Consensus existed to move the page somewhere, but the discussion was not relisted Jax 0677 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School shooting (closed)[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Consensus existed to move the page somewhere, but the discussion was not relisted Jax 0677 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a challenge of the first RM's close, but the second RM which is well underway would need to be procedurally closed in order for the review of the now-historical RM not to be a moot issue anymore.
That said, I don't think that it's beneficial overall to procedurally close the ongoing RM for this reason. There are other solutions.—Alalch E. 22:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hindu terrorism (closed)[edit]

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

Endorse Close: The closer’s good faith close was consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and the closer duly engaged with closing concerns as this MV was initiated. Years ago when the Move Review Process was created, editors were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM. This particular MV is a real manifestation of those apprehensions. Very little of the discussion in this MV had to do with the decision the closer made—the purpose of the MV. That point was made by several editors but to no avail as the majority of the discussion was about the substantive merits of the title change—not the purpose of the MV.

Contentious article titles like this have little chance of real consensus in the short term. Thus I am move protecting this article for 1 year. I encourage interested editors to focus on the article content, good sourcing and NPOV encyclopedic prose AND NOT the TITLE. Readers will and have found this content under the current and other titles. That will not change.Mike Cline (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hindu terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

There could be only 2 outcomes:

1) Move to Hindutva terrorism = There is a clear cut distinction between Hindu and Hindutva which was discussed with reliable sources. The participants made more policy-based arguments in favor of "Hindutva terrorism" than any other option.

2) Relist = With more than a dozen participants, lack of relisting is obviously not something we usually see in such huge discussions.

Now even if "no consensus" was the final result, then aren't we supposed to move back to "Saffron terror" (the original title) per WP:STATUSQUO? The last MR confirmed there was no consensus for this page move from "Saffron terror" to "Hindu terorrism".[2]

