Talk:Nuclear option/Archive 3

Development

It appears that Harry Reid invoked the first step of the nuclear option earlier today: http://www.rollcall.com/news/harry_reid_cracks_down_floor_showdown_mitch_mcconnell-209303-1.html?pos=hln. The second step of changing the rules to do away with the filibuster has not been invoked. 174.57.203.45 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The situation appears more complicated than a "first step of the nuclear option." I'm not really sure what happened can be called a nuclear option at all. See here for summary: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/harry-reid-goes-sub-nuclear and here for detail: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/10/07/did-the-senate-just-go-nuclear/

The majority vote overrode a ruling of the parliamentarian by a majority vote which is with precedent: "the presiding officer is overruled roughly a quarter of the time his/her rulings are appealed."

I am personally confused by the part in the article that says the nuclear option, "allows a simple majority to override the rules of the Senate and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic." What are these other delaying tactics? By that definition, the delaying tactic pursued after cloture of asking to suspend the rules that say only germane amendments to the bill may be considered sounds like it fits what was said in the article. Is that really what the article intended to say? It boggles my mind that it would apply to anything after cloture has been reached. 64.129.166.50 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs clarity regarding current state

I am still lost as to what the current state of the parliamentary rules are. Here are the things I am not clear on: (1) In general, after changing the rules by making an appeal to the Constitution, are those new rules the ones maintained forever, or do they reset at some future date? (2) If the new rules are maintained forever, what is an example of one or two cases in the past where the rules have been changed once a point of order is raised that notes that the Senate is operating under different rules than it "should" be? (3) What is the current state of the rules? After reading this article, it is unclear to me what the actual current impact on actual current Senate behavior is. Is this article an explanation of the lawyeristic flights of fantasy possibilities only? Or is it based in some sort of reality of changes that have been overlooked in the current version of the article? It would be helpful if someone who knows something could be a bit more explicit (yes, more explicit; I do get the sense that it is in there somewhere already, but I can't tease out all the pieces of it) about the real-world outcome to-date of all of these phenomena. 128.229.4.2 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In Senate terminology, the Nuclear Option establishes a "precedent." A rule change requires a 2/3 vote. Either way, it's something the Senate follows until it is superseded by a new precedent or rule. The nuclear option was used last year to push through a bill punishing China for supposedly overvaluing it's currency.[1] The threat of the nuclear option has been used to force rule changes on various occasions, most notably in 1917 when the cloture rule was adopted. So it has had a dramatic effect on the Senate, even when it is not used. Kauffner (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"on the argument that" ==> "on the rationale that"

Proponents have referred to it as the constitutional option,[7][8][9] especially when applied to filibusters on judicial nominees, on the argument that the United States Constitution implies that the Senate can act by a majority vote unless the Constitution itself requires a supermajority,

I had to read this four times before I understood it. I originally interpreted the "on the argument that" to refer to the issue/argument being voted upon by the Senate (though the syntax doesn't quite work, and the sentence just becomes confusing). But of course, "on the argument that" in fact refers to the label "the constitutional option", and why that label is justified. (See how it can be misread that way?). So to clarify the intended meaning, I've slightly reworded it: "on the rationale that". Omc (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes in Precedent vs. Changes to the Senate Rules

There is a lot of conflicting writing on what the execution of the nuclear option would accomplish. In the Senate there is a distinction between precedents and rules. Precedents can be thought of as applications of the rules to particular situations. I think a good analogy is the rule-making authority of the Executive establishing regulations (precedents) under the authority of laws passed by Congress (rules). A federal regulation is not a law and can be changed at any time as long as it consistant with existing law.

I have made an effort to distinguish this with several edits to the article. If what I'm saying is the generally agreed upon opinion, then this article would need a lot more edits and reorganization. It's mostly semantics and 90% of the existing could be left unchanged. We need consensus on definition of the nuclear option (constitutional option). Is it simply just a use of overruling the decision of the chair to establish a new precedent or it is the assertion that the Senate can change its rules any time under the rule making power granted by the Constitution?

I would love feedback about this. Asherkobin (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, and with your edits the article is now inaccurate. The term "nuclear option" is sometimes used to refer to a method of filibuster reform achieved by altering Senate precedents without a change to the text of the Rules. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The current opening is incorrect. A change in the Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote. The nuclear option is when the presiding officer, usually the vice president, disregards the relevant rule or precedent and instead asks the Senate to decide a question by majority vote, citing the constitution alone as his authority. Kauffner (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the term "nuclear option" is used more broadly than that. (Incidentally, it is totally incorrect to say "a change in the Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote"; what you mean is a cloture motion in relation to a change in the Senate Rules requires a two-thirds vote.) Mathew5000 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cloture requires a three-fifths vote (60 senators). Please learn the basics of this issue before you do any more work on the article. Kauffner (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to Rule XXII, cloture requires a three-fifths vote "except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting". Mathew5000 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• So what's "a filibuster-reform plan for the majority party"? The procedure has been used on several occasions, so its misleading to say that it is only a "plan." More to the point, the current opening fails to describe what the procedure actually is. All we get is, "This option is said to allow..." In other words, you don't know what it allows? Kauffner (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not simply one procedure. The nuclear option can take various forms. For example, there is one proposal detailed in Part IV of the Gold-Gupta article that we cite [2], but it's not correct to call that particular plan the nuclear (or "constitutional") option, as there are other proposals such as the first-day-of-the-session proposal. As well there are some procedures for a nuclear option that would apply only to the Senate's appointment power (not legislation). I would suggest that you read the Congressional Research Service report by Betsy Palmer.[3] What all of these proposals (that have been labelled the "nuclear option" or "constitutional option") have in common, is they are plans for filibuster reform that can be implemented by the majority party alone (even if it has less than two-thirds of the votes). Phrasing like "this option is said to allow..." maintains NPOV because it is the proponents of the nuclear option who argue that it is effective, opponents may still argue that a nuclear-option procedure would be a nullity. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Gupta never uses the phrase "nuclear option", but rather "constitutional option." I assume that you accept that this is another word for the same thing. The constitutional option is, "upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress" (p. 207) by invoking the U.S. Constitution to override a Senate rule or precedent. So not necessarily anything to do a filibuster reform plan. A phrasing like, "this option is said to allow..." is not NPOV, and least not if you are using it to split the difference among opinions. It is WP:WEASEL. The reference to "majority party" needs to go as well. After all, it is possible for a single party to control more than two-thirds of the seats. Kauffner (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "nuclear option" is almost always used in connection with filibuster reform. You're right that technically most (though not all) of the procedures referred to as nuclear option could also be used to amend Senate rules or precedents in ways completely unrelated to filibusters. But would those hypothetical amendments be controversial enough to be referred to as "nuclear"? We don't know, because they are hypothetical. Thus to convey an idea of what the nuclear option really means, I think filibuster reform should be mentioned in the first sentence, but at any right it should appear in the first paragraph. The Gupta-Gold paper is certainly a reliable source but keep in mind that it is essentially a work of advocacy, as discussed above on this talk page. They are talking about one particular procedure that they refer to as the constitutional option, but the terms "nuclear option" and "constitutional option" are used to refer to a variety of different procedures, as discussed in the Congressional Research Report that I linked to above. I don't understand your point about the term "majority party". If the majority party has more than two-thirds of the seats, then of course it could amend the Senate rules as it wished without resorting to the nuclear option. I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress because I'd like to get more opinions than just the two of us, on how the lede should be worded. It might be worth trying Wikipedia:Third opinion as well. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"The nuclear option" implies using the most radical option on the table. All the proposals described in this article are just incremental reforms, but at this point the nomenclature seems to be well established. "Reform" implies a long-term plan to revamp procedure. But many senators are presumably focused on other things, such as the underlying legislative issue of the moment. In the 1950s and 1960s, northern senators proposed filibuster reform and southern senators resisted. So this issue does not necessarily relate to party. Kauffner (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear option during the Obama presidency

