Talk:Hillary Clinton/Move review draft

Regarding the recent requested move (RM) at Hillary Rodham Clinton;

Background

On March 30, 2014, it was proposed that Hillary Rodham Clinton be moved to Hillary Clinton. After the minimum one week period, on April 7, the discussion was suspended, so a panel (User:TParis,  User:Adjwilley, and User:BrownHairedGirl) could determine whether there was a consensus. On April 21, the panel declared no consensus.

Complaint

The editors filing this move review assert that the panel's finding of "no consensus" in this RM was in error. Based on the RM discussion, consensus in favor of the move should have been recognized per WP:RMCI. The panel's closing and other statements indicates that panel both failed to recognize consensus among respondents to the RM and failed to adequately assign due weight to the arguments presented.

Disregard of participant preference
In a somewhat rare case of general agreement among the participants in a requested move on a high profile aritcle, a large majority of respondents supported the proposed move. According to the panel's own analysis a full 70% favored the move.

The panel aptly noted that WP:COMMONAME was the rationale cited by a large number of supporters of the move. Again, according to the panel's own analysis, of participants who used WP:COMMONNAME as a rationale for their position, approximately 90% favored the move.

In closing, the panel failed to even acknowledge the high level of support the request move had garnered, instead saying merely that it was not the panel's role to "count heads". More remarkably, in considering the WP:COMMONNAME rationale, the panel seemingly ignored the virtual unamity pointing to WP:COMMONNAME favoring the move and instead applied their own unique interpretation of the policy to claim that WP:COMMONAME arguments had lost "much of their strength".

While closers are bound to measure the strength of arguments, they are also bound to give due deference to any obvious consensus formed. The closing in this instance failed to give due deference to an obvious consensus.

Failure to adequately evaluate and provide due weight to presented arguments and applicable policy
The panel failed to appropriately assign due weight in five key areas.


 * a) insufficient weight given to WP:CRITERIA analysis
 * A number of editors pointed to "Hillary Clinton" being the more recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent" title, most notably in the detailed analysis presented by Obi-Wan Kenobi. Accordingly, WP:CRITERIA should have lent substantial weight in favor of the proposal. The closing panel apparently ignored WP:CRITERIA in their analysis, as they neglected to mention such analysis at all in their closing statement.


 * b) insufficient weight given to WP:CONCISE argument
 * Again, according to the panel's own analysis, a remarkable 9 out of 9 editors who cited WP:CONCISE argued that the policy supported the use of the name "Hillary Clinton". Despite this, the panel decided that "the CONCISE argument did not receive an amount of support that would indicate a clear consensus". They went on to say that there were "many valid counter examples of articles where we (correctly) use less concise titles, including articles about royalty, several U.S. presidents, laws, etc." The panel erred in ignoring or overlooking the counterpoint that in each of those "counter examples" there were strong CRITERIA/policy based reasons (like consistency with similar titles) to use the longer names, and that there were no strong CRITERIA/policy reasons favoring the longer name in this case. The panel was swayed by "counter examples" that were not that at all.


 * c) undue weight given to "quality" RS argument in relation to WP:COMMONNAME
 * In disregarding the aforementioned consensus around the COMMONNAME argument, the panel's rationale (i.e. that there was "a split in the sources" and this was "not a name change case") was far from adequate to override participant preference in this case.
 * The panel relied on an arbitrary split of reliable sources into two groups and declared HRC was used more commonly in one of those groups. No basis in policy or convention was provided for even making such a split, and the strong evidence that HC was used more commonly in all reliable sources, which is what COMMONNAME calls for considering, was disregarded without explanation.
 * The panel also unduly discounted usage in more recent sources on the mistaken belief that because COMMONNAME explicitly states more recent sources should be given more weight in the specific case of name changes, and should not be given more weight in other cases. This position flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE and convention.  The point of COMMONNAME is to determine which name is most commonly used, not which name was most commonly used.  COMMONNAME determinations often hinge on giving more weight to recent sources, because more recent usage drives user expectations.


