Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:58, 21 May 2014

2014 May

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

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#Determining consensus. 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 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.

Responses

• Overturn - As nom. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close as a clear no-consensus situation. Omnedon (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse own close Title changes is clear "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." There is no good reason to change this, now.--v/r - TP 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  @User:TParis, I believe that policy is a good argument to make among the participants in a requested move discussion, but is a very dangerous reason for an administrator to invoke in closing such a discussion. It has no boundaries, and could easily become a reason to decline any page move, no matter the consensus of the community. As administrators, we have to let the community be "wrong" when their views differ from our own. bd2412 T 19:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have a view to differ from the community on, which is why I offered to close it. This isn't a matter of preventing a move because someone didn't like it. It's a matter of not moving a thing because the topic will continue to be brought up for move reviews. The COMMONNAME argument failed to actually support the argument with valid stats. Stats were cherry picked to show recentism, but the policy only supports recentism for major changes by the subject in their name.--v/r - TP 19:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  I accept your neutrality on the matter. I am baffled, however, by the proposition that stats were "cherry picked to show recentism". I have studied this specific question more thoroughly than anyone reasonably should, and I don't think that there was more cherry picking on one side or the other. Sources going all the way back to the beginning of the subject's notability have predominately used the more concise form, and this trend has increased in recent years. Because of the sheer volume of publicity received by this subject, it's hard to demonstrate this in a way that does not allow the signal to be overwhelmed by anecdotal noise, but the evidence was presented. Moreover, there was a major change by the subject, in her most recent political campaign, which basically established her name on the widest possible scale. To say that the argument was not supported with valid stats is both myopic and quite frankly a bit insulting. bd2412 T 20:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  The long term stats showed equal usage. You're analysis was heavily used, I even specifically linked to it in my own collection of relevant arguments user sub page. As far as a substantial change, there was no evidence that Hillary, rather than her election team, used the shorter version. In fact, Jimbo's personal emails would seem to suggest the latter and not the former.--v/r - TP 20:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What Hilary herself used is irrelevant, however, as subject preference is not part of titling policy,and COMMONNAME overwhelms that. I agree with BD2412, the fact that one of the closers thinks the COMMONNAME evidence was cherry picked is somewhat insulting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we are getting too deep into the weeds here, but it seems unlikely that Jimbo's email was itself answered by the subject herself, as opposed to a member of her "team"; and it seems equally unlikely that the subject was a bystander when the decision was made how to prosecute the campaign. In any case, neither question matters, since the campaign established the subject's common name, irrespective of the email exchange. The fact that the latter is given any weight over the former is troubling, from an encyclopedic perspective. bd2412 T 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Close This move review request has no merit. Move reviews are supposed to be about process, not about re-arguing the closed discussion. In this case, the process was suggested at the beginning of the discussion by one of the chief proponents of the move: "In order to avoid any appearance of undue influence on the closing admin, a neutral and uninvolved three-administrator panel has been requested to close this discussion at the appropriate time." Three uninvolved administrators volunteered. Everyone involved in the discussion knew about the panel of three administrators, and no one raised any objection, either to the panel idea or to the individual admins who volunteered. According to the closing administrators, after closure they independently reviewed the evidence, then compared notes and found that all three had come to the same conclusion. It's hard to imagine a more solid result. That was the outcome of a process which had been suggested by proponents of the move, and which was specifically designed so that the result would be stronger and more valid than a single person's opinion. But then when the panel announced their unanimous decision, and it wasn't the result the proponents had wanted, they rejected it and filed this MRV, which amounts to rearguing the closed discussion. IMO this MRV should be terminated with extreme trouting. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: - Man..... If you're not scolding people, you're trout slapping them. Vindictive much? But seriously, I doubt you'd argue admins are infallible. Yet you seem to seem to be willing to posit that three admins are? NickCT (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT, Nobody said or thinks that admins are infallible - although three admins working as a team could be expected to be less fallible than one. But that's beside the point. The point at a move review is not "did the admin(s) make the right or wrong decision about what the article title ought to be?" It's "did they follow process properly in reaching their decision?" And clearly the answer to that is yes. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• • @MelanieN: "Rearguing the closed discussion"? Did you even read the basis for the move review? Are you aware of all the errors the panel has been alleged to have made? Without even giving a hint that you understand the issues being raised here, how much weight do you think your Endorse !vote should be given? --В²C ☎ 00:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • B2C, you're already becoming offensive. Stop it. Omnedon (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I'm being defensive. Claiming we're rearguing the closed discussion here is offensive. --В²C ☎ 01:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • You're clearly not sorry; and you are rearguing. But do not demean editors with whom you disagree. Omnedon (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Now you're being offensive too. I just asked four questions, defensively, rhetorically challenging her baseless and offensive claim (and now yours) that the discussion is being reargued here. You find it offensive because I said it. If it was anyone else, you wouldn't have said a thing. For example, you didn't feel the need to chastise NickCT for being offensive when he referred to Melanie as scolding, troutslapping and vindictive. Leave me alone. --В²C ☎ 01:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • B2C, you are attacking Melanie's intelligence. "Did you even read the move review?" "Without even giving a hint that you understand the issues..."? You've crossed the line and won't admit it. Tone it down, please. And as for NickCT, I've asked him to do the same thing in other discussions. Don't be so paranoid. Omnedon (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Omnedon, but let it go. I feel no need to respond to B2C or to answer his questions. Let the discussion run. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn – due to no consensus, the discussion should be reopened. Apparently, since WP:COMMONNAME warrants a move, with 70% support (which happens to be a higher ratio than in many elections, should Clinton run for president anytime soon, but that's another story)... Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC) (revised 00:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
• Overturn and move per nom. With that level of support, there needs to be a strong policy-based reason to ignore the majority, and I don't see one. (This assumes the majority has policy-based arguments instead of being an opinion-based mob, and I think we can all agree that was the case here.) --BDD (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn - IMHO There was a clear consensus to move it. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close I had originally voted to move, but the result was clear no-consensus as I see it per TP.I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. 70% being backed by strong evidence from WP:Commonname is a numerical and policy-based consensus that should not have been ignored. Dralwik| 19:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was a clear consensus that WP:COMMONNAME applies. You simply can't get a better guidelines-based consensus to move. Msnicki (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn - The closers have ignored the consensus that was based on WP:COMMONNAME. GabeMc 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn There was a clear consensus that WP:COMMONNAME, the closers did not take into account that a consensus was achieved in that regard. Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn because it should be Hilary Clinton. I'm not going to spend all my time convincing those who disagree; its a pretty clear cut case. I wonder whether the press will ever pick up on this debate and report it, whereupon normal people will overwhelm the debate and the move will happen.--Milowent • 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It was pretty likely that one side or the other in this case was going to dissent no matter which way the closure went (as the nominator agrees); that's the way it sometimes goes with difficult rulings on complex and hotly-debated subjects, which this certainly was. However, there's no basis for overturning the closure. Convening a panel of these three neutral and uninvolved administrators to conduct it was something no one objected to, and was done to bring more consideration, experience, weight, and (hopefully) finality to it than a single editor likely could. The panel returned a unanimous ruling that gave due consideration to the many complex points raised in the debate, and whose rationale was clearly articulated. I see nothing to suggest the closure was careless, unreasonable, inappropriate, or inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's standards and practices, or that it ignored the divided views voiced by the discussion's many participants; the objections being raised now seem geared more toward rearguing specifics of the request than because of any actual aberration in the process. Put simply: reasonable points were raised both for and against the move, and while more !votes favored the move than opposed it, the panel's ruling was appropriate given the many relevant competing factors voiced in the debate, which the panelists clearly considered. Endorsed. ╠╣uw  19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close Their analysis of the policy issues was solid. This is not a nose count, and neither title is disastrous. Time to move on. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - A very large Wall O' Text, tinkered and fine-tuned for a month by several editors, boils down to "I don't like it", and the "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" aspect was never adequately challenged ("I have good reasons" is inadequate). In this project, administrators determine consensus and close discussions accordingly day in and day out. For the discussions that are going to be potentially thorny or controversial, we seek out three administrators to close as a panel, to mitigate the calls from the losing side of "supervote!", "you did it wrong!", and the like. If we have empowered a panel of three to close this discussion, and through their deliberations they found no policy-based consensus to rename the article, then that should be sufficient. Admins, even a group of them, are not infallible; but to support an overturn of a 3-panel close we'd have to see crystal-clear evidence of an egregious mistake or error in judgement. That is not what is presented here in this Move review, it is just a difference of opinion in how to interpret the projects rules. Therefore, the finding of no consensus is endorsed as within the purview of the administrators of the project. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I voted for the move in the original discussion, but I can't fault the closers for their reading of the outcome, especially for their finding that the systematic split in the usage of reliable sources prevented the "commonname" argument from having more decisive weight. I'll also endorse as a matter of principle, to protest against the hugely overblown amount of energy and time that has been, and is being, invested in this whole enterprise (as evidenced by the sheer size of the review nomination above) and that is totally out of proportion with the real significance of the issue. Just drop the stick, people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Future Perfect at Sunrise: - re "systematic split in the usage of reliable sources" - Splitting the sources was arbitrary and unsupported by policy. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close rationale was sound. In just about every article I have seen, subject's preference is used. Her official title on book covers etc. includes "Rodham". Putting this in as everyone seems to be quoting commonname. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: - re "In just about every article I have seen, subject's preference is used" - What what?!? There's no policy suggesting preference is of any import. I don't think the closing panel even let the personal preference thing influence their decision. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @NickCT: name an article where we don't then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @Casliber: - Hmmm... To clarify; I'm guessing when you say "subject's preference", you mean "subject's implicit preference" rather than "subject's explicit preference". In other words; "we call Charlize Theron "Charlize Theron" b/c we can assume she wants to be called by her name" rather than "we call Charlize Theron "Charlize Theron" b/c she has explicity stated that's how she likes to be referred to". Note that in this particular case Hillary did actually explicitly state that her preference is HRC. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @Casliber: Here are some articles for which the title does not reflect the subject's stated preference: Yusuf Islam, Snoop Lion, Sarah Brown, AJ Allmendinger, P!nk. bd2412 T 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close – per MelanieN. This move review, and many commentators here, are fixated entirely on the merits of the move itself. This is not what a move review deal with. Move reviews deal with whether the closure was appropriate. Three independent administrators provided substantial evidence for why the move was closed as "no consensus". Their analysis was vigorous. Their closure should be endorsed, if only because they followed procedure to the letter, and did so in a manner which should be commended. Never have I before seen such a thorough analysis. The merits of the move itself are not to be questioned here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn I had originally been neutral during the discussion, but I think WP:CONCISE very much applies here. As for WP:COMMONNAME, she is more often referred to these days as "Hillary Clinton" than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• overturn (nb: I helped draft the move review). The closure was *NOT* an appropriate reading of the consensus. Indeed, there was a CLEAR consensus, that was POLICY-BASED, for a move based on both COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. The analysis by TParis showed overwhelming support for policy-based reasons for a move, while the oppose side had almost entirely NON-policy based arguments (e.g. only high-quality reliable sources should be used for titling, not just all reliable sources - NO basis in policy; or "subject preference" should be taken into account - NO basis in policy). Ultimately the job of the closers is to weigh the arguments made and see how well they align to policy. the only policy-based reason here to oppose, which seems to be one that tipped the scales, is "titlechanges" - but again titlechanges was only cited by a few participants, and more importantly, there is no basis in past consensus in my experience to use titlechanges to oppose a move based on strong policy and strong consensus and a strong super-majority of !voters. It is not the case that a majority simply stated their opinion; instead, a majority of !voters stated a policy-based reason to move, and the vast bulk of oppose votes cited no policy-based reasons at all, or cited policy-based reasons based on a tortuous reading of what the word "concise" actually means. There was a clear consensus for a move here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close it is clear that there was no-consensus. Lentower (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse The proposal to move did not gain a WP:Consensus because the proposal was not well supported in, and appeared contradicted by the majority of appropriate sources in the field of biography. It is well within discretion of editors to a BLP to look to appropriate sources, not just any source, let alone the Original Research and Undue Weight relied on by the supporters, and the sources evidenced that the proposal would be controversial because it dealt with the use of a living woman to the name she chooses. The article will be found at the current title, where it has long resided, no reader will be confused, and the reader will actually learn more about the subject, under the current title. The supporters demonstrated no basis in the actual purposes of policy for the move from the long accepted title. Thus no consensus, and certainly no abuse of discretion by the three admin panel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus, not to mention vastly better policy-based arguments have all been ignored.