This section is fundamentally misleading. Despite what some conservative publications and Republican Senators claim, the proposals for filibuster reform earlier this year were fundamentally different from the nuclear option. The proposal was for the Senate of the 113th Congress to adopt new filibuster rules before they'd voted to re-adopt the rules from the 112th Congress. Thus, they weren't going to disregard rules that were already in force to change the rules, like what the Republican majority had threatened to do in 2005. If Senate Democrats were to change the rules now by a simple majority vote, in mid-session and after the old filibuster rules have already been re-adopted, that would be the nuclear option. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources, you should be bold and make changes yourself. Like I said, be sure that everything you write is supported. Andrew³²⁷ 17:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The section that you find misleading is already well sourced; I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but in fact the term "nuclear option" is used to refer to any manoeuvre by a majority-short-of-a-supermajority that would change Senate procedures to curtail the use of filibusters. Whether invoked at the start of the session or in the middle, reliable sources refer to this as "nuclear option". Mathew5000 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rule IV states that that senate is in continuous session, so there is no need to re-adopt rules. This provision is of course unconstitutional, but only way to challenge it is by using the nuclear option. Kauffner (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the term "nuclear option" be defined in the lede?

Despite lengthy discussion, there is no consensus on how to define "nuclear option" in the introductory paragraph of this article. Among the issues are:

(1) is the parliamentary maneuver called "nuclear option" invariably linked with filibuster reform, or is filibuster reform just one example of how this maneuver can be used?

(2) should the lede specify that the nuclear option would be invoked in the Senate by a party with a majority but not a supermajority?

(3) does "nuclear option" refer to one specific procedure, or can it take a variety of forms?

Mathew5000 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I believe that the definition of "nuclear option" should follow the discussion in the summary of the Congressional Research Service report by Betsy Palmer, Changing Senate Rules: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option. Palmer explains that "it would be impossible to list all the different permutations such maneuvers could encompass", in other words the nuclear option is not just one procedure but could take a number of forms, where the goal is to curtail the use of filibusters by a means lying outside the Senate's normal rules. The filibuster is a tactic relied on by the minority party, thus the term "nuclear option" has always been used in reference to a plan by the majority party to curtail the use of filibusters. The references in the article to sources such as The New York Times, Associated Press, Politico, and The Hill, are consistent with this usage. The definition in the current version of the article is therefore inadequate. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in Palmer that would justify describing the nuclear option as a "filibuster-reform plan for the majority party", as you did in this edit, so I don't follow this proposal. She says it's a, "procedure to try to end a filibuster without the need for 60 votes" and that, "the point of using such an option is to achieve a goal by means lying outside the Senate’s normal rules of procedure." The current opening paraphrases Gold and Gupta. I don't think it is inconsistent with anything in Palmer. Kauffner (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) Your first quotation from Palmer is way out of context, completely distorting what she says. (b) No, the current opening sentence is in no way an accurate paraphrase of Gold/Gupta. (c) That said, it is undesirable for the Wikipedia article to over-rely on the Gold/Gupta paper — especially for the very definition of "nuclear option". The Gold/Gupta paper is an advocacy piece (Gold is a former advisor to two Senate Majority Leaders). Mathew5000 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition you're proposing doesn't seem to be based on any source. To say that the nuclear option is a, "filibuster reform plan" assumes that the senators are focused on improving the procedural rules of the Senate for the long term. It makes it all about their mental state, which is unknowable. Perhaps their focus is entirely on the underlying legislative issue. Kauffner (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll put another definition on the table. This one is from Richard Arenberg, a professor at Brown University writing in the Washington Post: "The "constitutional option" could be accomplished...if the Senate's presiding officer decides to ignore the rules and the advice of the parliamentarian - which presiding officers usually rely upon - and declares that debate can be ended by majority vote." Notice that there is no mention of either reform or parties. Instead, the procedure is defined in terms of the presiding officer disregarding a rule or precedent, as interpreted by the parliamentarian. Is this not consistent with the current opening? Kauffner (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not a definition! Arenberg does attempt a definition of the term "constitutional option", in the second paragraph of his opinion piece, but what you've quoted (from the fifth paragraph) is a forecast of how the constitutional option could be triggered, not a definition of it. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you look carefully at the Gold/Gupta paper, they twice try to define the term "constitutional option": once implicitly (at page 208) and then more explicitly (at page 220). In neither of these do they talk about "when the presiding officer of the United States Senate disregards a rule or precedent"; that all comes toward the end of the paper (Part IV), when they mention a "second form of the constitutional option" (page 260). Even there, they don't define this second form as you do, in terms of the presiding officer disregarding a rule or precedent, but rather as a simple majority of the Senate (not merely the presiding officer) setting a new Senate precedent that would alter the operation of a Standing Rule while leaving its text untouched (not disregarding just any precedent at all). This is why I'm so puzzled at our current definition: it is drawn from what Gold/Gupta consider a secondary form of the constitutional option, and even then it does not accurately reflect how Gold/Gupta define this second form. (Also it is poor grammar: we have a subordinate clause defining a noun phrase.) As I mentioned before, it is preferable to rely on objective sources like the Congressional Research Service, or press agency reporting, in defining the term, rather than an advocacy piece like the Gold/Gupta article. But what we have now is not even Gold/Gupta's definition of "constitutional option", but rather a fragment of one aspect of what they talk about as a "second form" of the constitutional option. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So who defines the nuclear option as a "filibuster reform plan for the majority plan"? The current opening is pretty much what Arenberg has. I don't see any effort to answer the objections that have already been made, nothing here except handwaving. Kauffner (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is first, to decide whether the current definition is adequate and second, if not, what should replace it? I'm not personally attached to any particular definition that I may have proposed in the past, and I would hope that you are likewise not personally attached to any particular definition just because it was you who proposed it. Could you please think about what a definition is, look at Arenberg's definition of the term as opposed to his discussion of the implementation of the concept, and similarly look at the sections of the Gold/Gupta article I referred to, rather than just dismissing what I say as "handwaving". Mathew5000 (talk)

