The concern regarding non-neutrality of a descriptive title WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC was essentially ignored in the discussion, and was not considered by the closer. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist From nominating editor. I was involved, and favored the move.
Within the astronomical and astrophysical community, it is standard to refer to the 1970s discovery and followup study of the Hulse-Taylor binary as the first indirect observation of gravitational waves and the recent LIGO detection as the first direct observation. In popular writing, the distinction is commonly ignored. A striking example of this distinction can be found in this year's Nobel Prize announcements: the "advanced" summary [1] refers to "first direct" only, starting with the title, while the press release [2] doesn't bother to say "direct" at all.
An excellent WP:RS on this controversy is the book Harry CollinsGravity's Kiss (MIT 2017), chapter 8. Collins is a sociologist of science, and has been studying the gravitational wave community since the mid-70s. He was "embedded" in LIGO, had full access to their internal e-mails/web pages, and has written several books on the project, carefully taking note of disagreements and controversies amongst the scientists and recording how they proceed and resolve. Collins reports that the question of how to refer to the first detection in their scientific discovery paper generated more than 2500 e-mails from over 500 project members, and there was no clear consensus. He quotes e-mails from all sides of the question. (In fact, many objected to calling it "first direct" even.)
NPOV requires us to not take sides, even if any controversy is amongst the specialists only. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the nominator) You closed without addressing the NPOV violation. I provided sources on your Talk page, you just said you would interpret NPOV as not applying. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what I said at all. You might want to read WP:BLUDGEON; replying to everyone who disagrees with you is rarely a productive course of action. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Because it is an interpretation of how that policy relates to the issue." I don't think my summary is misleading, I apologize if it is.
Actually, no one is "disagreeing" with me. They are simply making irrelevant replies. I brought up the issue of WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC here, and I expected informed comments on why NPOV is a concern or not. Instead, I see fourthree admins playing dodgeball!? My "bludgeoning" is a repeated request that you all stop doing that. Seriously, just hide everything after my request and your first note, with a request that everyone stick to the NPOV issue. The sideshow so far has just been a waste of time. 129.68.81.194 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remember what Amakuru said, so some of my comments are off and stricken. 129.68.81.194 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I opposed the move. Jenks24's close was an accurate summary of the discussion: no consensus was reached on any point, and a move review is not the place to relitigate this. Wikipedia's policies were in tension here, and the discussion did not come to a consensus on how to resolve it. That results in no consensus, and a lack of a move. Relisting would be unlikely to solve that, so it isn't useful in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (from the nominator) There is absolutely no tension between NPOV and POV. The latter is simply not allowed. Meanwhile, I have no interest in relitigating the original discussion, here or anywhere. I am opposed to the blatant choice of POV in the title. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus" pretty much summed up the situation. I only made an equivocal comment. THE CLOSER CANNOT JUST LOOK AT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT AND IGNORE THE OTHERS. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the nominator) NPOV is not "one good argument", it is fundamental policy, and overrides a mere this-name versus that-name discussion. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 129.68.81.71 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it's true that the point made by the IP about whether "First observation of gravitational waves" is an accurate WP:PRECISE description, was raised in the discussion and not really discussed much by other participants. But 129.68.81.71 did not actually cast a "support" vote with the above argument themselves, merely commented on other's comments. So nobody actually voting in the discussion explicitly mentioned this ambiguity, meaning it is not something I would expect the closer to factor in closely. The debate that the closer assessed was mostly to do with whether we should use the code-name because we do so for later GW detections, and that debate was correctly assessed as no consensus. The closer can only close based on what's discussed and voted upon, so closing as "moved" based on one assertion in comments, not corroborated, that the name is NPOV would be not an acceptable way to end this. I'm personally not convinced that any such problem exists, because large bodies of published sources do call this the first observation, and we're not violating POV if we simply call things the same way as the majority of the world at large does. But if the IP really feels there's something that needs discussing on the NPOV question, I suggest a new RM which gives the ambiguity between the recent discovery and the 1970s discovery as its central rationale. Then the responders can comment specifically on that question rather than any other. — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the nominator) Yes, I asked for a relist, following RM instructions. I am happy if such were restricted to the NPOV question; I agree with the commentators that rehashing what was discussed is pointless, and the closer accurately assessed that discussion.
Regarding sources, as I mentioned, the popular sources tend to not bother with "direct", while the scientific sources tend to be very careful on this point. If that was the only distinction, I would not be here, as I am not criticizing lack of precision. As I pointed out (from RS) it's also a matter of controversy. Just not one that the popularizers think their audience cares about. We have NPOV, they do not. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close, anything else would have been a stretch. Impose the standard RM moratorium of two months. The IP may have some points, but he will need more time and effort in making his arguments cogent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Closer accurately summarized the lack of consensus in the move discussion. Move Review is not the appropriate venue to re-litigate the merits of the move. IP 129 is needlessly bludgeoning the discussion here; better launch a new RM with cogent arguments after 6 months. — JFGtalk 14:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regardless of accuracy, the closer's summary is adequately supported by the arguments. Personally, I thought the oppose arguments were actually stronger than the support ones but they were definitely not weaker. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Richard B. Spencer – Endorse close. The closer made a valid and well-explained closure, clearly founded on the policy arguments arising during the discussion. Aervanath (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Result was no consensus, but based primarily on sources, which seem not to reflect the basis on which the discussion was closed Edaham (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn From nominating editor.