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn There was clear policy based consensus strongly supported that COMMONNAME applied and that a move should be enacted. The article's title has never previously found lasting consensus and disregarding such a strong consensus is unwise. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn - I was quite surprised at the result of the RM, and while I do not in any way wish to denigrate the closers, all of whom I respect as editors and admins, I do think they reached the wrong conclusion by not weighing the results properly. It is abundantly clear that COMMONNAME is the controlling policy, so the 70% who !voted in line with it should have outweighed other considerations. BMK (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close I am not going to re-argue the move itself again here, But I am going to argue that there was clearly no consensus from that discussion and, when that is the case, we stick with the long standing and stable version. Arguing here about why there should have been a move is probably useless as the discussion here does not inovolve the title itself, but whether or not the 3 admin panel came up with the right choice for their closing. When looking at that discussion, there was lot lot of weight to the arguments on both sides but no one had any particular, overriding reason per policy that was absolute, binding and able to persuade the other side. Consensus is not a !vote. It wasn't an election to decide by straight numbers. I really think that editors are just wrong in stating there was a strong policy based consensus. First of all it was a policy based argument and had no consensus of editors. Seriously. Also, it is a matter of opinion and another consensus entirely as to whether or not either version was the most common in use today. Stating that there was a consensus per WP:COMMONAME is simply not accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn It baffles me that more than two-thirds of participants favored moving this and yet no consensus was declared. I think BMK above puts it much more eloquently than i could. Calidum 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse own close. My initial quick scan of the debate led me to think there was a consensus to move, but closer scrutiny showed a more complex picture. After very detailed analysis of the arguments, we found strong policy arguments on both sides of the debate. It is a pity that some editors seek to invalidate arguments based on a differentiation between quality of sources, because WP:RS clearly prefers scholarly secondary works.
  In those circumstances, WP:TITLECHANGES applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, WP:RS prefers scholarly secondary works, but WP:RS is concerned with article content determination, not title determination or COMMONNAME determination. When the reference to WP:RS was added to COMMONNAME, it was to prevent most common usage determination to come from non-reliable sources like personal blogs. It makes no sense to weight sources based on "quality" in determining the most commonly used name. In contrast, weighting sources based on how highly published they are would make some sense, but this is the opposite of using scholarly or "high quality" sources. --В²C ☎ 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Omnedon. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. That's no surprise, since I argued strongly against the move. But I believe there is an error of fact in the move review complaint above, point e) "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'." That is not the case. The current title was stable in the early years of 2003-2006 except for some vandalism moves. RM 1 occurred in early 2007 and there was only 1 in support of the move to HC, 10 opposed. It was closed as "no consensus to move" because that was the style back then, regardless of the margin of the result. RM 2 occurred in late 2007 and there were 5 in support of the move and 9 opposed. Again, it was closed in the same style. Then there were three and a half years of (blissful) title quiet. Then in mid-2011 there was RM 3, which had 6 in support and 7 opposed. Then another almost year and a half of quiet. Then since RM 4 in late 2012, we've had this barrage of RM's every few months. But for most of this article's life, there has been a reasonable degree of title stability. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse (own) close with some further thoughts. Over the past couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to revisit and ponder some of the arguments and objections endorsed by supporters. (See, for instance, this thread on my talk page.) Obviously I disagree with much of what was said by the original posters above, and I still feel that the outcome was merited by the discussion. While a complete response to the above would be TLDR, I would like to make two minor points. First, I don't recall us citing any 90% statistic in our close, and its use here seems a a bit misleading (90% of people using the most common argument for moving supported moving?). Second, above under letter "e)" the filers make the argument that because previous move requests had been closed as "no consensus to move" the panel "erred in thinking that Hillary Rodham Clinton was favored by 'past consensus'." As far as I know, move requests are not like AfDs where you have three options: keep, no consensus, and delete. There is either consensus to move, or there is not. If there's no consensus to move, the article stays put.

  Furthermore, I believe our close was in line with Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions which states that, "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority)."