• Rewrite the lead. I'm not sure of the best way to do it, but the current lead needs work. Perhaps something like this: "In the United States Senate, the nuclear option, also called the constitutional option, is a parliamentary procedure whereby the presiding officer disregards a rule or precedent. There are many potential uses of the nuclear option (cite), but one often cited possibility would consist of asking the Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote." Just my $0.02. Andrew³²⁷ 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammatically that is a big improvement. Substantively that's essentially what we have now, which is not an accurate definition for the reasons mentioned above. Mathew5000 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• The proposed version implies that the nuclear option is purely theoretical. But the senate actually has ended filibusters by majority vote on several occasions. The option was used to amend a senate rule in 1975. If you count precedents, it was used on several other occasions as well. There were also various occasions when the threat of the nuclear option was crucial in ending a filibuster. So it is not a just a "possibility." Kauffner (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you are incorrect in saying "the option was used to amend a senate rule in 1975". The 1975 amendment to Rule XXII was adopted under the Senate's regular procedure, not the nuclear option. (See for example Walter Mondale's account [4]: “In the end, we reached the 60-vote compromise, and never had to use the constitutional option after all.”) You can say that the threat of the nuclear option led to passage of the 1975 amendment. In any event, this is only peripherally relevant to the question at hand: does the current version of the article correctly define the term "nuclear option"? Mathew5000 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is Gold: "The Senate tabled Mansfield’s point of order 51-42. This would mark the first of three times in 1975 that the Senate would go on record supporting the constitutional option...After this third defeat, Mansfield agreed to compromise." Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said, the threat of the nuclear option led to the compromise in 1975 whereby the amendment was passed pursuant to the pre-existing Senate Rules. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Senate ended three filibusters in a row by majority vote. That's aspect of what happened that this article should focus on. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you are mistaken. The three votes you refer to were votes to table a point of order, not votes to end a filibuster. Gold and Gupta do not say that the constitutional option was used in 1975. They say this (page 252): “under the threat of the constitutional option, the Senate adopted a compromise supported by both party leaders...” Their article is densely written but not too difficult to understand, so why are you so confused about it? Mathew5000 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some problem with the connection that prevents you from reading my posts? Here is Gold & Gupta. Again: "This would mark the first of three times in 1975 that the Senate would go on record supporting the constitutional option." Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So you think that "supporting" or "endorsing" the constitutional option is the same thing as using it? If so, that must be the root of your misunderstanding. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Now you are playing silly word games. Perhaps there is an article somewhere that you make a logical and coherent contribution to? Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Do you think that "supporting" something means the same thing as "using" it? Mathew5000 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Rockefeller ruled that Mansfield's point of order raised, "the question of the continuation of the rules of the Senate from one Congress to the next and, more particularly, the procedure by which those rules may be amended, has been considered a constitutional question”. This ruling was upheld by the majority of the Senate. In short, an appeal to the constitution allowed Rule IV, one of the basic rules of the Senate, to be overridden by the vote of a simple majority. That's the constitutional option in a nutshell. Kauffner (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you have again made inaccurate statements. We are talking about February 20, 1975. In summary, what happened is this: Senator Pearson moved a compound motion that would have circumvented filibusters on S.Res.4 (Senator Mondale's measure to amend Rule XXII). Senator Mansfield raised a point of order, saying that Senator Pearson's motion was contrary to the Senate Rules. Vice President Rockefeller did not rule on Senator Mansfield's point of order, but instead referred that point of order to the full Senate. Vice President Rockefeller did say that if the Senate voted to table Senator Mansfield's point of order, this would be tantamount to a decision by the Senate that Senator Pearson's motion was "in all respects a proper motion". The Senate did vote 51-42 to table Senator Mansfield's point of order; Gold/Gupta consider this vote to be an endorsement of the constitutional option. Senator Pearson's compound motion depended on the constitutional option. If the Senate had proceeded to pass the Pearson motion, that would have been a use of the constitutional option. But that didn't happen. Senator Pearson's motion did not come to a vote (as discussed on page 256 of the Gold/Gupta piece), so the Senate did not use the constitutional option in 1975 — although it is fair to say the Senate endorsed the constitutional option by voting to table Senator Mansfield's point of order. (This endorsement of the constitutional option was withdrawn by the Senate in a subsequent vote, but that is incidental.) Mathew5000 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just hairsplitting -- and, as near as can I tell, an original interpretation. What makes it the constitutional option is that the presiding officer made a ruling on his own initiative, citing the constitution. Standard procedure is to defer to the parliamentarian. The parliamentary procedure itself is the nuclear option. What the Senate did after that has nothing to do with it. They don't have to use it to end debate or reform the filibuster, and in this case they continued with parliamentary maneuvering for several more weeks. Kauffner (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is neither "hairsplitting" nor "silly word games". It is important to use words correctly when discussing parliamentary procedure or constitutional law. Your comments on this Talk page have contained inaccurate statements (e.g. [5][6][7][8]). Maybe some of your inaccurate statements resulted from inadvertently using the wrong word, but the more incorrect things you say, the more it seems that you have a fundamental confusion as to this subject matter. My previous comment [9] is not "an original interpretation" but rather a summary of Gold/Gupta's interpretation of the events of February 20, 1975. You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Vice President Rockefeller's statements on that day as quoted by Gold/Gupta. It is also clear now that your notion of the constitutional option is different from that of Gold/Gupta and other reliable sources. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is getting quite personal. When you do not have a good understanding of an issue, an arrogant attitude does not help. Is there some source that defines the nuclear option as a "filibuster reform plan" rather than as a parliamentary procedure? You are playing Humpty Dumpty, defining words in a unique way, and then claiming that I am "incorrect" if I don't use the use them the same way. Plenty of sources say that it requires a two-third vote to change the senate rules, see here. Yes, if nobody filibustered, it could be done by majority vote. But that never happens in the real world. I don't see any "inaccurate statement", only a reasonable simplification. Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The inaccuracy of the statements you made can be determined by looking at the very source you keep referring to, the Gold/Gupta piece, as I have explained above. I consider "supporting" an option to mean something different from "using" it. Do you agree? I would like to collaborate on this article but that is difficult when your approach is to keep trying to justify the mistakes you have made. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. The question of this RfC is whether the current definition of nuclear option in the lede is adequate. We can start by looking at Gold and Gupta's definition of "constitutional option". At page 208, they define it as the invocation of the Senate's powers under the U.S. Constitution to force a vote on a resolution to change the rules of the Senate. Now, I am not proposing we take this definition for use in the Wikipedia article. But can we all agree that this definition, even if not fully accurate, is more accurate than what we currently have in the article? Mathew5000 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro

