Jump to content

Talk:Himalayas/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Expired RFC

user:Fayninja has made some changes to the lead of Himalayas. In edit A and edit B made to the page, they have claimed in the edit summaries that the consensus for a change was achieved in an RfC which was posted on this page on 5 August 2022, and archived by a bot after its template expired on 3 September 2022. In the survey that followed the RfC statement two editors @Johnbod and Sturmgewehr88: supported the proposed change, in addition to the nominator @UnpetitproleX:, and two Fowler&fowler and @לילך5: opposed the change. Although admin @RegentsPark: (who might be away on vacation right now) did not take part in the RFC, in the days leading up to it, they had posted this clear opposition to a change. @Fayninja: had not taken part in the discussion.

I am asking both Johnbod and Sturmgewehr88 if they consider the survey in this RFC to have constituted the consensus for a change. Pinging admins @Abecedare, Doug Weller, and El C: who are likely to know the rules much better than I, in addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really - at best a weak consunsus. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Johnbod: that the archived RfC constituted a weak consensus. That is what I told Fayninja while responding to their post on my talk page, that the RfC gained rough consensus. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Here’s the RfC as it was after the last comment was made in it, before it was archived. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@UnpetitproleX: A rough consensus (i.e. OED "rough, adj, II, 6, b, subscription required).: "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, provisional" one) is not the same thing as a close consensus which is (i.e. OED close, adj, 20) "said of a contest of any kind in which the two sides are very nearly equal in numbers or strength" Please note that Johnbod begins with, "Not really" and qualifies the rest of their post with "at best." Their edit summary is "no."
In a post in your other (and current) RFC on WT:INDIA, you had replied in answer to my question about the fate of the August 2022 RFC in this way: "Well, if you had only bothered to check, you would have seen that two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it." That hardly betokens agreement with Johnbod's assessment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
So Johnbod actually said a "weak" consensus, its meaning hovering somewhere between OED weak, adj, 12, b, "Of words or expressions: Wanting in force, inadequate; implying relatively little fullness of meaning." and (OED weak, adj, 13, b "b. Of evidence, argument, etc.: Not convincing.
Either way it is not a "rough" consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I said two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it. That is what happened. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
But that is not evidence for a rough, i.e. "broad, loose, or approximate; preliminary, or provisional" consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Well perhaps Johnbod can clarify what exactly they meant and whether they disagree with what I’ve said. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I doubt they are interested. They said "no" in the edit summary. That is far from what you are prepared to say in any edit summary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Johnbod: and perhaps they can also let us know which of the versions they prefer now, given that they supported my proposal then. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
You are again attempting to reopen the RFC. For the final time, you can discuss what the sum of votes constituted in the manner and language in which they were cast, not ask the voters to elaborate on their vote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, “reopening the RfC” implies it was ever formally closed. It wasn’t. WP:RFCCLOSE clearly distinguishes between a closed RfC (where discussion is discouraged) and a summarising it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ten months later? Nine months after anyone made a comment? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
And noting that the proposal reflected what is there in reliable sources. In addition to the two cited there (this and this), we also have this 2022 book by historian John Keay which in its maps section (pages 10, 11, 12, six maps in total) shows all the territorial disputes. Clearly, there are multiple disputes, of which the Kashmir one is most notable. That’s exactly what the proposal said. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
John Keay is a popular historian, an author of trade books, not WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
That RFC died a natural death for lack of attention. It was dead in the water in early September 2022. We cannot reopen it and make new arguments. You can argue about what the votes constituted, but not what the evidence in the literature constitutes, for that would amount to reopening the RFC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Keay. He's great fun to read. I enjoyed his The Great Arc: The Dramatic Tale of how India was Mapped and Everest was named, but Matthew Edney's Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765-1843, though not precisely overlapping, constitutes scholarship Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I doubt there exist any scholarly book on the Himalayas that claim that there aren’t several territorial disputes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I was merely reminiscing fondly about Keay and Edney.
Again: You can argue about what the votes constituted, but not what the evidence in the literature constitutes, for that would amount to reopening the RFC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The consensus reached was highly valid, considering that the struggle for sovereignty extends beyond the confines of the Kashmir region. This is evident in various conflicts such as the Sino-Indian war, Second Sino-Indian war, Doklam standoff, Sumdorong Chu standoff, and the hydropower rush. @RegentsPark was against not assigning due significance to the Kashmir region. However, the nominator of the RfC, @UnpetitproleX, had resolved this concern by appending "most notably in the Kashmir region" to the end of the sentence. They also addressed the other objection by presenting a shorter version in the final proposal. Fayninja (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. RegentsPark made their comment in reference to the pre-RfC proposal, they did not participate in the RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The spirit of the law, not the letter. RegentsPark said,