Dympies (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse <involved> First up, this doesn't seem like a procedurally minded move review, but more of an attempted ultimatum. So no to that. As to the substance, there was a pretty clear lack of consensus, so it was totally reasonable to close it as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was a "lack of consensus", just like there was none for "Hindu terrorism", then the page should be moved back to "Saffron terror". "Hindu terrorism" was supposed to be temporary, not permanent because this is a factually misleading title. Dympies (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Ellsworth's comment for details. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. <involved> Actually participants raised policy-based arguments that supported the current title, such as how "Hindutva" is not a RECOGNIZABLE term. Also, letting the current title stand is due to the fact that there was no specific new title proposed, and of the suggested possible titles, the old name of "Saffron Terror" received very little support and so a strong consensus not to move back to that title. And there was no local agreement between the two most-liked titles. This is grounds for WP:OTHEROPTIONS, and the correct choice, "Hindu terrorism", was made. This closure was reasonable and should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such a claim that "Hindutva" is not a recognizable term especially when we have whole page on Hindutva and enough scholarly sources have used the term "Hindutva terrorism",[3] were supposed to be completely rejected. Consensus does not mean "local agreement" but which argument had better strength. Those supporting "Hindu terrorism" made zero reasonable arguments. Dympies (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were several in both RMs who appeared to be unfamiliar with the "Hindu-ness" term, "Hindutva". Hence the unrecognizable claim. It seems rather unheard of to me, since there doesn't seem to be any other -ness articles for other religions. Maybe I'm wrong, though – does anybody know of any Jewish-ness or Buddhism-ness or perhaps Sikh-ness articles that have been written? If not, then we must laud this Hindu-ness as a one-of-a-kind term for "Hindu Nationalism", and while I don't mind praising it, I still don't think the term "Hindutva" is recognizable enough to describe the broader subject of "Hindu terrorism", which several editors think that the subtopical article should be about, that is, the scope of the article should be expanded to include all subtopics that fall under "Hindu terrorism". So that is presently the correct title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument here is absurd. You are ignoring multiple RS; multiple scholars; multiple news sources, as reliable as AL Jazeera and The Wall Street Journal, simply on the basis of personal experience of you and perhaps a few others? Do note, too, that Hindutva being translated as Hindu-ness is a very literal translation, something which will obviously not be true to the actual meaning. The term is never, anywhere used in reference to anything but the political ideology. Talking about the term from a literal translation of the word is just meaningless. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you really want an example (your argument would not be valid regardless, but I thought it interesting that a counter example of your request exists) Heres a contemporary article - Jewish nationalism, Zionism. Also note how Zionism is not translated from the hill in Jerusalem, but the ideology it is used to represent, the same as Hindutva is. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Jackie, er, I mean "Capn". I don't think your argument is "absurd". I just think you continue to embarrass yourself over and over. OH! so sorry, you mean MY argument is absurd? You who continue to cite trash to support such an unrecognizable title? There were just as many editors in this RM who supported the present title as there were who supported the one you love so much, weren't there? Yes there were. And that's why the close was "no consensus". While there was a strong consensus to leave the old title behind, there was no consensus for any other title. That is, for my money, a typical WP:OTHEROPTIONS situation, and while the closer didn't cite that guide, it was obvious that just like the previous RM and the previous MRV, the closer chose to maintain what might be called the "new status quo". Now, that might be too strong a term for it, but let's face it, "Hindu terrorism" has been chosen as the highest and best title for that article after two RMs and that previous MRV discussion – three discussions resulting in the current title. I think you and those other diehards should honorably and in good faith reevaluate your obviously uncomfortable positions! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read your comment on your talk page first, and from reading it I had expected much more constructive behaviour from you than childish name calling. However, allow me to address your points.
There were just as many editors in this RM who supported the present title as there were who supported the one you love so much, weren't there? Yes there were. And that's why the close was "no consensus".
And at Wikipedia, we follow WP:NOTAVOTE. WP:UNANIMOUS should address your concerns. While editors argued for both Hindutva Terrorism and Hindu Terrorism, we must note that Hindu Terrorism is a rejected title based on previous discussions, of which which you were a part as well.
the closer chose to maintain what might be called the "new status quo"
No, they didnt. They explicitly specified that Hindu Terrorism was not a permissible title per Wikipedia policy, was temporary, and directed us to find a different title, one that wasnt Hindu Terrorism or Saffron Terror.
"Hindu terrorism" has been chosen as the highest and best title for that article after two RMs and that previous MRV discussion – three discussions resulting in the current title.
It was chosen by one requested move, reevaluated at a Move review, and found to not be acceptable. At a second move request, editors still argued for the unacceptable title, and failed to generate consensus. That means the title was rejected, not endorsed.
I think you and those other diehards should honorably and in good faith reevaluate your obviously uncomfortable positions
The fact that you are forced to resort to personal commentary to try and counter policy based arguments should let you know who is comfortable and who isnt.
Again, in the future I hope to see policy based arguments on whether the close was right or not. I would appreciate a constructive discussion more than a bar fight. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, beloved editor, you seem to be reading it all with tinted spectacles. While finding consensus here is considered not a vote, the arguments presented were fairly equally sound for two, and only two, potential titles, both of which have been "accepted" and "rejected" by the community, as well as by specific editors. Secondly, you're correct of course that there is no such thing (yet) as the "new status quo" – granted that is still too strong a term – and yet three different closers have chosen "Hindu terrorism" (or at the very least allowed that title to stay in place) as the current title, perhaps – perhaps – temporary. Perhaps not. Thirdly, you say that while the current title was chosen by one RM, reevaluated at a MR, it was found to not be acceptable. And yet, if it was "not acceptable", it was at the very least retained as the most acceptable title thus far. So you appear to be forgetting that while the current title does not actually enjoy consensus, neither does it suffer rejection. The other title, which you support, suffers both no consensus and rejection. Lastly, if you imply that it is I and other supporters of the "best-yet" chosen title who should feel discomfort, I cannot speak for others, I can only speak for myself when I say that at least until a decision here at this MRV is handed down, I feel no discomfort with the current title and hope that it will generate article improvement. Eventually we may find a better title, but until we do the RM's closure we are discussing should indeed stand as reasonable, in accord with the closing instructions, and therefore fully and wholeheartedly endorsed! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the slightly more civil arguments. But again, you are basing your conclusions on your opinions, not on policy or fact.
the arguments presented were fairly equally sound for two, and only two, potential titles
No. The arguments presented for Hindu Terrorism were almost entirely a repetition of previous arguments, that had been rejected at the last move review. And no one found any reasonable objection to Hindutva Terror.
three different closers have chosen "Hindu terrorism" (or at the very least allowed that title to stay in place) as the current title
Only one of them has "chosen" anything, one of them rejected that title, and the third said that the title Hindu Terror didnt have consensus. Indeed, its status as a "temporary" title is also questionable; Arguably, due to lack of consensus for Hindu Terrorism, it may need to be moved back to the longstanding title. A less recognisable title is better than one that misleads our users.
Lastly, if you imply
Nothing is implied, everything is stated as is. If you need to resort to passive aggressive personal attacks instead of policy based arguments, you are clearly unable to defend your position.
I reiterate that I would appreciate responses quoting from policy instead of simply repeating opinions that you hold. 09:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Endorse <involved>. In normal circumstances, the request should be relisted, since the community failed to achieve consensus. However, it's painfully obvious to me that no new arguments will be brought up by either side, so the best way is now to wait a couple of months and see in what direction the article will develop – limit itself to Hindutva-motivated terrorist acts, or expand to cover all of Hinduism-related terrorism. Therefore, I endorse close. — kashmīrī TALK 09:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"wait a couple of months and see in what direction the article will develop". No, we are not going to wait for something to happen to justify the misleading page title. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.. Dympies (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Hindutva Terrorism<involved>, owing to the fact that the other title, "Hindu Terrorism", was conclusively rejected in prior discussions on grounds of being non compliant with policy. Keep in mind that in case of close of "No consensus", the page will be moved back to "Saffron Terror", the longstanding title before the dispute began. In the close of the last MR the current title was explicitly stated to be temporary till a different title was found. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, since "Saffron Terror" received little support in both RMs, there is a strong consensus against moving back to that title, and article title policy, especially WP:RECOGNIZABLE is failed by the "Hindutva" term. This has been well-established in both RMs. And it means that while there was no consensus at the local level, the community consensus found at WP:AT supports "Hindu terrorism" over all other possibilities thus far proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pointed this out to you multiple times, you shouldn't be trying to still pass it off as "well established". You are quoting "recognisable", while ignoring multiple sources (with many outside of India as well, including several high quality WP:NEWSORG) that focus on the term. As for community consensus, you may note that WP:PRECISION also comes under WP:AT, a policy that the current title violates, and the discussion of which has been skirted by now more than half a dozen times by those who support Hindu Terrorism. Mind talking about that? Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: The reason why there was little support to Saffron terror was that good faith editors realised that both Hindu Terrorism and Saffron Terror were rejected as the title, and tried to find a new title. Those who stuck with the rejected title of "Hindu Terrorism" are only showing WP:IDHT towards the close that discarded both titles. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't mind talking about that, perhaps in a later move request after the correct "Hindu terrorism" title is endorsed. For now, since this is a move "review" and not a move "request", it is the closure itself that should be discussed, whether or not it was a reasonable close. And I think it was a reasonable close, while you don't seem to. It's kind of sad, because when MRVs are controversial, they might last a long time, quite a bit longer than seven days. Could be we're all in deep yogurt. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is called skirting the issue. When I talked only about the close itself, and the closes prior to it on the same topic, you started bringing up arguments from the RM. And if I reply back, it becomes something to be discussed only after your proposal is accepted. See the issue? You need to accept at this point that policy wise, Hindutva Terror is the best possible title out there. Others have been either rejected already, or not discussed yet. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, if only bludgeoning discussions to death was a functional strategy here ... Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have made that accusation enough times by now, would be better to read the policy first. Trying to obfuscate the lack of policy support for your preferred version by throwing mud at the wall wont help you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not skirting the issue, because here at MRV, it's not an issue. Here the issue is pretty simple: was the closure reasonable and in accord with closing instructions? or not. This closure was completely reasonable and therefore should be completely endorsed. That way, you and the other diehards can take advantage of that "special" stipulation at WP:OTHEROPTIONS. Of course, if you don't read that, then it remains a mysterious "secret". Missed that one did you? Sorry, not surprised. Since we're here at MRV for a what, fourth discussion? And the past three discussions resulted in a title for the article that you deem unacceptable? It may be too late to pick up your favorite title, dust it off, and expect it to succeed. Here's wishing you only the best going forward, Capn Jack, only the best! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you didnt want to discuss the arguments from the move request, you shouldnt have brought them up in the first place.