Actually, I have replaced the first couple of sentences of the intro with four paragraphs that actually explain what the nuclear option is, while also being neutral. (I have now made it even more neutral by including a paragraph that explains the alternative term, "constitutional option.") The previous intro provided neither a real explanation nor a neutral one. Someone with no knowledge of parliamentary procedure would not have had a clue what the nuclear option was, based on the previous intro. I think I have remedied that. I also have taken the idea that the nuclear option violates the rules of the Senate - which was previously used as the definition of the nuclear option, and worked it into the description of the nuclear option, which is more neutral. I also have given an example of how the nuclear option could actually work; while normally this might not belong in an intro, I think in this case it is essential to the reader's understanding. I think it also gives the reader the ability to figure out for him/herself why this is so controversial, which is explained in greater detail in the body of the article.

And, as I realized when I was finished, I somehow managed to do all this without using the word "filibuster." I would not necessarily be opposed to working that word into the first part of the intro, as long as it is done without sacrificing the clarity that I think is there now. (If I do say so myself.)

Considerable work remains to be done on the intro, hopefully after the part that I have just added - beginning with the reference to what Richard Nixon did, continuing through Trent Lott, etc. Frankly I think most (if not all) of this history could be removed from the intro and merged into the appropriate parts of the body of the article. Perhaps some or all of this material is already in the body of the article; I have not even read all of it. I was just so alarmed by the poor state of the first few sentences that I thought I needed to change them, and hope others can bring about further improvements. Neutron (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the rewrite of the intro, and am basically done for now. There is still too much "history" in the intro, but at least the explanatory stuff now comes first. Oh, and I did find a reasonable place to put "filibuster" back in. Neutron (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This intro misses the whole point of the nuclear option: That it is irregular under the Senate's rules, and that there has been a great deal of debate as to its validity. As a practical matter, the option comes up only in the contexts of filibusters. But at least in theory, you could use it to create a precedent unrelated to filibustering. I realize that not everyone understands parliamentary procedure, but the lede still needs to define what the procedure actually is. Death to all fanatics!! (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I put an explanation of what the procedure is a the beginning. It wasn't really explained before, and I assume that is what readers come here looking for. Contrary to what the earlier version said, historically the nuclear option was not about nominations. In 1917, the issue was World War I. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was civil rights. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

District courts

The Wikipedia article says: "Filibusters were used to block 20 Obama nominations to U.S. District Court positions, compared to 3 times in previous U.S. history." The cited source is Huffington Post.[10] I do not think this claim is adequately sourced. See WP:RS. I am about 99% certain that almost all of those 20 nominees were confirmed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. This needs a better source. Andrew³²⁷ 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Title of this article