 * Neither policy nor participant preference indicated that the argument that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was more commonly used among "higher quality" sources, yet the panel indicated this one of the two "strong" arguments that swayed them towards "no consensus". It is striking that support arguments based in policy and having 9 explicit supports were insufficient to sway the panel, while for oppose arguments, a novel argument not based in policy, convention or evidence, and being mentioned by only two editors was enough to make it "strong". Normally, for a novel creative argument like this to be given serious consideration, a majority of participants would have to support it.


 * d) undue weight given to WP:TITLECHANGES
 * WP:TITLECHANGES discourages title changes when there is "no good reason to change it". WP:RM always has many examples of proposals based on much less than this one. To deny that COMMONNAME, CRITERIA, and conciseness are good reasons to change a title is to completely ignore the reality of title changes on WP.   To give any weight to TITLECHANGES here required totally dismissing all of the good reasons favored by the majority of the participants involved in the discussion.


 * e) undue weight given to "past consensus" favoring HRC
 * Per the record of all RM discussions regarding this title, the only case in which consensus was found was the one that found consensus in favor of Hillary Clinton . The panel erred in thinking that Hillary Rodham Clinton was favored by "past consensus".

Conclusion
In deciding there was "no consensus" regarding this title, the panel made the following serious errors:
 * 1) Failed to duly consider the preferences of the participants, who clearly supported the move for good [policy-based] reasons per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONCISE
 * 2) Failed to reasonably evaluate the arguments which were based on WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONCISION with due consideration
 * 3) Assigned weights to the support arguments with a different scale (undue weight) than that used for the oppose arguments
 * 4) Failed to give due consideration to community consensus as reflected in WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONCISE
 * 5) Failed to give adequate consideration to both participant preferences and community consensus as demonstrated by the panel giving significant weight to the "quality sources" and WP:TITLECHANGES oppose arguments despite the former have no policy basis and very little participant support, and the latter being inapplicable since good reasons for the move were articulated by the participants.
 * 6) Mistakenly assumed that the current title has had consensus support in the past.

Accordingly, we seek that the panel's "no consensus" decision be overturned and the clear consensus to move to Hillary Clinton be recognized and executed accordingly.

Issue with proof being hidden by opposers
One thing I'm irked about with this discussion is that after opposers demanded proof in support of the common name argument, when I provided proof it was summarily hidden away with a template. The reason given was that "Collapse huge amount of space taken up for no reason," which is absurd. This huge amount of space was taken up because there was a huge amount of proof of the common name being argued. Basically, it looks like the person who did this successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the closers, since I see nothing in TParis's notes that anything in the collapsed sections was even considered. This decision should be reversed, but at the very least shenanigans like these require it to be relisted with clear rules outlining who can modify other contributor's comments like this and for what reasons.  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's incorporate this complaint above. --!!!!

The "two main arguments opposing"
In their closing statement the panel cites the "two main arguments opposing the move that pushed the discussion into the no consensus zone". These are:
 * 1) the arguments that higher quality and longer lasting sources generally preferred HRC over HR (WP:RS is clear that scholarly secondary works are preferred…note however that counter examples were provided in “support” arguments), and
 * 2) arguments based on past consensus and WP:TITLECHANGES, specifically the recommendation that, “Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.”

Regarding (1). That's not even policy based. There is no policy or convention that even suggests that "higher quality and longer lasting sources" should be given more weight in title decision making. The preference for "scholarly secondary works" at WP:RS is stated in the context of finding basis for article content - the policy guiding title decision making, WP:AT, says nothing about this. If there was a strong consensus favoring this view, that would be one thing. But it was only one participant!

Regarding (2), first, there was no "past consensus". Every RM since 2007 ended in "no consensus" or "consensus to move" (and then was reversed for "no consensus"). Second, citing WP:TITLECHANGES is a Begging the question logical fallacy. The whole question here is whether there is good reason to change the title or not. No one disagrees with TITLECHANGES - we all agree the title should be changed only for good reason. The debate is about whether there is good reason or not. Relying on TITLECHANGES presumes there is no good reason - thus begging the question.

