Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Outrage about RM #7 decision

Man. What a crumby decision. Wanting to avoid an angry rant I'll simply say that the most ballsy part of the closing decision seemed to be the "no consensus to move this article from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton". Support came over 2/3 of the editors weighing. Over 2/3. That's >66.6%. More than 2 out of 3. Get it?

Out of curiosity, can anyone remember such a contentious subject getting that much support? The closing panel shouldn't have said there was no consensus. They should have simply said that they just didn't like the consensus that was formed.

I'm a tad curious by what policy the panel felt they ought to pick-and-choose among the RS used to demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME. A bunch of editors asked the WP:COMMONNAME question, and a bunch of editors came back saying it supported Hillary Clinton. The panel apparently decided they possessed a better command for assessing the RS than the community.

I like how the oppose position received 4 lines in the summary. I think that pretty much sums up the strength of the position.

I call shenanigans on this decisions. Shenanigans! Particularly disappointing as the panel has dismissed the opinion of the community on an article which is sorta tied to the democratic function of one of the greatest democracies in the world. Reminds me vaguely of the 2008 Democratic National Convention super-delegate controversy. Who was at the center of that one again?

But, on a slightly more serious note, a big thanks to all the panelists for working through it. I dissent most respectfully.

How do we appeal? NickCT (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with basically every word you've written. The proper venue to appeal would be move review. Calidum 01:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to find out if BHG will have anything to say, prior to move review.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But if those 2/3^rds make bad arguments, then those entries are weighted less. We're not a democracy, nor do we decide things by tally. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to add to the above the fact that one of the opposers of this move, User:ColonelHenry has today been banned for sock puppetry in discussions. I don't know if any of his puppets participated in this one, but I'd request the panelists discount his opining herein and reconsider the count in light of this disqualification. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Without proof he socked in this discussion, that probably wouldn't be enough to overturn the decision. There are much more valid reasons to do so. Calidum 02:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: - Well, now that we know that you disagree with those arguments Tarc, we know they must have been good.

@Calidum: - Ok. Who's going to organize the appeal effort? NickCT (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see grounds for a MR if the decision were to move, but what criteria are those who want a review going to use to ask for the decision to be overturned? The move supporters went and asked for a panel of admins, tried to push the move through, and supporters had been working months on graphics of ballots, essays and such. While those who opposed had little time to prepare for countering. It was proven that the common name was HRC for over 30 years, with no recent name change or desire from the article subject to be addressed as HC. In fact, the preference is HRC. So are supporters going to ask for an overturn because of numbers that claimed commonname when that policy didn't support a move? Or ask for the title to be shorter just to be shorter? In any case, I appreciate the amount of time and guts it took the panel to handle this close. I know it wasn't an easy decision. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@DD2K: - Oh! You can't see grounds for a MR, huh? Well, don't worry. We can.

re "It was proven that the common name was HRC for over 30 years" - Well that's not just wrong. It's laughably wrong. Care to elaborate on what you feel that proof was.

Supports are going to ask that consensus be recognized and observed. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I supported the move from HRC to HC, but if you're "outraged" that the page isn't being moved, I think you're spending too much time and energy on this. That said, there are so many people on both sides that there is no "consensus" in the typical sense, period. So to say "no consensus" does puzzle me, since it should just be about the strongest arguments, not expecting any sort of "consensus" to build, seeing how dug in many people are on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - In almost any environment a super majority is a consensus. If we require more than a super majority to say a "consensus" has really formed, then we'll never achieve consensus.

If WP moves from a place which is consensus driven, to a place which is driven by the whim of a select few "panelists", then WP has lost part of what made it great. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Nick. In this case the closers took it upon themselves to act as judges instead of simply determining consensus. Calidum 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Calidum: - Exactly! So who's launching the appeal? NickCT (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, one can observe that it has evolved from a place of bro-slapping and mob rules mentality into a form where the argument made matters more than the number of shrill voices who show up. Consensus is not a head-count. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Oh? You mean Wikipedia isn't a democracy? Thanks for chiming in again Captain Obvious.