Does anyone else feel that the title of this article is pretty hyperbolic, if not ridiculous? Changing the rules of the United States Senate, however significant a change it would be, is in no way equivalent to nuclear warfare, and we look silly by suggesting it is. I'm also not convinced that this is a commonly-used meaning of the term 'nuclear option'; a quick Google search shows that it's used as a metaphor in lots of different contexts, but this one didn't come up. Surely, if anything, searching for 'nuclear option' should go to an article on nuclear war (or nuclear energy), or at least a disambiguation page? And isn't there a more appropriate title for this article, that would make more transparent what it's actually about? Robofish (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is certainly misleading. A literal meaning should take precedence, either nuclear power or nuclear war. It is not even a good metaphor. This procedure was used in at least once before -- more than once, depending on how you count these things. The masses outside Washington didn't even get excited. How can majority rule, which in other contexts is treated as a basic principle of democracy, be compared to nuclear warfare? The problem is what else would you call it. The only other common name is "constitutional option", and this term has its own issues. Kauffner (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you call it? How about Nuclear option in the United States Senate? jhawkinson (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Two years on, I still think the name is ambiguous, but I do now accept that 'nuclear option' is widely used in this context. I would prefer something like Nuclear option in the United States Senate, with Nuclear option being a disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• The name of the page is ridiculous, as the "Nuclear Option" is just a contemporary colloquialism for the Constitutional option. Change the page name to "Constitutional Option" and mention "Nuclear Option" in the first paragraph. C'mon lets keep some credibility to Wikipedia articles on US Government. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the above editors. I'm not surprised at US senators using such a hyperbolic term for an event that in reality is such a snoozefest, but upon looking it up here, I was surprised to find our article titled with such obvious hyperbole. It's clearly non-neutral, and it's far from the only context in which the phrase nuclear option occurs. I think I'd support moving to Constitutional option sooner than Nuclear option in the United States Senate. I may put in a move request later if no one beats me to it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is, "nuclear option" is what this is commonly called by reliable sources, which in this case mainly means the news media. See WP:COMMONNAME. While some academic articles and some politicians have called it the "constitutional option", most people would have no idea what that means, whereas most people (in the U.S.) who have spent 5 minutes watching a news channel over the past few days will have heard the subject of this article described as the "nuclear option." Personally, I wish it wasn't called that. Using a weapon of mass destruction as a metaphor for deciding how many votes are needed to confirm a nomination for Secretary of Labor is somewhat offensive. The media and politicians should just tell us what is going on, rather than trying to cram complicated ideas into two-word phrases. Alas, in this case that is exactly what they have done, and if the title of this article is to be the "common name" of the concept being described, it is already there. Neutron (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The applicable guide for this is WP:POVNAME, which basically says non-neutral common names are acceptable in many circumstances, such as Boston Massacre, but also allows use of more encyclopedic alternatives in cases of 1) "trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later" or 2) "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." I would say this case may qualify as the former (though only time will tell), but in my opinion it definitely qualifies under the latter. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the question of NPOV, common name must also be balanced against primary topic. Preliminary Google searches confirm my suspicion that the phrase "nuclear option" refers to nuclear warfare and cold wars many times more often than the US Senate rules. A Google book search for "nuclear option"-filibuster (i.e. excluding filibuster) turns up 88,600 results (top results mostly referring to the military/foreign policy of various countries, though a notable segment of these results refer instead to nuclear power), while a search for "nuclear option"+senate yields only 11,400 results, and "nuclear option"+filibuster turns up just 2,970 results. "nuclear option"+war yields 26,500 results, and "nuclear option"+electricity yields 20,800 results. This would suggest that only a small minority of uses of the phrase nuclear option have anything to do with the topic of this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The question is, what would be a better title than the current one? I don't think "Constitutional option" is it. It is at least as POV as the current title, and not nearly as well-known. Neutron (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

Based on the above discussion, I would like to propose renaming the article Nuclear option in the United States Senate. It would retain the phrase Nuclear option while specifying the context for people looking for information on atomic energy and weapons. Andrew³²⁷ 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with either that title or the current title. Neutron (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been years since Robofish first asserted that the title of this article is laced with hyperbole to the point of being ridiculous. I don't know why action was not taken sooner, but the title now reads: Nuclear option (U.S. politics). This convention is consistent with various other Wikipedia articles such as Blue Team (U.S. politics), Young Turks (U.S. politics) and Iron triangle (US politics).--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So what will Nuclear option become? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I'd forgotten all about this discussion until tagged above. Since I first proposed renaming the article, I've seen the phrase 'nuclear option' used in this sense more often, and I recognise now that this is a common meaning of it. I'm not sure that it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, though. Nuclear option could stay as a redirect to here, but I think it should probably be a disambiguation page listing this and other possible meanings (e.g. relating to nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and as just a metaphor for any serious, potentially destructive and irreversible action in general). Robofish (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're just going to redirect nuclear option here, we shouldn't be disambiguating it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm Meis presented some solid data (above) that would present a strong case for turning it into a disambiguation page, and not redirecting here. I've just created that. See what you all think.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the data suffers greatly from recentism. One would expect 60+ years of nuclear warfare to have more book cites than a 7 year old Senate issue. I wish you hadn't created the disambiguation, as the disputed move should have put this back at the chief page to start. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very easy to revert.

I'd say that, going by the Meis data, if the title is to redirect anywhere it should redirect to an article on nuclear war. And yes, there has been plenty of recent traction regarding the political use, so that points toward a disambiguation fix. Again, it will be very easy to switch to whatever consensus we arrive at.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Today I clued in to what was being told to me. I've communicated an apology in the voting section below. And I'll repeat that here. I'm sorry. I will be smarter about future situations.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Context for the historical move discussions.

20:23, 30 November 2013‎ ChrisfromHouston (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (72,073 bytes) (0)‎ . . (ChrisfromHouston moved page Nuclear option to Nuclear option (U.S. politics))
16:41, 16 December 2013‎ User:Cuchullain (talk | contribs) m . . (72,071 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Cuchullain moved page Nuclear option (U.S. politics) to Nuclear option: Per move discussion)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Though the breakdown of !votes is nearly even, it's clear that some move is required, as the current situation is unworkable: the base title is left redirecting to this one, and the only other ambiguously title page is the dab page, which as noted is problematically formatted. In this closing less consideration was given to arguments that this title is non-neutral; it has been shown to be very widely used and no workable alternatives have been suggested. Additionally, the article should not have been moved to the current title without discussion, as there have been previous discussions on this before. In the end, the move has a rough consensus in the local discussion and restores the page to its long standing stable title. Any future moves should only be done through discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Nuclear option (U.S. politics) → Nuclear option – Per above, we need to have a real discussion about what goes where. "Nuclear option" appears to be primarily sought after for the Senate issue, and not as a broader issue of nuclear arms. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. The idiom "nuclear option" is almost always used with reference to the legislative maneuver of changing internal procedural rules by a simple majority vote instead of by the supermajority described in the rules themselves. A hatnote could mention no first use or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Either this move needs to happen or Nuclear option (disambiguation) needs to move to that title. No disrespect meant to the author, but that dab page is very poorly constructed, and suggests someone really going out of their way to obscure the primary usage of the term, which I do believe is the political term. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. Chris here. First, I need to apologize. I did not think that my action in doing the article move and creation of the disambiguation page was anything that was not easy to revert. It's only now that I've gained awareness of that, days after it had been pointed out to me. I thought my inputs were reversible, and that the things I was changing were consistent with the consensus that I observed to have been expressed in the top section of this Talk page. Apparently, a revert now would take Admin action. Again, I'm sorry.