So, there you have it, the "two main arguments opposing the move that pushed the discussion into the no consensus zone" are little more than flimflam. It should be noted that these pathetically weak arguments were the only ones cited by the panel as opposing the move.

Minor Wording Changes
Recommend we remove " despite finding 70% of participants were in favor of the move," from the Background section. We should probably try to keep the opening as neutral as possible.
 * ✅ --B2C 04:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose moving to Sandbox
- Any chance we can move this page to an alternative location, like a sandbox or something? Having it in this format makes it difficult to know where comments on the text should go...... NickCT (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about the division I just created above? --B2C 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - That's definitely better. It may still be worth considering a sandbox move, but I'm not too fussed about it. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Difficulty in making the decision
The panel members have referred to how difficult making this decision was. We suggest the difficulty stems from their Herculean effort to try to explain "no consensus" when consensus clearly existed. It's equally difficult to find a needle in a haystack that has no needle in it. Consider how easy it would have been to explain consensus in favor of the move.


 * While both sides made strong arguments in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, the support side was better supported in terms of numbers and overwhelmingly in terms of participant support. But even if we call COMMONNAME a draw because both titles are sufficiently used in RS to be equally natural and recognizable, the support side argument is much stronger in terms of WP:CRITERIA overall, as demonstrated by Obi's careful analysis, and in particular by all the citations for WP:CONCISE favoring HC.  No one on the oppose side even attempted to defend the current title in terms of WP:CRITERIA.  Some counter-examples were offered in an attempt to rebut the WP:CONCISE argument favoring HC, but these counter-examples were inapplicable.  In each of those cases the longer title was preferred by criteria other than concision (like recognizability, natural or consistency), which is not the case here.   So, we find that consensus support for this move is clear both in terms of policy as well as participant preference.

A decision like that would not have been difficult.

Timing of close
Let's not forget about the timing of the close. The move request opened on March 31 and closed on April 7 after going only the minimum of seven days. At least five new editors weighed in (supported/opposed) in the last day the request was open. The RM could've stayed open longer to allow consensus to form (this is following their logic that there was no consensus, which I still dispute).  Calidum   01:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've added a bit to the intro.  --B2C 04:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See point (3) at the top. Okay?  --B2C 04:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Let's file the MR. Cwobeel (talk)
 * The close occurred about two seconds after Jimbo announced what Clinton's people want the title to be. This prevented discussion about how much weight to give to that report by Jimbo, and the ultimate decision by the panel did rely in part upon Jimbo's report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, the seven days expired at 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC), Jimbo reported the Clinton people's preference at 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC) at his talk page, then that was  disclosed at the Hillary Clinton talk page at 00:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC), and the move discussion was shut down at 01:20, 8 April 2014.  There was virtually no opportunity to discuss what weight (if any) to give to the results of Jimbo's consultation with the Clinton people.  The eventual closing statement then discounted arguments prior to Jimbo's diplomacy:  "An equally popular argument, this one with editors both opposing and supporting the move, was that Clinton herself prefers one name over the other. Many of these arguments were made prior to Jimbo contacting Clinton’s 'people'...."  There was no opportunity for any arguments about Jimbo's diplomacy, which diplomacy was the closing panel's rationale for discounting prior arguments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Status?
Is this going anywhere? Delaying in asking for the review can't help.  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   04:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * - You're right. This discussion trailed off. I've tried to get the draft above into a semi-finalized state. I need help reviewing it. - Any chance for a proofread? If I don't hear back in 36 hr with objections, I'm going to assume we're good to go. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes. If  reviews it and says he's good with it, so am I.  --В²C ☎ 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the section on timing + the delay in the answer, we are all volunteers and who knows what they had going on in their lives, lets not rake them over the coals. Sorry I'm traveling now but will have time to make a few more edits Friday, so we can submit Saturday. sorry for the delay...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call. Agreed.  --В²C ☎ 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC???
This was an RM, not an RfC. The normal duration of an RM is 7 days. However, when discussion is ongoing these discussions are often extended. I'm changing the wording accordingly. --В²C ☎ 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha.... Yeah. You're right. I goofed there. We should probably make sure we get the basics right huh?
 * I'm going to be reviewing today and tomorrow. NickCT (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Finalizing
- Ok guys I've made a couple edits. Want to say a couple things.
 * 1) Really good job all around. This was a good collaborative effort and I really think we managed to enunciate all the key points gracefully. I'm going to barnstar the two of you for being awesome.
 * 2) I made a major deletion. I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes with this, and you can feel free to revert, but I the content deleted was largely just a rehashing. From a big picture perspective, I am very concerned about this becoming a wall-of-text.
 * 3) I may make a few clean-up edits, but in my mind we are good-to-go. Unless I hear objections from either you I will proceed to submit in approximately 36 hr (taking into account Obi's comment above re Saturday).