However, I will accept that request from you. If we focus on the closing policy itself, it is clear that a "no consensus" close is improper. There were only 2 titles with any real arguments in favour - Hindu Terrorism and Hindutva Terrorism. One of those titles, was rejected in a move review where a majority of those (including you) who supported the title in the current RM also participated.
The policy you cite, WP:OTHEROPTIONS is when there are too many equally likely titles. Here there were two - The temporary title of Hindu Terrorism that violated policy, and the other title of Hindutva Terrorism.
If there are two real choices for the closer, and one of them has been rejected in a prior Move Review, I dont think it is a very difficult choice for them to move it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that there actually were two real choices for the closer, and like you, I don't think it was a difficult choice, but only the choice to retain the current title. Now that was a good, endorsable choice! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, no policy based argument; Just WP:ILIKEIT. You cannot be ignoring policy any longer.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And likewise again, you continue to ignore policy-based arguments elsewhere in this discussion and in the RM at issue. You see only your own strong args, but you fail to acknowledge the also-strong args from other editors. For you, there is only one possibility, for the objective reader of this discussion there are more than one, indeed there are two distinct possibilities at present. Please don't even respond until you can at least recognize that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree that my arguments were strong, I find it rather interesting that you accuse me of ignoring policy when I have made every effort to respond to policy based arguments, and even to personal attacks while sticking to policy based arguments. Given that you have not been able to actually say what other "strong" arguments are there for Hindu Terrorism, either here or elsewhere, I cannot give much weightage to this idea of "equally strong". And while I and everyone agrees that there are indeed two possibilities, you should realise that there is only one realistic possibility that our policy allows.
And with all due respect, asking others to shut up until they agree with you is a very, very silly idea. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now we get to the root of the challenge. At no time did I tell you nor anybody else to "shut up" – all I did was try to stimulate a more thoughtful, objective response from you. My failure to do that is superbly obvious. My deepest apologies for your inability to correctly understand me, and several other editors, in this discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You told me to stop replying unless I agreed to a precondition by you, if my paraphrasing of that was not as you had intentioned the statement, apologies. However, it still doesnt excuse the fact that your only attempt at quoting policy was WP:RECOGNISABLE, an argument that was countered with sources long prior, and never truly supported by anything other than personal experience. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your (humble?) opinion. You always leave that part out, Capn. Just trying to give you what you ask for: responses that bring up the policies that apply. Your rebuttals are many and welcome, however inapplicable they may be. Especially for the term "Hindutva". You can quote sources all you want, the fact remains that "Hindu terrorism" is a far more recognizable term than "Hindutva terrorism", which is one reason why we are here at MRV. Hindutva is undeniably a more precise term, and that's another reason why we're here at MRV. We do have some conflicts to resolve before a consensus can begin to form for one title or the other. It's doubtful though that such a consensus will form here at MRV. As earnest as MRV can be, it will take much more discussion than can be held here to build a proper agreement on a name for this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an Endorse, Overturn or Relist option here, based on whether procedure was followed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, it would be Overturn and move to Hindutva Terror per policy. Apart from that, I am simply pointing out the obvious, that in case the close is endorsed, we would be moving back to Saffron Terror, the longstanding title. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. "Overturn" doesn't mean that the page moves to a random title of your choosing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That "random" title is the only title that is both supported by a large number of people, and has not already been rejected as unusable. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again with the tinted eyeglasses! First, the old status quo title, "Saffron Terror", has been sternly rejected by consensus. It should not be the title of the article. Second, there are as of this RM two titles competing for this article, and both titles have been both accepted and rejected by editors – both titles – accepted by editors and the community, but also rejected by editors and the community. At this point they're almost "neck-in-neck". Thus far it's a "photo finish" with "Hindu terrorism" winning by a nose! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a move discussion. This is a review of the performed close. — kashmīrī TALK 10:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im pretty sure my comment was understandable, but I have clarified for your benefit. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Hindutva terrorism<involved> per consensus on talk page. Those who supported "Hindu terrorism" have failed to justify why we should ignore the grand difference between Hinduism and Hindutva. The title "Hindu terror" is indeed violation of policy. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, another. Wonderful. Please see above ... you haven't quite cottoned on to what a move review is. The options here are Endorse, Overturn or Relist, depending on whether procedure was properly followed in the close. That is all. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesnt exactly fit the current move request, which is why I had used "Move to ...." as well. Current request has multiple proposed titles - a simple "overturn" doesnt specify what is necessary. 10:58, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a move request. This is a discussion on whether the closure was carried out appropriately. The outcome of this discission is not a move elsewhere, but Endorse the closure, Overturn the closure, or Relist the request. — kashmīrī TALK 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please feel free to take a look at the move history of Ayodhya district, which was moved to Ayodhya district through a move review. Those are not the only three options. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:Move review#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." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 16:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I'm involved or not. I've never voted in either of the requested moves or the move review, but I did close the previous move review. My close was unconventional and non-standard, so I suppose I'm part of the reason why we're here. I do stand by my previous MR close.
    I don't think that any of the proposed titles enjoy consensus support. I think that "Hindu terrorism" enjoys more support than any of the other options.
    When I closed the previous debate, I didn't have an opinion about this. Now that I've read all the arguments and reflected on what editors are saying, I do have an opinion, and it's that "Hindu terrorism" isn't a satisfactory title for this article. I know that we have articles called Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism and whatnot, but those are apples and this is an orange. The Hindu nationalists are a very different thing. They're actually tolerant of Jains and Buddhists and Sikhs; in reality the character of this terrorism is at once political and anti-Islamic. They want to restore traditional Indian society. To call this "Hindu terrorism" is to miss the point of it and, potentially, to mislead our readers about what's happening in India.
    Procedurally speaking, I can see absolutely no grounds at all on which to overturn EggRoll97's close. But on the facts and the sources, I think we've got to the wrong title. Strictly speaking I'm not supposed to say this at Move Review -- I'm meant to confine myself to procedural matters -- but we don't have a place where I can say this, so per WP:IAR, any place will do.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree entirely and emphatically with all that you've written above, SM and thank you for it. Once again you've summed it up well. When one reads the article, then the talk page, and then right on down to this particular RM, editors have focused upon two "reigning" titles, 1: "Hindu terrorism" and 2: "Hindutva terrorism". Rightly so, because #1 and #2 are both policy-based and policy non-compliant. #1 fails PRECISION, but passes RECOGNIZABLE, and #2 fails RECOGNIZABLE, but passes PRECISION. So while "Hindu terrorism" is not at present a good title for this article, so far there are no other titles that have been proposed that can be considered better. For me, it boils down to which title will allow editors to expand the scope of the article to include more than just one kind of Hindu terrorism. Some editors appear to think of Hindutva terrorism as one kind, and that there are other kinds that should also be mentioned and described. Endorsing this RM's closure will allow those editors to improve the article by expanding its scope and by making it more descriptive and informative for WP readers. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I wonder whether AlalchE's idea of calling it "Hindu nationalist terrorism" might have been the best course.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That to me at least would be a viable option, an option that is evidently an alternative to "Hindutva terrorism" with the same meaning. And yet, that particular title received little recognition in this RM, so one has to wonder if there is yet another better title, one for which a consensus could be built? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I am linking your talk page discussion with me here, since it contains very much the same comment and arguments; It would be better than for me to copy and paste my replies here. Link to discussion.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate it. Though I didnt get the comment about running for office.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh it's just a little humor (very little it seems). Sometimes politicians will hold TV commercials and say things like, "I'm Capn John Eagle, running for the senate, and I approved this message." Paraphrased it, apparently too far away from being recognizable. Kind of like one or two of the titles being discussed. Face-smile.svg P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to Hindutva terrorism (involved): It was extensively discussed that "Hindu" and "Hindutva" should not be confused with each other because they are different things. The existing title is of course misleading. If we are serious about upholding no consensus then the original and long existing page title "Saffron terror" should be restored. I am not opposed to a relist. >>> 08:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It cannot be overturned to a title that it was never hosted at, so is this just an overturn vote? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per WP:MR#Commenting in a move review, it's optional to state an alternative close. – .Raven  .talk 16:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse “no consensus” <uninvolved> and impose a two month moratorium dating from the close of this MRV. Excessive talking about talk is non-productive. The many people who care need to take a little time to think on it. Immediate relists are rarely a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would support a moratorium of at least that length. Obviously things are getting a bit silly now. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont personally support the moratorium, that would force a move back to Saffron Terror and make it stay there for two months before we can rediscuss. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No “force”. The NOGOODOPTIONS temporary title is Hindu terrorism.