All of that said, I do not think that a valid decision can be made in the vacuum of this section alone. Lots has been expressed as to why the original title was messed up. Wilhelm Meis presented what clearly appeared to me to be the most concrete data. This is not to say that Anythingyouwant's point (above) is not accurate. It may very well be that in the narrow timeslice of the past couple of months that the political tactic is the most widely used meaning of the term. But this being an encyclopedia, I do not think it is proper for editors to base decisions on current fads. If and when the volume of Google hits turns a corner, then you all might have ground to stand on.

I see plenty of votes against having been cast on this page as a whole, and I am one of them. And so long as there are people who have lived through the Cold War using Wikipedia, I think going back to the old version will be seen as a mockery, to the point of causing damage to the reputation of Wikipedia.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM is at work here. The use of nuclear weapons is clearly one of the historic nuclear options. For non-nuclear-weapons states, nuclear power is the nuclear option. For the environmental movement, this is nuclear power in the carbon debate. The Cold War was alot longer than the 21st century US Senate debate on the filibuster where the term "nuclear option" has come into play. I would say that other nuclear options have just as much primacy as the Senate thing. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, "nuclear option" is an idiom like "break a leg". The literal meaning of "break a leg" is certainly important, but it is not an idiom, and so does not merit a Wikipedia article under that title, as opposed to an article under a title like femoral fracture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As an idiom, it wouldn't make this article the topic to use as the primary topic either... Do we have an article on the idiom? go nuclear is a redlink. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. As it pertains to nuclear weapons, "nuclear option" is not an idiom, and the subject is covered in Wikipedia articles like no first use and nuclear proliferation. Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "nuclear option" as: "The most extreme possible response to a particular situation"[11] So I'm not quite sure what to do here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Terms in common use often have more than one meaning. That's not what disambiguation is about, at least not in a Wikipedia context. We use disambiguation to help the reader choose among articles when there is more than one that he might reasonably be seeking, which I don't see as an issue here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: The proposed title fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NPOV. The guideline for intrinsically non-neutral titles (as this one clearly is) is WP:POVNAME. I don't usually copy/paste arguments I have already made on the same page, but rather than make people hunt for it, here is the evidence I presented earlier supporting a move away from "Nuclear option":

The applicable guide for this is WP:POVNAME, which basically says non-neutral common names are acceptable in many circumstances, such as Boston Massacre, but also allows use of more encyclopedic alternatives in cases of 1) "trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later" or 2) "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." I would say this case may qualify as the former (though only time will tell), but in my opinion it definitely qualifies under the latter. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the question of NPOV, common name must also be balanced against primary topic. Preliminary Google searches confirm my suspicion that the phrase "nuclear option" refers to nuclear warfare and cold wars many times more often than the US Senate rules. A Google book search for "nuclear option"-filibuster (i.e. excluding filibuster) turns up 88,600 results (top results mostly referring to the military/foreign policy of various countries, though a notable segment of these results refer instead to nuclear power), while a search for "nuclear option"+senate yields only 11,400 results, and "nuclear option"+filibuster turns up just 2,970 results. "nuclear option"+war yields 26,500 results, and "nuclear option"+electricity yields 20,800 results. This would suggest that only a small minority of uses of the phrase nuclear option have anything to do with the topic of this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think these numbers demonstrate that there is no clear primary topic for the phrase "nuclear option" but that it refers to nuclear warfare and nuclear energy for generation of electricity far more often than to a US Senate maneuver. If there is a primary topic, this is not it. I suggest we find a more encyclopedic title than whatever bit of hyperbole happens to be popular in the sensationalist news media at the moment. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Primary topic implies that one topic is more likely to be sought for that other topics that the same name may apply to. This type of claim is about the relationship among Wikipedia articles. It is not a form of POV! There is no published source that can confirm or debunk it. However, the fact this topic is the nuclear option most readers are seeking is easily confirmed by googling: "nuclear option" -wikipedia. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Try looking at books instead of web sites. The POV is intrinsic to the name itself. You are correct that PRIMARY TOPIC has nothing to do with POV. They are completely separate issues. The name "nuclear option" in reference to something that has nothing to do with nuclear warfare but is intended to invoke the idea of nuclear warfare is intrinsically hyperbolic, thus non-neutral POV. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that the term is POV, it surely falls under WP:POVTITLE, as it's commonly referred to as such. I can't even conceive of another name for this. Removal of the ability to filibuster in certain situations in the United States Senate? --BDD (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional option? It is arguably non-neutral because it is the term favored by proponents, though certainly no more so than "nuclear option" which is the term favored by opponents, but at least "constitutional option" is not a blatantly hyperbolic invocation of nuclear warfare. The only reason this term is even remotely close to a common name for this procedure is because the news media likes to indulge in politically charged sensationalism in attempt to boost ratings. Naturally they prefer "nuclear option" because it grabs attention better than "constitutional option", which is precisely why we should prefer the latter. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional option is a heavily POV title. I wouldn't support that at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And nuclear option is less POV? I'd like to see your support for that claim. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If "Constitutional option" was the common name, I'd argue for it to go there. As it stands, it's used primarily by nuclear option proponents to get their digs in at their opponents who often use the Constitution as a piece of their ideological argument. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Amazingly, strong support as there is no actual competitor for primary topic here. Red Slash 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Just have a quick look. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazingly, no. I don't know what article those topics are referring to. It seems that they are simply discussing the general concept of an option for something nuclear. We don't usually use unwritten concepts in our determinations of primary topic. I don't know which of the articles found on the disambiguation page someone would want if they were looking up the exact "nuclear option" phrase. But I know a lot of people will be looking for this page that way. Red Slash 23:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like most scholarly sources (books and journals) mentioning the phrase "nuclear option" are referring to either nuclear warfare or nuclear power. When the search is switched to web sites, most of the results are news sites and blogs, which reflects WP:RECENTISM and presents reliability problems. "Nuclear option" certainly is a common search term for the Senate thing because it is the popular term in recent news and blog entries, so a hatnote or dab page should guide those readers to this article in some way. But I don't see how a political usage of a phrase which constitutes an implied reference to a far more literal meaning of the phrase can possibly be considered the primary topic over the literal meaning. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I get that it can be confusing and I understand why you oppose. I would wish you luck as you continue to consider how a figurative meaning can take primary topic over the commonplace literal meaning, but I've heard that on Wikipedia as in the theater, it's bad luck to wish someone good luck so instead I cheerfully wish for you to break a leg! Red Slash 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perhaps a move is in order but this is not it. There's no way that the phrase nuclear option unqualified could be considered a title for this article that was recognizable to readers. At best it might be recognizable to US readers and a few with special interests in US federal politics. Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response to Requested move