I like how Tarc looks at a group of people making calm, policy based arguments and calls it a mob. But then Tarc, I'm guessing any position with which you don't agree is formed by the mob, no? NickCT (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, you're getting very personal here. Please tone it down; thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, does this chest-puffery impress others in real-life? You're carping about how the "overwhelming" numbers should have carried the day; I have pointed out that numbers aren't the determining factor in a discussion in this project. If you do not wish the obvious to be pointed out to you, then do not be oblivious to the obvious. And stop pinging, the plain ol' watch-listed page changes work just fine. Tarc (talk)

Also: A section titled "outrage", and featuring words like "ballsy" and "crumby" (sic), does not come across as "a group of people making calm, policy based arguments". --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Omnedon: I'll take that comment seriously when you acknowledge that it might not be wise to refer to people as "the mob".

I never referred to any group as a mob. You should still tone it down. Omnedon (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No. You didn't. But you're defending someone who did. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am asking you not to make personal attacks. Omnedon (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc - Not sure why you don't like pings, but whatever. Anyway, as you well know, polling is a means to help determine consensus. Pertending the numbers aren't a determining factor is oblivious.

@MelanieN: - Hahaha.... Probably true. Note that I didn't say that I was making a calm, policy-based argument. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - And for the record, I resent having my "crumby" sic'ed. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I admit that was snark. I retract it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - You are a lady and a scholar. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What consensus can you possibly be referring to? This was not a vote. You could start an AFD for an article and have 60 people show up and state "Delete - not notable", and then have 2 show up and provide dozens of reliable sources showing that the subject of the article is in fact notable and meets the correct guidelines for an article. The close would/should be "Subject notable, no consensus to delete". Even though the deletes outnumber the keeps 60 to 2. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dave Dial - And if fishes were wishes we'd all be fishermen. You're right of course that Wikipedia is not a vote, but when there seems to be a pretty strong level of agreement among a wide body of editors for a certain position, closers should make pretty darn sure that their policy-based decision counteracting that popular decision is rock solid. The decision from this panel is far from rock solid. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is strong disagreement (as in this case), and if both sides are giving arguments (as in this case), then saying that either side's argument embodies consensus would be wrong. And if there is no consensus, the move isn't performed. Omnedon (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Omnedon: - Not really. The basic fact of the matter is that we will very very often say that consensus is formed purely on the basis that the large majority of respondents support one argument. Consensus is not unanimity. You can have one person giving a valid dissenting argument and still have a consensus. NickCT (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are editors who strongly oppose an action and give valid dissenting arguments, then you don't have consensus. You may not always get complete agreement, but consensus involves all parties being willing to live with a decision. Here, that's just not the case. Hence, no consensus. Hence, no move. Omnedon (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well.... I'll simply repeat "Consensus is not unanimity." NickCT (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

←(Come on, NickCT, "outrage"? If this section isn't an angry rant, I'd hate to see you actually let loose!) In any case I totally agree with MelanieN, Dave Dial, Omnedon, and Tarc on this. The closers correctly did not resort to a simplistic headcount, and instead evaluated the arguments. Indeed consensus is not unanimity, but neither is it majority rule. Dave's AfD example is on point. And Omnedon correctly points out that in a case like this, maintaining the long-established status quo is the right decision, because there is no consensus, no agreement that this change is needed. There were no "shenanigans", there was careful consideration. Thanks to the closers for their thoughtful and respectful close. Tvoz/talk 18:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tvoz: - You need niether unamity or a large majority for consesnsus, but both help. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment The outrage here is rather pointless, so can we stop the sniping. If you disagree with the close, let's open up a move review. We can draft it at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move review draft, and issue it in a week or two once the case has been built. I also think this was a bad close, no disrespect to the closers who took this on, I just think they misread a pretty clear consensus. Pages have been moved on much thinner margins than this. Let's focus on the way forward, which is IMHO a move review.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: - re "let's open up a move review" - That would be the productive thing to do, but somehow I feel like a little more sniping is in order. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