Thanks to everyone for all the effort. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the section you deleted was to show how a closing reasoning would look that actually reflected consensus. Of course it's repetitive because it naturally incorporates many of the same points we make in the text of the actual move review.   I suppose it's not necessary to include.  I don't feel strongly about it.  --В²C ☎ 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't feel strongly about that particular section either. I am a little concerned about the length of the entire thing though. Does it not strike you that we might be losing concision here? NickCT (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

COMMONNAME
I'm still not thrilled with the COMMONNAME section. This is what the panel said:
 * 70% of editors who expressed a support/oppose opinion supported the move, and about 76% of those supporting did so at least in part on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. While a lot of evidence was presented on both sides, neither was able to establish that one version was in fact the common name (determined by prevalence in reliable sources). This was partially due to a split in the sources, with official, print, and biographical sources more often preferring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and news, online, and political sources more often preferring Hillary Clinton. Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME only supports using more recent results if a change in name has been made. (Clinton has not legally changed her name, and according to Jimbo, has not changed her preference either.) Because of this, the WP:COMMONNAME arguments lose much of their strength, and it is necessary to look at other factors in order to determine consensus.

Based on this, the argument could be made that participant preference was not ignored on this point. After all, they acknowledged the percentages. They claim COMMONNAME did not favor either side for the following reasons:
 * 1) official, print, and biographical sources more often preferring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and news, online, and political sources more often preferring Hillary Clinton
 * 2) WP:COMMONNAME only supports using more recent results if a change in name has been made.

On 1: Can we reject this reasoning? On what grounds? That what's important is overall usage in RS, not usage in one cherry-picked group of sources vs another?

On 2: While WP:COMMONNAME does not explicitly state that more recent sources are preferred over older ones, this is accepted by convention per WP:COMMONSENSE. The purpose of COMMONNAME is to determine which name is most frequently used (today), not which name was most frequently used (in the past). The part about giving preference to more recent sources in the case of a name change is there to give that special consideration in such cases, but it does not in any way preclude us from doing so in other cases. In fact, that was a significant argument at Yoghurt/Yogurt, because in more recent UK sources the g-less spelling was become more and more favored. So this was a lame reason to dismiss those arguments favoring the move per COMMONNAME.

--В²C ☎ 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I fixed it. Please see .  --В²C ☎ 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've looked over your changes. I'm wondering if your focusing a little too hard on making policy arguments. I'd sorta wanted to say something like - "90% of people citing COMMONNAME said it was for HC. The panel didn't accept this.". You on the other hand seem to want to refute the panel's COMMONNAME logic.
 * While I don't disagree with your policy argument, I'm wondering if it might simply be more effective to say "There was a pretty clear consensus that COMMONNAME supported HC, but the panel disregarded that consensus". I think the next section is for policy arguments. The "Disregard of participant preference" section is just for saying that the RM demonstrated a consensus that the panel ignored. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this again; do you think we might shift your COMMONNAME policy rationale into the next section, then keep the first section solely for saying "the panel went against a huge majority of respondents". NickCT (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ask panel to reconsider?
Now that we've identified the errors the panel made, and once we're done tweaking this thing, perhaps we should ask the panel members whether they want to reconsider their decision before we proceed with a formal WP:MR? --В²C ☎ 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see these?, , . NickCT (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but I see you did not direct them to this draft which is where all the errors they made are discussed in detail. --В²C ☎ 14:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * re "I see you did not direct them to this draft" - I didn't. You're right. You could do so if you like. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley has doubled-down on TITLECHANGES. Wow. --В²C ☎ 15:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the panelists are pretty happy with their opinions. Might be best not to goad them too much. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Here is how I would actually weight the relevant considerations. I'm curious how others, especially the panel members, would fill out such a table.  Would it be helpful to include it, or a variant, in the review, perhaps instead of some of the verbiage?