Cúchullain, I am requesting a move review, in light of info just posted (above), where only 2 out of the top 70 returns in a Google Book Search had to do with US Senate rules, versus 68 returns pertaining to nuclear warfare. [edit- Reposting link here, for convenience: "nuclear option" -wikipedia --ChrisfromHouston (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)]

It was stated that there was a lack of workable alternatives. The best solution I see is quite simple: Have "Nuclear option" redirect to the disambiguation, and retitle this article to "Nuclear option (U.S. politics)". The current situation cuts against the grain that's been clearly shown in the Google Book Search info.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that book results would be the opposite of the recent information, as there are 60+ years of nuclear/stomic warfare and only 8 years of this specific Senate situation. Publishing doesn't work that quickly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To explain the close a bit, by "no workable alternatives" I was referring specifically to the claim that "nuclear option" is a non-neutral term for this subject. This was a good portion of Wilhelm's (and evidently Chris's) argument. By this argument, however, "Nuclear option (U.S. politics)" would not be any better of a title, as it still contains the non-neutral phrase. To that, it was pointed out that "nuclear option" is a well established common term and nothing more neutral was agreed to, so I gave this argument less consideration. I further weighed this with the fact that "Nuclear option" was left redirecting to the longer title, and the only other page of that title was the very poorly formatted dab page, which lists articles that would not be titled "nuclear option" and by and large don't even mention the phrase. Something I didn't bring up was the fact that as the article's title has been discussed repeatedly before, it should not have been removed unilaterally. Already the majority of participants favored the move; after weighing the arguments I found there was a rough consensus to return the page to its previous title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a concise summary, here are excerpts from the four editors who voiced support:

Support Vote 1: "The idiom "nuclear option" is almost always used with reference to the legislative maneuver..."
Support Vote 2: "...the primary usage of the term, which I do believe is the political term."
Support Vote 3: "We use disambiguation ... when there is more than one that he might reasonably be seeking, which I don't see as an issue here."

Support Vote 4: "...there is no actual competitor for primary topic here."

It has clearly been shown that those four opinions are in gross error, cast in a shadow of ignorance. Other editors here have been quite vocal about their misunderstanding, to include a thorough explanation regarding the nature of their misunderstanding (recency).

So we have the above four votes for support that have been shown to be founded on defective rationale, and against that we have the four editors who voiced opposition, based on well supported rationale. I voiced my opposition as vehemently as I knew how. I was not the only one to do so.

If that alone is not sufficient to tip the scales back, there is the argument that opposing the move was the safe alternative. I see no harm caused by a reader having whatever expectation for their meaning of the term "nuclear option" to be sent to a disambiguation page. And the other "safety" aspect is that if a reader happens to have the atomic notion in mind, a quick title scan of, say, a search return will instantly inform them that "...(U.S. politics)" is not the article they were looking for. That is very different from the experience that I got when I first came to this page and got shocked into learning that this article had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear warfare. Many readers have arrived here to experience that same shock. And so long as the title remains as it is, such readers will continue to experience that.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your basis seems almost entirely on book sources which, while reasonable, does not tell the whole story. Where is the evidence that the warfare terminology is, in fact, the predominant one in 2013? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone pushing for "Nuclear option" to redirect to Nuclear warfare. And I would agree that the Google Book Search info does not by itself constitute proof that this is the predominant use in 2013. But it doesn't have to. However anyone may want to interpret that 68 to 2 ratio, it remains as solid evidence.

The primary point still stands: The basis for all those who voiced Support has absolutely no validity.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I get that, but it's only evidence of what 60 years of published books tells us against a situation of 8 years. You're still not justifying much in the way that the warfare terminology is the predominant one today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from WP:DISAMBIG:

"If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

THIS is the position I have been advocating. "Nuclear option" needs to redirect to the Disambig.

I see no requirement whatsoever to show whatever it is that you are wanting me to show. The basic point is this:

- There's a large group coming to this title expecting explanation on one topic, and

- There's a large group expecting a very different topic.

This is sufficient to justify the solution I've been advocating. Perhaps I am missing something very basic in what you are trying to tell me, or perhaps you are missing something very basic in what Wikipedia policies are guiding us to do. But clearly there is a definite disconnect here.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess what I'm looking for is evidence that there's some sort of large segment looking for information on nuclear warfare via "nuclear option." It doesn't happen here, for sure. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am quite puzzled that you're persistently rejecting the GoogleBookSearch results. You do know how page ranking works, yes? Google is not presenting us with some random slice out of a dusty Library of Congress bookshelf. They have weighted the returns they are showing us based upon what is socially relevant today ...relevance today, based upon links and click-throughs that are happening today (or whatever the exact algorithm is tuned to).

This means that if only one single book had ever been written on the topic of the Nuclear Option as a political maneuver, and this was the most relevant use of the character string "nuclear_option", then this single book would show up at the TOP of the list. But it doesn't. However many political books have been written, we know that there have been at least two - and those two are BURIED. They are buried beneath the pile of military books using the term 'nuclear option'.