No moratorium on “discuss”, just on a formal proposal and voting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the status quo is Saffron terror, not a back-door move to Hindu terrorism. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The status quo title, "Saffron Terror", received little support in this RM and therefore no consensus. That discarded title should remain so. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im pretty sure that was because people did not want to try and still be adamant about supporting a rejected title, unlike those that kept bludgeoning about Hindu Terrorism. Saffron Terror is a better title than Hindu Terrorism, even though it may not be the best title. A slightly less recognisable title is better than a misleading one. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gentle reminder that NOGOODOPTIONS does allow for a new, fresh move request at any time, so if this closure is viewed under that guide, there can be no moratorium. And in fact there should be no MRV of this nature, since editors should have just opened a new formal RM: Hindu terrorism → Hindutva terrorism, which is where all this is probably headed anyway. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse (no consensus), leave it at “Hindu terrorism”, for now, with a two-month moratorium on a new RM, dating for the close of this MRV. Two months is appropriate respect for a no consensus close, and editors need to take a few deep breaths.
There was almost a consensus is the RM, but there was not, it fell short. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RelistMove to Hindutva terrorism (uninvolved) The move request clearly deserved more discussion, however, if that is not going to happen then it makes sense to restore the stable title "Saffron terror". The current title is not only misleading as S Marshall puts, but it also has no consensus. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing !vote per discussion below. It seems "Hindutva terrorism" was never refuted. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to Hindutva terrorism per consensus on talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another one who did not bother to read what move review is and what options are available. Ehh... — kashmīrī TALK 16:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See the first sentence of WP:MR#Commenting in a move review. – .Raven  .talk 16:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to Hindutva terrorism (involved) the arguments in favour of this title were clearly based in policy, the supporters for the current title—the new title arrived at through a disputed RM—were soundly refuted and many were mostly WP:ILIKEIT, not based in policy. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or maybe procedural close is more appropriate given all of these out-of-process responses - goaded, as they clearly have been, by the misleading opening statement, into delivering opinions with zero bearing on the move review procedure. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And what about the many editors who raised the fact that the term "Hindutva" fails the RECOGNIZABILITY policy? Does that not count as arguments based in policy? ILIKEIT could easily apply to many of the opposers of the current title, imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were rebutted, and at the risk of getting accused of bludgeoning by a certain editor, I might have to repeat myself - You cant ignore the mountain of research, articles and news pieces from high quality sources and call something unrecognisable. While it may be argued to be less recognisable, it is not obscure enough to invoke the policy cited. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, yes, an argument (quite opinionated) you've set forth a dozen times or so. And also rebutted thoroughly and effectively, which is why we are here? If editors truly try to be objective, then there is only one clear path ahead, as editors have already outlined. One clear path forward is all this title issue needs! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Half a dozen might have been a bit more accurate ;) . Though it has been ignored and skirted, but not rebutted. And its not an opinion - I doubt you want me to put a list here, but I would be willing if you wish. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Hindutva is not as recognisable as Islamism or Zionism in this day and age, where the term has appeared on BBC headlines and article bodies without an explainer—the assumption on their part being the reader is aware of the meaning of the term, then I’d be surprised. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, UnpetitproleX, I do not see the term Hindutva as being anywhere near the recognizability as the terms Zionism and Islamism. Look at the sidebar: "Part of a series on Islamism". Does Hindutva even have a sidebar? No. That's a little suspicious, isn't it? There just isn't hardly any believable evidence of recognizability of "Hindutva terrorism" when compared with "Hindu terrorism". Sorry, and thank you for your Herculean effort, however misdirected it may be. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> "I do not see the term Hindutva as being anywhere near the recognizability as the terms Zionism and Islamism." – Not quite the point: the same important distinction is being made there between a religion and a political agenda. – .Raven  .talk 13:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close. (sort of involved, as I moved the page back to "Hindu terrorism" following an undiscussed move at the start of the most recent RM). This saga has been rumbling on for ages now, and is no closer to any sort of conclusion than it was earlier. As such, it's time for everyone to WP:DROPTHESTICK. The initial close of "rough consensus to move" was defensible, and it's worth noting that the earlier move review did not explicitly overturn that close - instead it was a rather unusual "narrative close" which advised participants to go away and continue the discussion and work towards a fresh conclusion. That was attempted here in this RM, but again no fresh conclusion was reached, it was no consensus. As such, that means that instead of going all the way back to the original title, the status quo at the time of the move closure, which was the title of "Hindu terrorism", remained in place. It's also worth noting that "Hindu terrorism" has some definite support in the ranks, while the support for going back to "Saffron terror" is seemingly very limited.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restoring WP:STATUSQUO does not need consensus. "Hindu terrorism" is misleading and has no consensus while "Saffron terror" is a longstanding stable title. This is why if we are serious about upholding no consensus then the original page title "Saffron terror" should be restored. >>> 19:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been rebutted by the fact that there was a very strong consensus against the older status quo title, Saffron Terror, in this move request. That title definitely should not be restored. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was one oppose and one support in the last RM, and a lot of support in the previous one. Indeed, a lot of editors would probably support Saffron Terror over Hindu Terrorism to avoid a misleading title. Also see Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus , where in cases of no consensus, the article is moved back to the last stable title. As such, Saffron Terror, standing for a good decade is the stable title, and Hindu Terror, the object of dispute since before it was controversially made the title, isnt. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tinted eyeglasses – again. "Should" be moved back, which is the wording used in that guide, indicates that there is room for different circumstances. Consensus can change, and that is what has taken place here. If the title "should" be moved back to Saffron, or "should" have been moved back to Saffron, then it would have been moved back to that title well before this MRV. The circumstances in the RM are that editors were able to choose among five different possibilities. Three of those five received very little to no support, and "Saffron Terror" was one of them. CCC, consensus changed. Denial of these truths by some editors does not take anything away from their veracity! This RM demonstrated a strong consensus against the old status quo title, but no consensus for any other title: yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you stop throwing shade at others and try, for once, to discuss on policy in a civil manner?
There is no consensus against Saffron Terror (except at MRV, where there was consensus against Hindu Terror as well, meaning it is no better), and as such it is the stable title. That compels a move back to it in case of no consensus. The fact that some good faith editors tried to adhere to the last MRV close, while some others didnt, doesnt change that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the RM, almost no on voted for "Saffron terror" - that's your consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And only in the last RM, as highlighted, after Hindu terrorism and Saffron Terror were rejected as titles and some editors moved on. Using that to pretend that Hindu Terrorism is a better title than the stable one is absurd. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you chide me on my talk page??? What is absurd is calling Hindu terrorism (not Hindu Terrorism with uppercase "T") "rejected" when it has survived two RMs and two MRVs. It hasn't been rejected at all, but you appear to be blind as a bat to that fact. Time to give it a rest, dear editor, so someone can come in and close this MRV. That way, we can move on and try to build consensus for the highest and best title for the article presently titled with the unrejected name, Hindu terrorism. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Survived"? Last MRV - "unsatisfactory", last RM - No consensus. It is not there due to merit. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, that is correct. Not entirely correct, though, because the title's merit is found in its tenacity, if not in its "highest and best" status. There might very well be a better title. I myself am beginning to lean toward "Hindu nationalist terrorism" as a better title even though it is less concise than the current title. It does have precision and recognizability as advantages. Sorry, but I still don't think your favorite choice is the best possible title for the article. "Hindutva terrorism" is just too unrecognizable. We really should let this MRV rest so it can be closed. We're all getting a bit exhausted with this issue. This MRV will only resolve whether or not this RM's closure was acceptable. MRV is not really designed to always be the last word, which may only evolve on the article's talk page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read the policy you are citing?
WP:RECOGNIZABLE : "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
Someone even mildly familiar with India knows about Hindutva. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an order of magnitude less recognizable than the alternative, as a term only barely on the rise since the 1980s, and of weak global resonance. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
facepalm.... Yes, Hindus who have been around for over two millennia and living across the world will be better known than Hindutva, an ideology founded a century ago and prominent only in India since the 80s. That demonstrates nothing.