  Lastly, I'm not certain how the move review process works, but I hope that this doesn't turn into a rehashing of old arguments by supporters/opposers. I would hope that the admin(s) who consider closing this will take a some extra time to peruse the discussion and close, and not simply take the word of involved parties on either side. And whatever you do, plan on some backlash ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is true that "If there's no consensus to move, the article stays put" - but that just means the title "stays put" regardless of whether the result of the discussion is "no consenus to move", or "consensus to not move". A "no consensus" result does not mean consensus supports the "stay put" title, which is what your panel statement claimed. In other words, it's possible that in at least some of those previous RMs the result could have been "consensus to not move", and, if that had happened, then there would have been basis for your statement. But that was never the case. That's why you erred in relying on there being consensus support in the past for HRC - there has never been consensus support for HRC, not once in any of the RM history of this article. But there has been consensus support for HC (arguably twice now). --В²C ☎ 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that there was no consensus in this move request? (Sorry, couldn't resist the counterexample.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not! I missed that one (did not go that far back). Thank you. --В²C ☎ 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it makes sense to give weight to past discussions for which no notice was given to previous participants, and for which the discussion was closed early (unless RM discussions had a shorter period at that time). In light of the response of the community when the discussion was well publicized, it is pretty clear that these previous snap votes were not reflective of the community as a whole. bd2412 T 00:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know...that argument depends on the situation I would think. I can think of a number of cases where it would be better to have a small sample of informed people than a large sample of less-informed people. I'm not saying that this was the case here, but I know that before actually reading the move discussion myself I was rather uninformed. For instance, I came into this thinking Rodham was just her middle name. I didn't know that she had chosen to keep her family name instead of taking her husband's surname, or the circumstances of her adopting "Clinton" when the "Rodham" started hurting Bill's political career. If I had been coming into this as a voter, that lack of knowledge probably would have influenced my vote, and I don't know if I would have done enough research to have discovered these details on my own. Again, I'm not trying to say that smaller samples are better, or that the old discussion is more valid than this large one. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that in general opinions offered by ever larger samples of twenty-some-odd-year-old male Wikipedians are always going to be better than a smaller less-random sampling of people who regularly edit an article have at least some familiarity with the subject. P.S. I haven't had the chance to thank you for your contributions to the original discussion...I appreciated the manner in which you presented your arguments there, and even now I appreciate the agreeable way in which you disagree. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn (I also helped draft this review). Closing panel member BrownHairedGirl claims just above and on her talk page that there are "strong policy arguments on both sides", but the only policy-based argument clearly supporting HC over HRC is TITLECHANGES. If there were other policy arguments supporting HRC, then it would make sense to apply TITLECHANGES in this case, because the point of TITLECHANGES is to avoid the back and forth. But that's not a risk here, despite the claims of User:TParis to the contrary: "It's a matter of not moving a thing because the topic will continue to be brought up for move reviews."

  Once the article is moved to HC, there will be no strong policy-based grounds that can be raised to propose moving it back to HRC. The best only argument that has been offered involves a novel interpretation of COMMONNAME dubiously giving preference to supposedly "high quality" sources, but this argument has achieved nothing close to even significant minority support among participants, let alone consensus or even majority support, and certainly has no basis in community consensus as expressed in policy (the emphasis on source quality at WP:RS is specifically intended for the context of content inclusion determination, not for COMMONNAME determination). On the other hand, COMMONNAME, CRITERIA analysis and CONCISE all clearly favor HC over HRC regardless of which is the title, and, once the title is changed to HC, HC will be supported by TITLECHANGES as well. The only difference is that with the article at HC, there really will be no good (policy based) reason to change it back to HRC. Anyone who thinks I'm wrong about that has been free to identify what that good reason would be since the beginning of the RM - but no such reason has been presented. I'll be happy to rescind this argument upon identification of a good policy-based reason to move HC back to HRC after it is at HC. --В²C ☎ 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply'. It seems that the main argument in favour of overturning the close is that article titles are somehow exempt from the WP:RS principle of attaching more weight to higher quality sources. This is an odd view, and I can see no policy basis for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No, that's not the main argument in favor of overturning the close. That's the main counter-argument to the novel minority-supported argument that the WP:RS principle of attaching more weight to higher quality sources (normally and understandably used in article content determination) applies in determining which use among two or more is most commonly used in reliable sources. I, for one, have never before seen this principle applied in RM discussions, and it simply makes no sense to do so. