Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 July 10/Beeblebrox comments

Beeblebrox comments in order, focused on those related to the move close and the possibility of a 'no consensus' finding.

RM close


There is certainly a lot to be considered when evaluating this discussion. I haven't actually counted but at a glance if we went by straight numbers we would arrive at yet another "no consensus" result. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable. Of course we don't do things that way anyway, but I wanted to be clear from the outset that strength of numbers was not a contributing factor to this close.


 * On the topic of which is the more widely used name in reliable sources we have contradictory and sometimes unclear information. However, several users analyzed not only sheer number of hits but what type of sources those hits were coming from. Those analyses were quite helpful and appreciated


 * The argument that "arguments have not changed since last time" is irrelevant and any such remarks were ignored when determining the close. Since there has never been a consensus on this issue it is only logical that arguments for both positions will be more or less the same. If this move had been unambiguously accepted or rejected in the past it would be a different story.


 * The core issue here is "what is the purpose of an article title?" All other arguments about colonialism, respecting the locals, what atlases or even other encyclopedias say etc are not entirely without merit but are secondary to that concern.


 * So, what this is about is not fairness or respect, it is about how best to serve our readers.


 * The majority of people who are not editors of this page are more likely to be familiar with the term "Ivory Coast." When they type that in they will see exactly what they were looking for right away and will know they are in the right place. Anyone searching "Côte d'Ivoire" will almost certainly already be aware that "Ivory Coast" is another common name for this place and will not suffer that same confusion. As is indicated in the discussion, many of the sources that use Côte d'Ivoire are not journalistic sources but rather governments or NGOs. It would be impolitic of them to use Ivory Coast, but we do not need to worry about that.

Therefore I conclude that the arguments to rename the article to "Ivory Coast" have more merit than the arguments to retain it at the current title. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page


1) I don't really have much more to say about the close except to be abundantly clear that Icame to this with no opinion or preffered outcome and I read every single word of the very long debate, twice, before doing the close. As to the specific points raised here, the statement about there never having been any consensus is clearly being taken out of context. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)



2) After so many lengthy discussions over a period of eight years it is not acceptable to still not be able to come to some sort of conclusion. Other geographic naming disputes like this have wound up before ArbCom and if this continues to be contested and argued about they will probably become involved in this situation as well, although the nationalism that plagued discussions about Ireland and Eastern Europe are thankfully not evident in this case. However,I did not consider that option to be off the table, Rather I came to the conclusion that after analyzing the various arguments there was a better case made for moving it than for retaining it where it was. My comments about how we might have had another no consensus result anyway were intended to clarify the I could see that if we went by sheer numbers there was yet again no clear result, but if we do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments as opposed to who or how many are making them it didn't have to end that way yet again. I knew the minute I started looking at this that no matter how it was closed a sizable portion of participants would be upset, you have to accept that when closing something like this. It would have been easier to just look at how things were split and declare that once again consensus had eluded us, but I think this is the better result for Wikipedia's readers, the people we are supposed to be doing all for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

MVR


1) endorse own close The argument that "Ivory Coast" is the name most of our readers would be familiar with was in fact the central point of most if not all of the arguments to change the name. That I expressed it slightly differently in an attempt to clarify the logic behind the close does not mean I made up myself or used a "supervote" to force my own desired result. . If I cared one way or the other what this article was called I would have participated in the discussion instead of closing it. Was it a slam dunk? No, but I endeavored to make it clear that if we factored in concern for our readers (you know, the people we do all this for, the ones who want information, not a demostration that we know how to argue chapter verse of some policy they have never heard of and don't care about) then the argument to move the article had greater strength. As I mentioned in my close, if I had been so inclined I could have just looked at the number of bolded endorsements and said "no consensus" for the sixth time, but instead I actually read this monstrous debate, twice, and carefully considered every argument made before writing up the close. i remain convinced this was the right move for Wikipedia and its readers. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)



2) P.T., I am wondering why you continue to make the claim that I prematurely ruled out a no consensus result when we already discussed this on my talk page and I explicitly told you I did not.[1] Of course in the cherry picked, out of context portions of those remarks you reposted here that is not evident. I can imagine only three possibilities:


 * You did not understand my answer
 * You think I am lying
 * You understood my answer and believe it but it is not in the interest of your position to acknowledge it so you persist in making the claim anyway.

I would appreciate it if you would indicate which of these situations best describe your position or if there is a fourth possibility I have not envisioned. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)



3) That is not what I did. As I explicitly mentioned in the closing statement and in the discussion on my talk page, I accept that if you look soleley at the numbers, there is no consensus, but if you do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments and not just the numbers, I believe there is one position with a stronger argument. Apparently my choice to add a remark that I would not consider a no consensus result acceptable has caused everyone to assume that I did not even consider the possibility. It was more of an aside, an editorial comment if you will, that I clearly should have just kept to myself because it has been misinterpreted and taken out of context ever since. That's four times now, once at the RM, once on my talk page, and twice here that I have tried to clarify this point. Hopefully it is now clear to everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)



4) I'd just like to point out once again that I have repeatedly refuted the notion that I closed this the way I did because I felt a decision had to be made one or the other. I said it would not be an acceptable result. That is not the same thing. Sometimes these things are in fact closed with unnaceptable results and if I saw no other way I would have closed it that way. I would once again request that those arguing this point clarify if they have simply not read those previous explanation or if they are calling me a liar. It pretty much has to be one or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)



5) ok, I will try one more time to clarify this point:

"There is certainly a lot to be considered when evaluating this discussion. I haven't actually counted but at a glance if we went by straight numbers we would arrive at yet another 'no consensus' result. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable. Of course we don't do things that way anyway, but I wanted to be clear from the outset that strength of numbers was not a contributing factor to this close."
 * I responded to request for closure and came into this discussion with no preconceived notions whatsoever. Until I began reading the RM I didn't even know there was a naming dispute on this topic
 * I read the entire debate all the way through, walked away from it for a few minutes, and then came back and read the entire thing again to make sure I had not missed anything important.
 * It was at this point I arrived at the conclusion that the argument to change the name was slightly stronger than the argument to retain it where it was. At no time before that did I feel certainty about the result.
 * While writing up the close I said this:

So what I wanted people to take away from that but apparently did not express properly was that if I had done nothing but count heads we would have had another no consensus result but since I instead evaluated the strength of arguments I felt we did have an actionable result. At no time did I say I never considered the possibility. If you take those two sentences in isolation I could see how you might interpret them the way they have been interpreted here, but they were part of a larger point. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)