User talk:Extorc/Archive 7

Inaccurate close summary

This close summary is inaccurate. "Failed to attract any support" is simply not true. Better to close with no explanation than an inaccurate one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 5 support votes. I don't disagree with the closure but the rationale is plainly inaccurate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM close

Can you please explain your rationale for this closure? There was a significant amount of discussion and closing without even a tiny bit of explanation seems inappropriate to me.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RMCS:4 Doesn't mandate extended comments or explanations. When I don't offer extended explanation, it simply means that the move failed to attract consensus. >>> Extorc.talk 11:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "You may add a closing rationale immediately after the boldfaced result if you think it is necessary." In this case, a rationale is absolutely necessary. Secondly, you closed the discussion as "not moved", while here you seem to be implying "no consensus". There is a difference between the two positions.

Kindly provide a detailed rationale that considers all of the policy arguments made as such rationales are often the basis for future RMs at the same article and related article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed my closing statement to No consensus to move and added further comments. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, I'll post my specific questions below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My questions are:

how did you evaluate whether or not "capture" was NPOV? Did you evaluate purely based on number of !votes? Did you give any considerations to source tables presented in the article, including the scholarly sources?
how did you determine whether or not "kidnapping" was NPOV?
What do you think was the most relevant policy in this debate by which you determined no consensus?
Are there !votes that you discounted? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, do you think this is a contentious enough debate that it is best that it be closed by an admin or someone more experienced? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg, Cameron Dewe, Wafflefrites were the only participants who commented on POV of the word capture vs kidnapped and all were opposed to the notion that captured was NPOV. This encompasses your next question as the debate over this was quite polar.
No, I still stand by my closure and don't think there is any requirement for admin closure here. >>> Extorc.talk 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The resent request move closure by you

I thought that the request move was to change the article from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, not to 7 October attacks. It appears that the article has been unilaterally moved to a different title all together. I would have been less inclined to support the move had I known. Why did you move it to a different title all together? There has been other notable attacks on the date 7 October in the region such as the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid and the 2004 Sinai bombings, both of which occurred on the 7 October. That's why I supported a move to the title 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel as it was specific about which attack on the 7 October. IJA (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" 7 October attack would be sufficient - Hameltion" - This user first suggested the title.

"the consistency would be with articles like September 11 attacks and January 6 United States Capitol attack - DecafPotato" The Original poster states how the newly suggested title would be consistent with other attacks further corroborating 7 October attacks.

"oppose prpposed title but would support the title changing to "7 October attacks - MWQs" Another user supporting the title.

During the discussion, i did count your statement as support to the current title because you spell out 7 October attack but redacting your statement wont make a huge difference and I would still move it to the current title.
Kindly read the closing statement "No prejudice against another discussion between the original proposed title and 7 October attacks.". Cheers @IJA >>> Extorc.talk 13:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should head to Talk:7 October attacks#The resent request move please so that this can be discussed further. IJA (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for 7 October attacks

An editor has asked for a Move review of 7 October attacks. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Kind regards IJA (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]