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Besides, your own closing statement said that even giving that novel argument credence, COMMONNAME does not favor either title. So unless you're now arguing contrary to your statement that COMMONNAME favors HRC over HC, my position that with the article at HC, there really will be no good (policy based) reason to change it back to HRC, stands unchallenged. --В²C ☎ 23:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn I do think that inappropriate weight was given to the various policy-based arguments. And the consensus here seems pretty clear; if this discussion doesn't have a clear consensus to move, then what on Earth does? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. The opposition seems to be based on some algorithm theory of titling, which I'm just not buying. Thanks to the closing team for a thoughtful analysis. —Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn; from Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy. He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently enough to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to his view, he is expected to decide according to the consensus. He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." This was blatantly ignored by the closers. The close was carefully worded, it was elegant–even profound–but at the end of the day it was a supervote that completely ignored an obvious consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Although I supported the move, WP:CRITERIA policy supports the move, sources overwhelmingly support the move (yes Books 44,000 "was" results not just 332,000 "was" results, much more so in newspapers), essay WP:WORLDVIEW supports the move, etc. etc. But endorse close per comments of closing panel and "totally out of proportion with the real significance of the issue. Just drop the stick, people. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise". Give it 6 months; present more cogent print and newspaper searches, and move it then. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn the weight of the evidence presented in the discussion clearly indicates that Hillary Clinton is the common name. There is no strong counter example. Also, common name is based on the current common name. That means, there should always be some weight given towards current sources. Maybe not extremely, but an analysis of the sources at any time after 1980 will show HC as the more common name. In fact, for some years one would probably find over 90% of the reliable source mentions of her for that year only called her HC. Additionally, since for many years HC was most notable as the wife of BC, the fact that more recent sources, which would be from times when she is generally most notable for her own political career, tend to refer to her more as HC than earlier sources did, suggests that more recent sources using HC more often suggests that it is even more prevalent of a case now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close There was a deliberate decision at the beginning of this move request - suggested by a strong supporter/architect of the move - that a three-admin panel be formed to conduct the close:

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Such a move request has been made in the past, and has frequently engendered very spirited discussion. The last time such a discussion went for the full discussion period, it was closed contentiously by a non-admin, leading to an equally contentious move review. In order to head off any shenanigans, I would like to request that a panel of three completely neutral and uninvolved admins (i.e. not having participated in the conduct or closing of any of the previous discussions) convene to monitor this discussion, make sure that it does not veer off-topic, and close it either at the end of seven days (if no extension is sought) or at the end of fourteen days (if an extension is sought). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The panel was formed and all three members came to the same conclusion, that there was no consensus to move, based on their careful reading and analysis of the arguments on both sides. A move review is not an appropriate place to rehash the arguments - there was no impropriety, no "shenanigans", and no biased reading of the results. The three members of the panel were unanimous in their separately-drawn conclusions. There is simply no basis for this move review, other than that some participants didn't like the outcome. They have spent weeks preparing their move review request, with more text than normal mortals might care to read - it is indeed time to end this, and to institute some timing guidelines for future move requests so that we can get on with writing the encyclopedia. If we don't accept the unanimous findings of a three-member panel, what will we do for the next controversial matter? Tvoz/talk 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close Not moved by the sheer numbers. Feel the admins were diligent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close While the arguments for the move were strong and numerous, the arguments against seemed similarly strong, TITLECHANGE was specifically raised during the RM so seems balanced to use in deciding the close. It is not the numbers of the votes, it is the strength of the arguments. And in this case I believe the panel made the proper call. ( FWIW while I did not !vote in the RM, I have in a prior move review ( which would have favored HC ) and still slightly favor Hillary Clinton as policy stands currently, though would rather see personal preference be given more weight leading to a slight support of HRC. ) Normally a non-consensus close means that a new requested move can be opened. But given the contention and number of previous request I strongly suggest a longer wait... perhaps waiting until the beginning of the 2016 US election campaigning might be a good time as it would provide more data points. Regardless of which article name is best, I don't see harm in the 2nd best option being used in the interim, so I see no good reason not to wait. PaleAqua (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages move review monthly listings