The sources used in opposition to the move, and which formed the basis of the closing argument, seem to largely support the title proposed by the unopposed editors. The verbiage used in the sources is as follows (excluding NYT references, which I can't open due to location difficulties in Shanghai).
The second point on which the case was closed is that the term is a pejorative. There's no real basis for this is sources. It's not vulgar. It's merely a term from which a fringe group is attempting to distance its self.
Lastly, the proposed title is highly useful in disambiguating as it refers to the field/topic of the article, which a simple name of a not highly-notable person does not.
With respect to the closing officer in this case. I put forward the above for further consideration
Comment from closer this wasn't discussed with me first, but I stand by my close. There was a tension between the MOS naming conventions for biographies and the article naming policy. The naming policy is the single most important policy in RM even above the naming conventions. It incorporates the disambiguation guideline and has a clear preference for natural disambiguation when possible, and sourcing was presented to demonstrate that there was a widely used natural disambiguation in high quality sourcing. That was never rebutted using a policy-based reason. Re: the pejorative point: something can be both true and a pejorative, and sourced. For BLPs, however, we are reminded by the BLP policy that ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, this further places the burden on those wishing to rename in this case to provide strong arguments and achieve a strong consensus for a move to this particular title. That did not occur in the discussion in my reading, and the only possible way I believe I could have closed it based on the discussion and the relevant policies was as no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Each side in the discussion put forth persuasive arguments, thus resulting in "no consensus". The closing admin's evaluation of the issue, both at the close and above, was refined and styled to near perfection. All the reasons are clearly and distinctly elucidated by the closer and require no further enhancement. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs) 07:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - (I opposed the move). The closing summary was very well written, and seems a very good reading of the discussion, as assessed against relevant policies. The comment from the closer above also addresses well the points made in this MRV, so I don't need to reiterate them as Tony has already done a good job there. It should also be noted that there is a fresh RM active, an eventuality which was expressly encouraged in Tony's close, which at the moment is leaning towards making the article Richard B. Spencer primary at Richard Spencer, which if passed (and it's mostly support !votes so far) would make the move discussed here obsolete anyway. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2017 Lower Manhattan attack – allow (and encourage) new RM. Although there is an agreement here that there was no particular consensus formed during the RM and that the move was made in haste, there is also no consensus here to overturn that move and revert to "2017 West Side Highway attack". So I suppose this is effectively an implicit endorsement of the current title until a new RM is held. However, should a new RM end as no consensus I will leave it up to that admin's discretion to decide on which title is the status quo ante. Disclaimer: I commented in this discussion on a tangential issue (should the MRV notification template be displayed on the article) which I don't think makes me involved, but drop me a note if you have an issue with it. Jenks24 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment: to any closing administrators: there are several "endorse" comments below treating this as if it were the RM itself, rather than a review of whether the move's premature close (conducted by me) or the moves by Sullay and Fuzheado were valid. A few of the "overturn" comments are also disagreeing with the current title. Just my observation that this discussion is being treated as a commentary on the page title itself, rather than a !vote about whether the closure was valid without consensus. epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "New York City" is a more natural, common name than "Lower Manhattan", and I am not seeing or hearing media using "Lower Manhattan", which is a local use term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: The title was "2017 West Side Highway attack" when the RM was opened. "2017 New York City attack" was the title when the RM closed. Whether it should be overturned to the West Side Highway or NYC title is disputable, but I'm just putting this as a comment. epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"2017 West Side Highway attack" is a terrible title, too many cities have West Sides.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one West Side Highway but that's not the point. My point is that the title would be overturned to "2017 West Side Highway attack", even though I agree it is too specific. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Touche. It's still the primary topic though. epicgenius (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The "2017 New York attack" is more natural, when the event is current, but only then. Subsequently, IMO, the article title should be more specific, and thus refer to the more specific location of the attack. There's also the May 2017 car crash. -Mardus /talk 00:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"New York" is too general, so a better natural title is "New York City" (as that's where the article on the city is). epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The discussion was messy, but consensus was not leaning towards this title. Many people wanted to sidestep the issue of (over)specifying the location and adding something like "vehicle ramming attack" to the end of the title. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This was a unilateral move, albeit good faith, without consensus on a major event. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down. This is a current event. Current sources are all primary. The real world community is still settling down as to what to call it. For the moment, for a week at least, the current title will do. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, fiddling the title excessively, especially during this period of developing reliable sources, is a bad idea. There is no ideal title at this time, in a week reviewing sources will override everything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/settle down. Keep at this title for 1 week until more high-quality sources settle on a name. Neutralitytalk 03:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was improper to prematurely close the RM merely because someone had already moved the article before consensus was reached. It should have been left open, the page should have been moved back, and the page could have been move protected if the warring continued. It's demoralizing to those involved in the RM if someone unilaterally moves pages mid-discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone agree an outcome sooner rather than later? I don't think having that big tag at the top of a ITN story is the best thing to be showcasing to our readers. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag. It doesn’t belong on the article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Lugnuts:, @SmokeyJoe:, the {{move review}} tag says "While the discussion is in progress, this page may be edited, but do not blank or redirect this page, or remove this notice from the page". --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use common sense. The wording was stolen straight from the DRV template and is probably unnecessary for MRVs because it is an editor issue not a reader issue (deletion or lack thereof arguably is a reader issue though). In any case, even if there was agreement that articles under MRV should display this template, exceptions to any rule always apply when there is a benefit to Wikipedia and clearly in this case – with such a high-traffic and dynamic article – having that tag at the top of the page for a week is a detriment to our readers. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @E.M.Gregory:, are you sure that you meant to link to 2017 instead of "2017 New York City truck attack"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the long term, I support titles such as "2017 New York City truck attack" or "October 2017 New York City attack". Some people in different parts of the world will better recognize "New York City" than they will "Manhattan" or a neighborhood within. I am OK with overturning and relisting. Should the move review tag not be on the top of the page? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC) A typo. ficed. thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the move, as "New York City" is too general and problematic. News outlets are only of partial guidance on this, as they write headlines for today whereas we write for the historical record. NB: This move and !vote was a confusing set of circumstances – the hatnote and the description of the proposed move don't even match. The beige colored box says Lower Manhattan -> New York City, and the green box says West Side Highway -> New York City. The problem with "New York City" is that the May 2017 Times Square vehicle attack is also in "New York City." And honestly, for posterity, no one is going to look up things by month – people don't process May 2017 vs October 2017. They will think Times Square or Lower Manhattan. Pinging other folks in the Requested move who may not know about this move review -@RegentsPark, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, Werldwayd, Lihaas, Jade Phoenix Pence, Paris1127, Jr xander, Knowledgekid87, JBergsma1, Jim Michael, and Crumpled Fire: -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Fuzheado's arguments.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: New York is too broad. This isn't the only attack to have taken place in the city this year so its needs disambiguating. Manhattan is too broad as Times Square is also in Manhattan (2017 Times Square car crash) so Lower Manhattan is best; "West Side Highway" was much too specific. This would follow the practice that has been used for two London attacks this year: 2017 Westminster attack and June 2017 London Bridge attack (London Bridge is the area not just the name of a bridge). Referring to Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), article about truck attack are just "attack" (eg 2017 Stockholm attack and 2016 Berlin attack), so using "truck attack" would be going against the established norm. Its clear from its current title what is is referring to so I think that the best wording, Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 15:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't see this as an issue, there is a reason why Manhattan is the primary disambiguation page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: For now 2017 Lower Manhattan attack seems to be the most plausible workable title. werldwayd (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We'll probably get a chance to revisit this again in a few weeks but this seems fine for now. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Just looked through discussion, and there was definitely no consensus for this move. I agree there will probably be a better name for this article soon, but I don't think the arguments to switch to a name that isn't used by any RS that I can find serves our readers. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Lower Manhattan. This is an odd term not used much about this attack, except on Wikipedia. Don't recommend its use. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times and NY Daily News are local papers, so you would expect them to be more specific about the location, since their readership is already NYC based. As for CNN and Time, they are not using Lower Manhattan as a way of identifying the attack, but rather commenting on the link for that area between this attack and the 9/11 attacks. I personally agree with Vanguard that "Lower Manhattan" is an unusual title for this event when viewed globally, most are referring to it as the New York City attack. It's still worth keeping the current title until things settle down though. — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sort-of endorse and allow new RM. This is a high-profile breaking-news article, and the previous title 2017 West Side Highway attack was quite inappropriate, so a quick rename was called for, thus I commend the mover for the bold, IAR action. I don't see a point reverting the title to the old one, and 2017 Lower Manhattan attack is a reasonable working title. When the dust settles, (which is already happening), start a new RM with carefully selected choices (in my opinion, it ought to be called a "truck attack" for better recognizability, but I'll save the argument for the RM). No such user (talk)
Endorse but open a new RM quite soon per No such user. I think common sense has prevailed here. The old title (West Side Highway) was a poor one, and the new one active now is clearly better. I think we often see this with new topics that are still fresh in the news - the title moves around quite a lot in the first few weeks, and I don't think it's reasonable for us to follow our usual full WP:RM process in this case. In particular, we shouldn't expect the article to stay at a non-ideal title for a full seven days, just because there's an RM active and seven days is the usual running time. The page was boldly moved during the life of the RM, and for the above reasons I won't trout Sullay for that, although I do think editors should check for active RMs and consider closing them early per WP:IAR in such a case, to avoid this kind of confusion. I also wouldn't trout user Epicgenius for procedurally closing rather than reopening them RM, for the same reasons. They made the right call. As others have noted, I don't think the current title is ideal, but the best thing is to leave it here for a few days or a week or two, and then construct a careful RM with sources, to take it to what will hopefully then be a long term title. Personally I would like to see the word "New York" in that title, and probably "truck" as well, since those are the two terms that make it most recognizbale now, but we'll assess that when we get to the new RM. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