Google is showing us that the current state of our article titles is broken. It needs to be fixed. Your WhatLinksHere page is just showing us the extent of how broken Wikipedia currently is (regarding this issue).--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting it, I'm just saying that it's only one of many data points. To upend how our articles are structured requires more than a nonrandom sampling of one Google result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

One Google result? Nonrandom? Long before I joined this discussion, Wilhelm Meis provided a minimum of five google results. That was five months ago on July 18. And soon after I did show up here, I highlighted that data. And what is the problem with these searches being nonrandom? Those are exactly the types of data sets that are needed for making an informed decision. The quotes are used in the character string to hone in on exactly what we're looking for, and the minus sign is used to reject precisely what we're needing to avoid finding. A carefully chosen set of search terms cut into the cloud like a surgical knife. And because of such clean cutting, we have hard data to show that there are many, many people who use the term 'nuclear option' in the military sense.

No one is wanting our article structure upended. We are wanting it rectified. The data clearly shows that the current state is that the title is upended as it is right now.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cúchullain, the ball appears to be in your court.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Another point that I did not see mentioned down in this section, nor the previous, is that there were plenty of editors who had voiced opposition to this article using this title without a qualifier. This includes posts going all the way back to 2011 from folks like Robofish, Kauffner, jhawkinson, Patriot1010.

The name of the page is ridiculous...

C'mon lets keep some credibility to Wikipedia articles on US Government.

That's a direct quote from the last editor in that list, and it appears to summarize the sentiment behind all of those opposing here. So in this totality, it is far more than just 4 v 4. (And that's without looking into the Archives.)--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

To assume that points of view would be the same two years before the nuclear option was invoked is a little presumptuous. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I never spoke for anyone else. I speak for myself. And the point I made is that there were other people who voiced their opinions prior to December 2013. It is specific feedback to the admin statement, "the breakdown of !votes is nearly even".--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Thargor is arguing for unabashed recentism. Anyway, let's not get into rehashing arguments for or against the recent move here. This discussion thread should be about the procedural appropriateness of the RM closure. On that note, it looks to me like the discussion in the green box shows a lack of any consensus, so the result, IMO, should have been no consensus. I think most of us agree a move is needed, but MANY of us disagree WHERE it should be moved to, and with good reasons. Conducting no consensus moves only perpetuates the problem. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have to seriously question how the result of the most recent move request could have been anything other than no consensus. I do not see any bare !votes, rather several coherent arguments for and several coherent arguments against. Traditionally, that situation in a move discussion is an indication that a move is probably needed, but probably not to the proposed title. The usual course of action for that is to either close the discussion as no consensus if the discussion has stagnated or relist if productive discussion is still ongoing. This allows editors time to come up with a more appropriate move target and establish a consensus. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • From a procedural standpoint, the move was made with the belief that it could be reverted easily, so the move request was more of a procedural point to get it back to its original place. There was no consensus to have it disambiguated, so the proper place to put the article was where it was prior to the movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out of town. As I said, the article was historically at "Nuclear option" and was recently unilaterally moved to "Nuclear option (U.S. politics)" despite the fact that there were multiple naming discussions in the past. As such, anything other than a consensus for "Nuclear option (U.S. politics)" defaulted to the long-standing stable title. In this case, more participants favored "Nuclear option" anyway, and some of the opposition to that name was weak, as I've explained. There was also the matter that the shorter title was just left redirecting to the longer form, and the fact that the poorly formatted disambiguation page and just lists articles that by and large don't discuss a "nuclear option" or even mention the term. All told, there was a rough consensus that "Nuclear option" is the more suitable name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

"Disambiguation is required whenever...there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead," according to WP:D. This is the only article named "nuclear option" on Wikipedia. The disambiguation page does not suggest any other article, or section of another article, that the term could logically lead to. The title is supposed to tell the reader the name of the subject, and no more. So titles should be without disambiguation whenever that is possible. I suggest reverting the recent page moves and restoring this page to primary topic. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, and since we cannot move it back, I'm officially requesting a move below. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The argument that "nuclear option" does not require a disambiguation page because nuclear warfare is a topic that does not share a title of the exact same wording is an argument that holds no water. It is not sound. And it is not valid.

One need look no further than disambiguation itself. You can immediately see that there is one link to an article that has no word "disambiguation" in its title. That article is precising definition. It would not be a reasonable argument to say that a disambiguation page is not necessary because "precising definition" is not a title with the same word as "disambiguation". Likewise, it is not a logically valid argument to say that "nuclear option" does not need a disambiguation page because "nuclear warfare" does not have those same exact words in its title.

As for WP:D, there are many people who carry an expectation that an encyclopedia article titled "nuclear option" is about atom bombs. This is fully supported by the Google search data that's been reported here.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Googling "nuclear option" -wikipedia is the standard test for primary topic. All twelve results on the first page are about the Senate procedure. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It had been pointed out early in this discussion that this issue is skewed by a strong recency bias.

Books, for example, are not cranked out as quickly as webpages. You took the effort to do a Google Web Search, yet if you bothered to click just a few tabs over you'd have found this: "nuclear option" -wikipedia

...a Google Book Search that makes it perfectly clear that not a single result on the first page has anything to do with the rules within the US Senate. Page Two has a single one. Then you have to go all the way to Page Seven, where another single one appears. That's 2 out of the top 70 returns, best I saw. All others had to do with nuclear warfare. (I stopped at Page Seven.)

This info needs to be considered in the wake of the atrocious decision by whoever concluded that the consensus here was to move (below).--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• One look at the book search results is enough to show that it tends to put books with the search term in the title on top. So I don't think it addresses the issue of what readers are likely to be searching for, which is criteria given in the guideline for determining a primary topic. A title should be the name of the subject unless there is some technical reason why it can't be, i.e. another article that needs the same title. Since that's not the case here, we don't even have to deal with the primary topic issue. No professionally written reference work uses parentheticals at all. Wiki requires them to resolve software conflicts. What Web designer would put an element on page that drives away a significant number of readers with no discernible benefit? Taekwondo Panda (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear option. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050903192825/http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004252.html to http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004252.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the history of "nuclear option"?

Since the article is (still) entitled "Nuclear option", I expected it to contain a discussion of the term "nuclear option". Instead, there is nothing about how that term came into use. The article is not about "nuclear option" but about the use of the filibuster. This article is under the wrong title.

What I hoped to find was the early history, especially telling who created the term "nuclear option"—quite recently; the 19th century has no connection with "nuclear option" (the name). That's what belongs under this title. I recommend moving the article. Zaslav (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)