Recognizability policy is not WP:COMMONNAME; no point using trending results or google ngrams. It is simply asking - Will someone who knows about the subject, be familiar with the title? And the answer is obviously yes here for Hindutva Terrorism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Recognizability is not WP:COMMONNAME; it is part of the WP:CRITERIA that are overarching concern of WP:AT. And yes. Facepalm indeed: that one is infinitely more recognizable than the other should really not need any explanation at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name of [famous movie star of your choice] is "infinitely more recognizable" than the name of [latest mass shooter], yet we do not substitute the former for the latter when reporting on that mass shooting. The relative recognizability of two terms only matters when both accurately describe the event, not when one falsely accuses the innocent. – .Raven  .talk 14:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, some editors moved on. Well put. Consensus can change. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good on them for moving on from a suboptimal title. You should have done the same, but sadly, here we are. Better a suboptimal title than a misleading one. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn / move to Hindutva terrorism <involved> Consensus was clearly in favor of moving the page than retaining a misleading title which lacks consensus. It is unwise to leave the page with a misleading title. Capitals00 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overturn to "Moved to Hindutva Terror" (involved) - From the first line of the lead, from the source cited:-
One generally notices deliberate conflation of two distinct terms: Hinduism and Hindutva. According to RSS leaders all those people who talk of the Hindu terrorism are trying to denigrate the whole community. It cannot be rejected that few people did describe the role of Hindu fanatics in terrorist operation as “Hindu terrorism”, But a large majority of the critics avoided describing it in this fashion and instead talked of the Hindutva terrorism, which seems to be a more accurate description of the phenomenon. (bold by me)
This debunks the claim that Hindu Terror was the major, recognizable term for the topic, and also shows that Hindutva Terror is the more accurate title. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ho ho ho. Thanks for injecting some humour. "According to RSS leaders..." Yes, quite. According to some renowned talkers of much shit on the subject - and a group heavily implicated in and trying to exonerate themselves from it. It's a bit like the Taliban saying that those speaking of Islamic terrorism are denigrating Islam. Sure, they can say that, but most people don't struggle with telling the difference, and, in any case, only their followers would consider them any kind of philosophical or moral authority on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As noted further above, even George W. Bush did not speak of "Islamic terrorism", but instead opposed that phrasing. Six days after 9/11/01, he said at the Islamic Center of Washington DC: "The face of terrorism is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace, they represent evil and war ... When we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world ... and that's made brothers and sisters out of every race." In turn, the US House's Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight titled its report "Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror"; -ist, not -ic, referring to the political agenda, not the overall religion. It's a pity that Wikipedia fails to make the same distinction. – .Raven  .talk 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't because common usage doesn't, though it's actually quite close. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "it's actually quite close", then WP:ACCURACY should tip the balance. As the terrorism is motivated by the political agenda rather than the religion, we should use "Hindutva" and "Islamist". – .Raven  .talk 22:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats a strawman. You are jumping on the line about RSS mixing Hindu Terrorism and Hindutva Terrorism and ignoring the meaning of the paragraph entirely. The line you are talking of says that RSS propagandist try to mix Hindutva Terrorism and Hindu Terrorism. The author then says that while some people have confused the two, most commentators use Hindutva Terrorism, which is more accurate.
Good catch from the editor for finding this. Linking to source, its available on JSTOR - Gatade S , page 40.
PS (for those supporting "Hindu Terrorism"): Funnily enough, according to the source, you would be supporting RSS propaganda if you tried to call the article Hindu Terrorism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's one interpretation; there are of course many. Here's another: "The exploration of the relationship between Hinduism as a religion and Hindutva as a political philosophy has become a virtual academic cottage industry that shows no signs of slowing down. In popular writings on the subject, Hindutva has been variously described as “Hinduism on steroids,” as “Hinduism which resists,” or as “an illegitimate child of Hinduism.” A preliminary way of understanding the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva would be to recognise that Hinduism is a religion (however defined) while Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, is a political ideology, whose relation to the religion of Hinduism could be considered analogous to the relationship between Christianity and Christian fundamentalism or Islam and Islamic fundamentalism." [4] The latter is the sense in which the current title is understood. Now that article goes on to expand upon some key differences, but Wikipedia is a WP:SUMMARY, so the preliminary version is just fine here. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comedic relief. The article quoted, whose title you may have left out, is On the Difference Between Hinduism and Hindutva, an article the goes into detail why Hindutva is NOT the same as Hinduism, the exact opposite of what you try to portray it as. Cherry picking a paragraph to misrepresent a source doesnt prove your point. Per WP:SUMMARY, we need to summarise, not cherry pick.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But ... my comment already stated that the article points out key differences. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And then proceeded to summarise misleadingly, so I pointed it out. Whats the issue? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't summarize it misleading. I directly quoted the source's summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: It appears that those voting to move to Hindutva, other than being very familiar with the otherwise obscure (to an average reader) term Hindutva, fall into two broad categories: (1) editors with a relatively low edit count, and (2) editors having Hindu names. Now, regarding the latter, it's hard to avoid the impression that these editors are attempting to distance themselves from these acts of terror by denying the (fortunately rare but extremely well attested in sources) link between terrorism and Hinduism; a similar phenomenon to the (also well attested in sources) distancing shift GermansNazis (as if the Nazis were some other nation), RussiansCommunists, etc. That shift is perfectly understandable on the ground of psychology (no-one wants to accept that their ethnic/religious identity can be associated with the bad, so "the bad" are presented as a vaguely distinct group). However, we are encyclopaedia, and if academic sources are clear that certain acts of terrorism had been inspired by religion, we must reflect this instead of escaping into fancy dialectics: Oh, it wasn't Germans/Russians/Christians/Muslims/Hindus murdering others because of religious/ideological differences – they were some "Nazis"/"Communists"/"Crusaders"/"Islamists"/"Hindutva followers". This would be unbecoming of an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 22:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    > "... that certain acts of terrorism had been inspired by religion...." – Then one would expect all devout members of the religion to engage in the terrorism. When instead it is engaged in only by those devoted to a political agenda or ideology, the name of that agenda/ideology should be used to label the terrorism. WP:ACCURACY. – .Raven  .talk 22:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then one would expect all devout members of the religion to engage in the terrorism. You must be joking. Seriously.
    You're welcome to present this argument at Talk:Islamic terrorism or Talk:Christian terrorism. — kashmīrī TALK 23:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly why these also should be titled more accurately (Islamist terrorism, and Christianist terrorism or Christian nationalist terrorism), as commented in my !vote above. – .Raven  .talk 08:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Go and argue with editors here: [5] [6]
    In short, the perpetrators self-identify as Christians/Muslims/Hindus, and Wikipedia recognises self-identification for religious matters (see countless discussions e.g. at Talk:Ahmadiyya). — kashmīrī TALK 18:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kashmiri: This comment seems to be a way to invalidate policy based arguments by painting the editors as WP:COI due to their assumed origin/religion. I say assumed, because your assumption of "low edits" and "Hindu name" is not valid for several editors who have posted arguments in favour of the change.
    The idea that a person is barred from editing or commenting in a particular area due to their "supposed" affiliations is absurd as it gets. If you wish to have your favoured title, then challenge with arguments based on policy, not those directed at editors.
    As for your arguments revolving around WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will point out that your argument hinges on the singular aspect - "if academic sources are clear that certain acts of terrorism had been inspired by religion". Since academic sources clearly state that Hindutva Terror is not inspired by the Hindu religion and instead by Hindutva ideology (see comments above with sources from the article), your argument falls apart even before we talk of policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And Hinduism inspires Hindutva, analogous to Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. [7] Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if its an attempt to counter my argument or to just divert attention, but you are just copy pasting links that prove my point. This is the same link you posted above (and in case you havent noticed by now, the discussion isnt about Hindutva; The discussion is whether Hindutva Terror can be attributed to Hinduism, where academics agree it isnt inspired by it. See examples quoted above). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Hindutva is just "Hinduism on steroids", a.k.a. Hindu fundamentalism, that's exactly the point, and precisely the reason why Hindu terrorism is a title entirely consistent with Islamic/Christian varieties of the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know its not hinduism on steroids, its a political ideology. We have discussed this enough.
