User:HG1/workshop/Merits of further discussion of title

Here I'm working on a comment that would be responsive John Nagle's concerns that further discussion is not warranted and borders on trolling.

Linked pages are these: The HG Synthesis of AoIA arguments, the HG | Talk page etc etc .....

Merits of further discussion of title
A valid concern has been raised: Is further discussion of the title worthwhile at this juncture? Or are we merely feeding trolls and spinning our wheels? Here's a brief explanation of why we should follow-up the suggestion (first made by Alithien) to synthesize the pro/con arguments on the title.


 * (A related concern is whether our discussion should proceed during the ArbCom arbitration. Response: ArbCom deals with user conduct, not article content or title. As long as our conduct is proper, ArbCom's decision-making process doesn't alter the need for discussion.)

Here is why it makes sense to continue discussing the title:


 * Principled basis. In the last month, we've made decent progress in exploring the WP principles that would justify a more neutral  title. There is considerable interest in a new title, at least in principle. There is an effort underway to synthesize and clarify the renaming arguments based on WP policies and guidelines.


 * Lack of underlying consensus. The current title is a compromise that arose out of AfD battles. The title is not based on a stable consensus of broad mutual acceptance. Among folks who support or tolerate the article on notability grounds, many would prefer a better title.


 * Discussion is recommended. If repeated polling is disruptive, policy-based discussion is the recommended way to proceed when there is a controversial matter.

Finally, hard as it may be to imagine, there are signs of hope:


 * Our discussions are making progress(!) Unfortunately, recent polls/votes turned out to be more disruptive than constructive. Still, in the past month, many users have been making good faith efforts to explore alternative titles -- people are demonstrating their flexibility and willingness to accept compromises.
 * For instance, Jossi proposed a merge into Human Rights (a Type-C title that omits the word 'apartheid'), but then urged us to "roll up our sleeves" to find a more NPOV title and the proposed Type-B titles (i.e., with 'apartheid' distanced from 'Israel'). Title types A, B and C are analyzed here.
 * Similarly, Cerejota, who favors titles with the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' (i.e., type-A), made good faith efforts and arguments for Type-B titles. Likewise, Tiamut favors type-A yet also has suggested some type-B titles.
 * By exploring a title change, folks (e.g., G-Dett) have worked on identifying notable scholarly sources.
 * There's even a hopeful lesson to be drawn from the recent polls/votes. Did you notice the vehement substantive opposition to the type-A title option, Israeli apartheid debate? By contrast, the voting comments were much more conciliatory on the type-B options, (e.g., Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Apartheid analogy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). For example, one supporter said "Not a perfect answer, but progress. Hang in there team...." Another support: "The first move option was better, but at least this is an improvement." Opponents often focused on the wording (e.g., wordy, weasely, vagueness) and offered renaming options. One said, "Oppose, mildly." Another: "Not necessarily opposed to any change, but this one would be worse than what we have." An oppose because "There are better alternatives." An oppose said: "I'm not strongly against it any more than others are strongly for it, but think we should do better."

In short, the vast majority -- even those in opposition -- expressed some openness to exploring a new title, when faced with a type-B option. Types A & C tend to be more divisive. This suggests that type-B discussions bring out our best consensus-building efforts. Where might further efforts take us? An optimistic view:


 * 1) Consolidate what we've learned. Help synthesize the arguments to date. What are the policy shortcomings with the current title? What are the pro/con arguments over specific title alternatives?
 * 2) It may make sense to focus attention on type-B titles. Maybe nearly everyone -- including those who prefer type-A or type-C options -- will find at least one type-B titles they can support, or at least live with.
 * 3) Let's encourage people to lower their expectations. Maybe nobody gets their first choice. If no single title satisfies all concerns, we can articulate a "package deal" that also covers article headings. (E.g., subheadings for those who see it as a real policy debate, another who see the term as mere epithet.) Grounded on Wikipedia policies, perhaps a Requested Move can pass not with a bang but with enough support, and lukewarm abstentions, to reach consensus for a new article name.

Even if you feel knee deep in the deep muddy, it's my guess that it's worth pushing on a bit more. HG | Talk 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)