PhotogenicScientist (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
Could you answer to any, or ideally all, of these issues? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
Could you answer to any, or ideally all, of these issues? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Photogenic, your next step would be to request a close review at AN. Howver in view of the long sad history of this proposed article content, which has failed to gain consensus repeatedly after lengthy and rather detiled scrutiny, I'd suggest you drop this issue and move on to the many more significant content issues and initiatives waiting to be addressed on that page. This was a very thourough and thoughtful close of the RfC, with lots of straw man and specious insistence over its monthlong course. AN close reviews, while permitted, tend to become dysfunctional rehashes and IDHT bludgeons of the same discussion already concluded with the article talk close. In the absense of any clear procedural error or egregious misapplication of policy -- which you have not demonstrated -- such reviews are rarely a constructive application of community resources.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:10, 16 January 2024
Close at Trump
Hey. I was wondering whether there is a consensus against mention of the Abraham Accords as a whole, or simply the proposed wording. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cessaune Hi there, perhaps this message came in just when I went offline. Anyway, the original proposal was a particular wording "
In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
" and according to my close, the consensus was to omit the sentence about the Abraham Accords from the article entirely. This is because the oppose !voters intensified their arguments to exclude the Abraham Accords altogether. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)- Thanks! So do you think there is a consensus against including any mention of the Accords, or just the proposed sentence? Sorry to repeatedly bother you. Cessaune [talk] 14:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus was to not mention it at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! So do you think there is a consensus against including any mention of the Accords, or just the proposed sentence? Sorry to repeatedly bother you. Cessaune [talk] 14:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cessaune: I've added a link to this thread. Future such clarifications would be better placed in the RfC. Thanks for seeking the clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I have several problems with this close.
First off, in general, you summarized the Support votes and the Oppose votes in their own paragraphs, then said that the Oppose votes "have provided more convincing and substantiated reasons for their position." It really looks like you just sided with the Oppose votes because they had more objections. Numerosity of objections matters much less than the strength of arguments.
Also, you included some decidedly odd statements in your summary of the Oppose rationales, which I could hardly find anywhere (They were also more about Biden than Trump, as they were a response to his perceived threat to the status quo in the region
and They are also not a defining or unique feature of his presidency, as other presidents have also brokered peace deals in the region
).
You mentioned that "the supporters have not sufficiently considered the size, weight, and NPOV issues that the proposal would entail," which is a blatant misreading of the discussion, as weight and NPOV issues were thoroughly discussed. And as to the size, only two editors raised objections to the size of the article, and the proposed addition represented a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article. Do you really find the arguments to size so convincing? If so, the Donald Trump article need accept no new content, ever.
You also mentioned that Supporters failed to "demonstrate their relevance and importance to Trump's personal biography." Where did you get this criteria from, exactly? This is a biographical article on a former US president, and we tend to include material about events from presidential administrations in Presidents' articles.
You mentioned that Oppose voters "have addressed the points raised by the supporters more effectively" - this was one of your most egregious errors. Just from a quick scan of the discussion, for votes that were ANSWERED in some way, 2 were Supports and 8 were Opposes; for votes that went largely UNANSWERED, 8 were Supports and 1 was an Oppose. How on earth do you look at that discussion, and think that the Oppose voters are being more responsive and receptive to discussion?
Lastly, of all the editors who provided reasoned arguments and engaged in discussion, 13 supported the proposal, and 9 opposed. While RFCs are not a vote, that reminder is not carte blanche to decide consensus against the majority. This is mostly done when the majority argument is in opposition with a Policy or Guideline - which wasn't the case in this RFC.
Could you answer to any, or ideally all, of these issues? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Photogenic, your next step would be to request a close review at AN. Howver in view of the long sad history of this proposed article content, which has failed to gain consensus repeatedly after lengthy and rather detiled scrutiny, I'd suggest you drop this issue and move on to the many more significant content issues and initiatives waiting to be addressed on that page. This was a very thourough and thoughtful close of the RfC, with lots of straw man and specious insistence over its monthlong course. AN close reviews, while permitted, tend to become dysfunctional rehashes and IDHT bludgeons of the same discussion already concluded with the article talk close. In the absense of any clear procedural error or egregious misapplication of policy -- which you have not demonstrated -- such reviews are rarely a constructive application of community resources. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)