... as Fowler correctly points out, this article is not about the disputes so only the major dispute (the big kahuna so to speak) needs to be mentioned in the lead. The Arunachal dispute is nowhere near as significant as the Kashmir one (if, for example, we had an article on Territorial disputes in the Himalayas, 95% of the article would discuss Kashmir, the dispute with the long and illustrious history

Please don't attempt to declare that opinion invalid just because it was offered before the RFC began. It is not a "sitting on the fence" opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Weren’t you just telling me "for the final time, you can discuss what the sum of votes constituted in the manner and language in which they were cast, not ask the voters to elaborate on their vote" when I pinged an editor who did participate in the RfC, and then offer these comments from an editor who didn’t participate in the RfC? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
So which one is it, is the RfC open for votes by non-participating editors to be added to it now, or it is closed? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not open. Again, they had cast a vote then, expressed a clear and unambiguous opinion before the RfC began. They are not offering an opinion now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Nor are they elaborating now on what they said. Their post then was clear as day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We have diffs. This is the RfC, to which they made neither a vote nor a comment in the RfC. They made the comment before it began. You are now claiming that counts as participating in the RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The above meta-discussion about a year-old RFC, which didn't reach a clear consensus, is a waste of all your time and is creating further animosity among the involved editors. If you wish, start a new discussion/RFC so that any further time spent on the topic is at least on the actual topic. Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Abecedare: UnpetitproleX has another similar RFC currently running on WT:IN on Kashmir, posted 12 June 2023, also indirectly related to issues of sovereignty, in which two people comprising the nominator and Fayninja have voted yes to a certain version; and two including myself have voted to close the discussion. To open an RFC here before the other has closed will smack of forum shopping.
    In my humble view, to inveigle editors by a nominator in this manner will run counter to the otherwise democratic principles of WP, for it is not clear that a critical mass of uninvolved people will vote when they look at same old, same-old, with glazed eyes. In the current RFC, only one participating editor of four is uninvolved; Unp*X, Fayninja, and I are not.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that another RFC, in parallel with the one already running at WT:INB on a related topic (which has garnered minimal participation), would be inadvisable. But IMO just continuing the discussion among the already involved editors is unlikely to get us anywhere either. Not really sure of the way forward. Perhaps Johnbod has some ideas, or we can ask Vanadmonde93 or RegentsPark for ideas when they are active again. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    In my view, it is best to declare the RFC of August 2022 closed without consensus, to let the current RFC in WT:IN die a natural death, and to then allow me to offer a RFC of my own on WT:IN, the continuation of the consensus of August 2019, which was well attended by both WikiProjects India and Pakistan. I am confident that my RFC will not lack quorum Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    But I do not want to make a proposal within UnpetitproleX's current RFC, for it is well beyond the stage of vigorous participation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    I had a read of WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE. Perhaps we can salvage the RfC and continue the discussion, keeping it open for comments until a month or so before formally closing it." Fayninja (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow there's a lot of bickering about an RfC that happened 9 months ago. I cast my !vote after analyzing the situation and developing an opinion; it has not changed. If there are disagreements about the outcome of the RfC, then start a new one and request more involvement. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88: Hello. Thanks for your reply. I didn't ask you if you still stood by your vote, but whether—as a participant in that RfC in which five votes were cast, two for preserving the existing version and three (!v) for changing it (the latter including the nominator's)—you thought a consensus had been reached. Johnbod's answer was, "Not really. At best a weak consensus" Their edit summary was "no." Some of us had forgotten about the RfC until its result or lack thereof was cited to make an edit, and the bickering began. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
PS Admin Abecedare who dropped by to calm the waters, thought it "didn't reach a clear consensus." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I would say that the fact the supported stance was implemented and unchallenged for 9 months constitutes consensus. But, consensus can always be reevaluated. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
But @Sturmgewehr88: it was not implemented until the week before last, i.e. more than 9 months later, by someone who hadn't arrived on WP at the time of the RfC's archiving in early September 2022. Said implementation was immediately reverted, which is why we are here. Had the RfC half a chance of being deemed a consensus, the RfC's nominator would have implemented it long ago. In other words, it had been ailing for so long that I and very likely others assumed there was no consensus, and we forgot about it. In my 16 years on WP, I have not seen a survey of 2 to 1 of the uninvolved, which has been closed by someone experienced to be a consensus.
Please read uninvolved administrator Abecedare's comment above: "... a year-old RFC, which didn't reach a clear consensus, ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Archive of past discussions on page naming

Several discussions have previously taken place regarding the name of this page. Please review the archive for finding out why the current name is being used. RedWolf (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Himalayas → Himalaya — The term Himalaya is used throughout the article: "The Himalaya Range", "Lesser Himalaya", and "Greater Himalaya"; as well as on other pages Geology of the Himalaya.IceBlade710 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himalayas/Archive_7&oldid=1234966527"