User talk:Chetsford/Archive 38

Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the close. It's always great to read a thoughtful close of a tough discussion. Andre🚐 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always nice when the first Talk page message after a close isn't a complaint - ha! Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Let's hope it sticks. I won't jinx it. Andre🚐 02:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry to break from that! Firstly, I appreciate your effort in summarizing and concluding the RfC. There were a couple things I was hoping to get clarification on or possibly reconsideration.
While the RfC didn't reflect an overwhelming majority for discreated or neither, there seems to be a tangible inclination towards the term "discredited". This sentiment is drawn not only from those directly voting for "Discredited" but also from combining it with those favoring "Discredited and Controversial", as well as from some "Neither" votes that showed openness to the term if it's attributed. I would also like to say that the current wording received almost no support. With people initially supporting it mostly switching their vote to neither.
On the matter of source relevance, while 2022 sources remain valuable, it's crucial to highlight the potentially greater relevance of 2023 sources. Given the dynamic nature of many topics, these newer sources may present more current perspectives, which could shape the discussion in a more up-to-date manner. One of the overall issues with the article is it's reliance on pre-2020 sourcing, most of which coming out late 2017 to early 2018 when it was first being released. Now that more recent sources have had a chance to analysis the situation as a whole I those sources should be given more weight.
The importance of adhering to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:DUE can't be overstated. The term "discredited", when supported robustly by reliable sources, aligns well with WP:DUE. Furthermore, attributing the term ensures that we're not contravening WP:WIKIVOICE.
Considering the feedback from the "Neither" camp, it's worth noting their lack of a clear, actionable alternative. This might necessitate a different weighing when assessing the overall consensus.
In sum, it seems there might be a stronger inclination towards the term "Discredited", particularly if attributed, than the closure suggests. But beyond that, even if not discredited, at least consensus against the current version. I do also want to close by reiterating that I appreciate you taking the time to close and give such a thorough explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
PackMecEng, that's no problem and no need to apologize.
First, I agree with you that the current wording received almost no support. However, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, in event of lack of support for a change in the status quo "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". Second, I'm cautiously inclined to agree that Discredited with Attribution (as opposed to Discredited in WV) probably represents the consensus. But it wasn't clear and obvious to me as many of the Neither !votes indicating their support for D-with-A were inscrutable and opaque, leaving enough ambiguity in my mind to tip it into No Consensus. My suggestion is to run a new RfC in which Discredited in WV and Discredited with Attribution are each presented as distinct options (in addition to Controversial and whatever else) with the understanding that editors should !vote for any or all options they would support.
Alternatively, I will certainly not object or be offended in any way if you request a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This was so narrowly on the edge that additional insight might be beneficial. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think I will take a little time to consider that before doing anything. Thanks for the input! PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)