--В²C ☎ 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... Don't get me wrong. I think that's interesting and all, and a table in some form might be helpful. But it strikes me that "applying weights" to different policies is an incredibly subjective practice. I'm not sure how convincing others would find it. NickCT (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's definitely subjective. But really it's what you need to do to make these decisions.  If you're explicit about it, like in this table, then at least people can see where you weighted what by how much and why, and judge that as being reasonable or not.  The point wouldn't be to persuade others that this is exactly the one and only way to do it in this case, but that it's very difficult to see how these considerations could be weighted to find "no consensus".  --В²C ☎ 21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Filing Imminent
- Sorry for the delay guys. I've done some last minute shifting. Filing is imminent. Please do not make any major changes from here on out. NickCT (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

legit vs productive
I think initiating the move review procedure is legit.

However,

Note that in the mean while the WP:CONCISE argument should have lost whatever remaining traction it had. See last paragraph of that policy section. That's what has been common practice up till the moment it was written down in the AT policy. Any reviewer might be aware of that. There's no guideline overpowered by policy in this respect. In so far WP:CONCISE is one of the cornerstones of the review argument it is moot.

Consciously or inconsciously a ruffled feathers argument might skew the discussion. It shouldn't but it might. Personally I think the closers of the last full-blown RM did an excellent job. More than could be expected. They pointed to the lack of guidance where it might have been helpful. A review would compare the RM result with guidance at the time, so still guidance lacking a coherent stance on subject preference. So would easily acquit the closers of the RM of not having done what they could under the circumstances.

Better work towards good guidance at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). If and when NCP gets updated along these lines the next step could be a RM on the basis of the there never really was a tie argument (that could receive more than enough traction judging the content of the present page), as explained at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). No ruffled feathers, a minimum of red tape, etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for weighing in! I think the closers did a great job too. And I think the policy discussions at [Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) may bare fruit.
 * Any specific suggestions for changes to the pending review submission? NickCT (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Take out the WP:CONCISE argument. It doesn't fly. In other words, the panel shouldn't have given this any more weight than they did (if anything, they should have given it less  weight). The counterpoint reasoning given above is circular: if it all depends on the other policy CRITERIA, then CONCISE isn't needed to start with. If the counterpoint argument is intended as leaning on CRITERIA including CONCISE (current wording seems to suggest that) the circularity is even more direct. I'd avoid submitting a review request with such an obvious logical fallacy.
 * Otherwise, do as you think you should do. My advise would be not to proceed with a move review at this point, but that's only my personal appreciation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that last paragraph of WP:CONCISE applies in this case, which is about whether to include maiden/middle name (that happens to be a family name). In any case, nobody argued that in the discussion - the CONCISE argument was unchallenged by move opposers. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of WP:CONCISE applies nonetheless: note "For example..." - the rest is referred to WP:NCP, as in this case: "Rodham" is a maiden/middle name (that happens to be a family name). If it is left out it is never for WP:CONCISE. See Naming conventions (people), which is clear in its wording to never let WP:CONCISE overrun WP:NATURAL regarding these sort of name additions, examples including Josep Puig i Cadafalch, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Tatyana Sukhotina-Tolstaya.
 * I suppose that your assumption, that the normal understanding of WP:CONCISE has anything to do with biographical articles where the article title is composed of given names and surnames, could only be demonstrated if there was a single example of such article name that was made more concise after it was already conforming to WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME, or at least that WP:CONCISE was the determining factor when left the choice between two equally common names. I have no knowledge of any such example.
 * We don't insert nicknames in quotes, that's all WP:CONCISE has to say about NCP articles. This has however no relevance for the Hillary (Rodham) Clinton article name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review filed!
- See here NickCT (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)