The argument Kashmiri is making is that the comments from editors with Hindu-sounding names should be ignored on topics about hinduism because they would be biased about presenting facts. Unless you object to my rebuttal to the same, I dont see why you are trying to derail the topic with arguments that have been bludgeoned about enough. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never called to exclude any comments. And your equation of all the Hindu-inspired terrorism with some recent political ideology is bullshit[8]. — kashmīrī TALK 22:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You pointed to some editors with supposed "hindu" names, and said how its natural to be biased. Thats a very obvious way of trying to target editors. The citation is useless, never even mentioning "Hindu Terrorism". Perhaps WP:OR would be an enlightening article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't know what terrorism is, and require things to be called by name like in a kindergarten, maybe you should steer away from the topic altogether? — kashmīrī TALK 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a loaded term, and inserting it without the source saying so would never pass any standard of editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Trainwreck due to previous move review; restore status quo ante - There was a move request. A bunch of people supported it, and a bunch of people objected. It was complicated by the fact that many of the people who objected also didn't like the old title but had a bunch of very specific problems with what was proposed. The right way to go would've been to close the previous move request as no consensus (or the previous move review to "overturn to no consensus") with a recommendation to start over with a different option. But that didn't happen. Instead, we got an ambiguous closure which argued both options were unsatisfactory but refused to actually endorse or overturn (or do anything), even though the move had already been executed. In trying to have it both ways, it effectively endorsed without endorsing and created a situation where one side already got their way and could sit back on a new status quo despite there being no consensus for that outcome to begin with. So now we have a new move request, and again there are stronger arguments against "Hindu terrorism" than for it (and more opposed than in support). Was there consensus for another option? Maybe very weak consensus, but I wouldn't blame anyone for saying "no consensus", and think the closing statement, There is no consensus to remain at the current title, nor to switch to a different title is perfectly fine. The problem isn't the closing statement; the problem is even still leaving it at the current title, despite repeatedly finding a lack of consensus for that title. I'd argue it should be moved back to saffron terror until there's consensus for an alternative. Perhaps living at a title (where it's been for many years) that nobody strenuously objects to but isn't quite satisfactory to anyone either, will motivate people to collaborate and find a solution. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As has already been discussed here, and over the course of two discussions, barely anyone thinks that the page should be kept at "Saffron terror" - to move it back there at this stage would go against consensus and be extreme WP:BURO. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasnt "discussed", it was claimed by a few and contested by others. And claiming that sticking to policy is WP:BURO is absurd. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trainwreck, yes – no consensus, no. Trainwreck, yes, because a few editors continue to use this out-of-process idea to cloud the issue and confuse other editors. That may be shown by some responses to this post. No consensus, no, because a consensus was found in the first RM against "Saffron terror" and in favor of "Hindu terrorism" (watch for the usual whine: oooh, but it was just a "rough" consensus – oooh, but there was an MRV). Cheese will be supplied with that whine. Then, in the second RM, while a consensus for "Hindu terrorism" was not established, it was also true that there was no consensus for its main opponent, "Hindutva terrorism", either. There was also in that RM almost no one who wanted to revert to the long-term status quo title, almost no one, just one editor, just one. So no, it's like Senator Saffron, who held the office a long, long time, lost the election to Senator Hindu, who then faced Mr. Hindutva and that one resulted in a tie. So now you want to reinstate old Mr. Saffron? No, no, the newly elected Mr. Hindu continues to hold the office and should face a run-off race with Mr. Hindutva. Meanwhile, Mr. Saffron has left town and has retired to his horse ranch. He has no intention of returning. And as soon as this friggin' flusterin' filibuster ends, we'll all be able to get on with the oh-so-serious business of editing our favorite reference work, hmmm? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is obnoxious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument to move to a title that consensus has rejected in two move requests isn't fragrant, either. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Your summary above hits the nail on the head, Paine. There are two inalienable facts here - first that there was a consensus against retaining the title "Saffron terror", and second that at no time has there ever been a consensus for moving to "Hindutva terrorism". So even though the route by which we got here was more winding than usual, effectively it's a textbook WP:NOGOODOPTIONS situation. Moving to "Hindutva terrorism", a brand new name, at this stage is out of the question, because a no point has there ever been a consensus to do so. It's that simple. Finally, labelling the well-reasoned good-faith views of a fellow editor as "obnoxious" is below the belt IMHO. We don't need to get into a slanging match here.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect interpretation of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Never was there a strong consensus against Saffron Terror.
The title of Hindu Terror was rejected in the last MRV, and the only title brought forth with little to no policy arguments against it was Hindutva Terror.
Either, as the best option, we move it to Hindutva Terror, or we move back to Saffron Terror as the last stable option per policy.
Lastly, it was indeed vey obnoxious, and a very distorted comparison with false equivalence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just to point out ; This "brand new" name was the one put forth by multiple editors the last MRV and the move request prior as well. It is no more "new" than Hindu terror, and much older and well established when you look at WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's out of the scope here, but this mistruth is getting tired. As Ngrams shows 'Hindu terror/Hindu terrorism' has been used since the 1940s; 'Hindutva' variants of the same since only the 2000s. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why blindly using search result counts is useless.
If you go through the sources, you will see that
1)Pre Independence, the articles being about resistance members attacking british.[9][10]
2)Pre 2001 they are mostly about the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots that were done by Indian National Congress Members. [11][12][13]
Neither is the subject here. It is unambiguously about Hindutva Terror, which our whole page centers around. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no particular reason to exclude earlier incidents of related religiously motivated political violence. You may demur on that, but no one else is obliged to follow your preferred scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a RM, the article material decides the title, not the other way around. If that is what you want it will have to be a new article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you can draw lines in the sand. I am uninterested. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please allow:
Incorrect interpretation of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS.
That is somewhat correct, because that guide does require there to be a consensus against the current title, which was not the case because there was no consensus to either keep the current title or to change it. Other than that, since there were five options, it should not be a surprise that the closer chose one of those options, the current title. The current title won a very slight consensus by a nose, so if editors had made the correct ensuing choice, a new, fresh move request would have been opened, instead of this long, drawn out filibuster of an MRV.
The title of Hindu Terror was rejected in the last MRV
Very misleading, Jack, so sorry. Titles just don't get accepted nor rejected here at MRV. Closures are the focus here – the closures either get accepted (endorsed) or rejected (overturned). Ever since the first RM, when the old status quo lost consensus to the current title, that name, Hindu terrorism, has been the title and at no time has it been rejected by anything even close to consensus. In this RM, all the suggested titles were either supported or opposed, and to the tune of large numbers in favor of only two of the five proposed titles. Hindu terrorism was one of those and so is still the title of the article. If you understand the rules at the betting capitals of the world, then you've heard the concept, "Dealer takes all ties." Well, somebody has to take the tie, and here on Wikipedia, the status quo is like the dealer, and the status quo established in the first RM is "Hindu terrorism".
Either [...] we move it to Hindutva Terror, or we move back to Saffron Terror as the last stable option per policy.
That does not come from a community vetted policy nor guideline, Jack, it's just an RM guide that suggests to move it back to an old title under some circumstances. That does not even apply here since the old title lost consensus in the first RM and was unable to even come close in the second RM. Hindutva terrorism did come close, but no cigar! That title at present enjoys fairly strong support, but has not yet gained consensus in the appropriate venue, which of course is the talk page of the article in a formal move request.
[Hindutva terrorism] was [...] put forth by multiple editors [...]. It is no more "new" than Hindu terror, and much older and well established when you look at WP:RS.
Yet it is still not as old and established as the current title, Hindu terrorism, is it. This is the English Wikipedia, so "Hindu nationalist terrorism" would have to be the necessary format for this language. Unfortunately, in this most recent RM even a quick scan shows that the current title was much preferred over that longer, less concise title. "Hindu nationalist terrorism" may very well be the highest and best title for the article; however, it must still achieve consensus beginning with a formal move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anybody who has read this discussion can clearly see you are just repeating failed arguments over and over.
If you bothered to read the close, it said that while it didnt give a "standard" result, the title it moved to was improper.
Saffron terror is the stable title, undeniably, and as with all discussions with no consensus, it should be reverted back to the stable state.
If you wish to change the title to Hindu Nationalist Terrorism, I have no issues with you raising a move request Saffron Terror --> Hindu Nationalist Terrorism. As such, the title is the most accurate and established term in RS for the topic, Indian or otherwise. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anybody who has read this discussion can clearly see [...]
Anybody who has read this discussion with understanding clearly sees my easy and simple arguments as effective rebuttals to your repetitive and off-topic posts. You won't get anymore from me, because everything that needs to be said has been said. Hindu terrorism is still the current title and should remain the current title until some other title has gained consensus over it. So drop the stick and back away from the dead horse – or continue to embarrass yourself. Choice is yours. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither simple, nor sound. You are just doing WP:ILIKEIT throughout this thread, mixed in with unnecessary phrases, inavlid comparisons, and downright WP:IDHT with regards to others arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting used to being het "below the belt" in this discussion, Amakuru, so no joy there. Sparrow's words have an empty ring, since as usual he ignores the facts presented in two RMs and two MRVs! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should be the last one to talk about "hitting below the belt". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? My arg is simply that the current title gained and has had consensus since the first RM, and no other title has gained consensus over it. That's not hitting below the belt unless you wear your belt on your head! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying "as usual he ignores the facts presented" is not just a statement about the particular argument here, but also about the individual – which seems to be an aspersion usable against anyone who repeatedly disagrees with the speaker. As such, that's foul play. Could we please stick to the issues? – .Raven  .talk 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse current title <involved> Titles on Wikipedia needs to be precise and recognizable for readers. Previous title was clearly voted out to be vague by solid policy votes. This new Move Review without following procedures is a desperate attempt by a group of Hindu/Indian nationalist editors who are often seen together on these disputes involving India and Hinduism. War Wounded (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    > "Titles on Wikipedia needs to be precise..." – or accurate – and in this case "Hindutva" is more of both.
    > "This new Move Review without following procedures..." – Per WP:MR#Commenting in a move review, commenters do have the option to state an alternative close.
    > "... a desperate attempt by a group of Hindu/Indian nationalist editors..." – Being neither Hindu nor of Indian ethnicity nor a nationalist myself, I stand as one contradiction to your attempt at well-poisoning (a species of ad hominem), and I object to it, – .Raven  .talk 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