On a personal note, feel free to snipe away. We have thick skin and we anticipated unfavorable reactions from those who thought it was a slam dunk by vote count. I, for one, have thick skin and it's why I have avoided commenting more here. I'd rather let the drama simmer out on it's own rather than add fuel to it.--v/r - TP 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: - We only snipe cause we love ya Paris. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohh, I certainly feel it radiating in this discussion :). I'm not going to bear any grudges. But I do want ya'all to know that I (and I suspect Adjwilley and perhaps BHG) am (are) taking your comments seriously and I'm not ignoring them out of disrespect. If there is a move review, I'm just going to wait for the shock to wear off before I try to get ya'all to see how we read the discussion.--v/r - TP 20:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The wikilove is radiating from this discussion like it's some kind of huge radioactive wikilove bomb. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This should be interesting reading User:TParis/Clinton_naming. Great summary of the arguments. I think we could use this in developing the move review case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, the red quotes opposed the move and green quotes supported the move. Greys were neutral. The colors had no bearing on the amount of weight I gave them.--v/r - TP 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You really did give Dave Dial's "counter argument" to WP:CONCISE a lot of weight. What a joke. His position was decimated. Of all the supposed counter-examples he cited all but one were necessary disambiguations, and the one exception was virtually unknown without a middle name - these had nothing at all to do with the application of WP:CONCISE to HC/HRC. Here, this article is clearly the primary topic for both; neither requires disambiguation. Both names are very commonly used in reliable sources. But WP:CRITERIA favors only one of them: HC.

Speaking of WP:CRITERIA, the only argument you list in that section is Obi's excellent analysis, and rightfully so (though I too mentioned early on that WP:CRITERIA favored HC over HRC). Nothing in red to counter - because there was nothing to counter Obi's analysis. The main policy that governs title decision making is WP:AT, and the main section in WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA, and that clearly favors HC over HRC. There is no retort to that, period. Game over. You didn't even mention CRITERIA in your statement. I say again. One of the worst RM decisions I've ever seen. --B2C 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Man. Looking at that table makes me even more bewildered. 88% of respondents who mentioned wp:commonname mentioned it in support of the move. Yet the panel concludes that it's unclear which position wp:commonname supports? Really? NickCT (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I think if you look at just the arguments there were strong arguments on both sides made in terms of COMMONNAME. But when it's so one sided you really have to find in favor. It's one thing when the popular side is clearly wrong. But when it's at best a toss-up, you have to go with the strong local consensus, if there is one, I think. --B2C 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Overwhelming local consensus. Sorta outrageous that virtually everyone says "Commonname supports a move" and the panel simply comes back and say "No it doesn't". NickCT (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The table also shows the most commonly cited "oppose" rationale was Hillary's individual preference!! That argument won the day? That argument is what the panel felt was the better reasoning?? Really?

The headline here should be that WP panel decides personal preference is more important than policy. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That should, if you are paying attention to the discussion and WP:COMMONNAME policy, show you exactly why the the close should have been no consensus for a move. It's abundantly clear from reading this Talk page that HC is definitely not the more common name than HRC. HC has gained recently, but common name specifically states that recent trends should only be considered is there is a name change or specific even that goes along with the trend. Otherwise, you have to take the trend as a whole into consideration. Which, was admitted by even supporters such as B2C, showed that HRC is definitely a more common name the past 30+ years. In other words, just because an editor believes a name is more common, and supports a move based on that belief, does not mean that belief is right. Dave Dial (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@DD2K: - re " showed that HRC is definitely a more common name the past 30+ years" - You keep repeating this, but as far as I can tell, you seem to be the only person of this opinion. You seem to be talking to yourself.

90% of respondents agreed, HC was the more commonname. NickCT (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, B2C, when it's a toss-up between moving and not moving, you don't move. Omnedon (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When I say "toss up at best" above, I'm talking about the COMMONNAME question in particular, not the overall proposal. When doing the analysis to determine consensus in an RM discussion, many different questions are asked. One of those is regarding COMMONNAME - whether COMMONNAME favors either title. Per the arguments, at best it's a toss-up on that question; but local consensus is that common name favors HC. Both should be considered in deciding consensus on the overall question of whether the title should be changed. WP:CRITERIA and in particular WP:CONCISE, in terms of policy, arguments and !vote numbers, all tip in way in favor of HC. This was no toss-up, by far. --B2C 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NickCT. We need to head up to WP:MR Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review draft

I started it, at the link Obi suggested.

Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Move_review_draft

Go for it!

--B2C 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of time. Obviously, "Hillary Clinton" is the common name, and obviously, consensus was clearly in favor of "Hillary Clinton", but if any of you think a three-admin supervote has the slightest chance of being overturned, please save me some of whatever you're sniffing. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)