N'Ko script[edit]

N'Ko script (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Current title of page resulted from undiscussed WP:RMUM 2019 move; reverted with challenge reasons 9 April 2023; RE-reverted by original mover later that day (as "rv. ignorant move"); RtM to status quo ante ("N'Ko alphabet") filed the next day. Original mover opposed RtM. The only other oppose !vote argued "Manding languages is plural. That says it." But (1) That article says it's a "dialect continuum" rather than fully separate languages; (2) the term "language-specific" in WP:NCWS#Alphabets, per WT:NCWS consensus, can refer to "one or more languages", as that commenter theirself had earlier agreed.

• Closer counted the second !vote, though consensus is supposed to be based on sound policy/guideline-based reasons rather than a raw !vote count: per WP:RMNAC, "Non-administrators are reminded that closing a discussion calls for an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of it, although arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and consensus in mind)."

• Closer's closure said "not moved. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a move at this time." Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "... sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title."

• Closer argued that the challenged move was itself the stable version: "In my opinion, if an article title remains at one location for at least a year or two, then I would argue that it's 'stable'." (The status quo ante being sought by the RtM had been in place nearly EIGHT years.) Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added]

• In other words, the "most recent stable version" referred to the one preceding the challenged move. That the mover had RE-reverted (move-warred) to keep their version the current status quo should not privilege it.

• Discussion on closer's talkpage included these details. Closer declined to reconsider. Please see full discussion on both pages. Also, per WP:RMNOMIN: "... if a page has been moved from a long-standing title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move." – .Raven  .talk 03:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noting that I am aware of this discussion. SkyWarrior 03:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most recent stable version is "N'Ko script"; it had been stable there for 4 years before Raven's recent undiscussed move.
The topic is under discussion at NCWS, but Raven has submitted nine duplicate RfM's regardless (all without notifying NCWS). NCWS currently states that articles on scripts should generally be labeled "X script" and that alphabets based on those scripts should be at "X alphabet"; by that convention, this article is at the correct location.
The discussion at NCWS is whether an exception should be made for scripts that comprise a single alphabet, per the example of Greek alphabet. However, even if that exception is granted, it's not clear that it would apply to N'Ko, which is used primarily for a Manding standard but may also be used for the various Manding languages. I'm not clear on that, and sources don't seem to go into a lot of detail (e.g. not detailing different N'Ko alphabets for different Manding languages vs a single N'ko alphabet used only for the N'Ko standard of Manding), but it's probably safest to keep this as "script" even if we decide to move scripts used only for a single language to "X alphabet".
Really, it's the multiple recent moves of articles on single-language scripts to "X alphabet" that should probably be reviewed, as an attempt by Raven to preempt the decision at NCWS. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> "Most recent stable version is "N'Ko script" — already addressed in the 4th paragraph up top, citing and quoting WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE; also WP:RMNOMIN's "... the default title will be the title prior to the contested move."
> "Raven has submitted nine duplicate RfM's" — ❌FALSE: each RtM was on a different alphabet's talkpage, for that alphabet alone – in response to kwami's undiscussed moves of those pages FROM "alphabet" TO "script", after kwami (still without discussion) reverted their reversions to status quo ante, in order to keep them in kwami's own preferred versions. You'll notice that was move-warring, against WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in §Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." You'll also notice the procedure there laid out is submitting an RtM on the article's talkpage – which kwami should have done, but didn't, so I did instead. kwami is complaining here that I followed the directed procedure.
> "(all without notifying NCWS)" — Per docs, RtMs automatically notify WikiProjects that have tagged the page as of interest to them, as for instance WP:WikiProject Writing systems had tagged Talk:N'Ko script.
> "The topic is under discussion at NCWS...." — ❌FALSE: see that RfC's lede, "Should "alphabet" in WP:NCWS include letter-sets for specific uses (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet, Theban alphabet), as well as for specific languages...?" [emphasis added] (WP:NCWS#Alphabets already covers "for specific languages", quote: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" – and previous WT:NCWS consensus, from when that text was added, had already clarified that "language-specific" includes 'specific to more than one language', e.g. "But sometimes languages share alphabets, don't they?" [kwami (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011]; answered by "If an alphabet is specific to more than one language then it’s still language-specific." [Christoph Päper 22:40, 16 August 2011]; and "... the description should cover the plural: Alphabet is specific to one or more languages. Still, in the singular phrasing, to me it reads like covered as well. Somehow, the singular one does not exclude the plural (it does not exclude another language). If I am correct in this, we can use the simpler option." [DePiep 08:08, 17 August 2011] Note that kwami participated in the conversation, and did not post disagreement with the others.) The move request on Talk:N'Ko script accordingly quotes the RfC on NCWS: "Since [the page move requests mentioned] cite and quote the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, they are unaffected if this RFC fails. Since they are also compatible with this RFC's proposal(s), they are unaffected if this RFC succeeds. In other words, they are unaffected by this RFC either way." [emphasis in original]
> "The discussion at NCWS is whether an exception should be made for scripts that comprise a single alphabet" — ❌FALSE: kwami's own 2011 comments on that topic were 12 years before the 2023 RfC: "... if we have separate articles for the script and alphabet, they should be called just that. But generally we won't. We'll have one article that combines the two. Our conventions should keep that in mind. Since the emphasis tends to be on the alphabet itself, IMO that should be the title." [kwami 10:38, 4 August 2011] Also, "... Any alphabet article is likely to have some background info on the script, esp. if the script is predominantly a single alphabet, and I don't see how calling in an 'alphabet' would make the article hostile to such info...." [kwami, 12:56, 5 August 2011] No dissent found. kwami now contradicts kwami then.
> "the multiple recent moves of articles on single-language scripts to 'X alphabet'... should probably be reviewed, as an attempt by Raven to preempt the decision at NCWS." [emphasis added] — ❌FALSE yet again, since the move requests cited the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, and would also be consistent with the RfC's proposal; in short, whether the RfC succeeds or fails had no effect on the move requests already granted, and would have none on this request. (BTW, see the closer's remark on, e.g. Talk:Kaddare alphabet: "The result of the move request was: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome.")
I assume good faith, but this is still a remarkable number of false claims by kwami; and, as noted, kwami even contradicts kwami's own earlier posts. Curious. – .Raven  .talk 04:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer in this RM has clearly followed the closing procedures, and has correctly interpreted consensus. I was uninvolved with the RM, and it is clear to me that I likely would have closed in a similar manner. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) two other editors disagreed with you, and no one else agreed, and I see no basis to discount either. That's what it comes down to. All of this pontificating about stable versions is irrelevant because the discussion was closed with an explicit consensus not to move, not "no consensus" * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except that the 2nd-opposed's reason given ("'Manding languages' is plural") was neither quite accurate (Manding languages, despite the title, refers to "a dialect continuum" within Manding, aka "varieties of Manding"), nor — even if it had been accurate — excluded it from WP:NCWS#Alphabet's "language-specific" qualification (the WT:NCWS consensus, including that same !voter, had agreed that "language specific" meant to "one or more languages"). A raw !vote count, taking no notice of the validity of the reasons given, is called a "false consensus". Otherwise we needn't have given reasons at all, or could say "Oppose, because it's Wednesday" (the date of !vote being actually a Saturday). – .Raven  .talk 01:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is clearly not as clear-cut your days of the week example, as the length of this discussion and the RM itself show. Of course, you insist you're right and everyone else is so obviously mistaken that their positions should be ignored, but that's you can't just nullify your way into a consensus like that, no matter how hard you try. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    > "everyone else", "their" – ? I referred to one !vote.
    > "you can't just nullify your way into a consensus" – Nor a "no consensus"?
    If the validity of a reason given is irrelevant, is WP:RM wrong in saying "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments"? And is WP:RMNOMIN wrong in saying "like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority"? And is the "{{notavote}}" template wrong in saying "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes"? Should these then be edited to revise them? – .Raven  .talk 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    > "... I see no reason to discount either."WP:DISCARD: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." – As for instance an argument that is both (a) a misunderstanding of the matter of issue vs. what the article mentioned actually says, the commenter calling "plural" what the article describes as "a dialect continuum"; and (b) irrelevant, because the WP:NCWS#Alphabets criterion "language-specific" was consensus-defined in WT:NCWS as "specific to one or more languages". – .Raven  .talk 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. Not involved in this RM, have been involved in similar discussions. I read this RM as closer to no consensus, which should mean a move back to N'Ko alphabet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then it should not be moved at all since N'Ko script was the stable version before the undiscussed move by the OP. Cheers --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reminder of above citations: Per WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE, the presumption that an unchallenged move meets consensus lasts only until it IS challenged, which it was this year; and the time intervening is irrelevant: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added] In other words, the "most recent stable version" referred to the one preceding the challenged move. That the mover had RE-reverted (move-warred) to keep their version the current status quo should not privilege it. [...] Also, per WP:RMNOMIN: "... if a page has been moved from a long-standing title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move."
(The 'contested move' being the move from 'alphabet' to 'script') – .Raven  .talk 04:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See also[edit]