Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
********Most supporters argued HC is the more common name than HRC. Others also argued its more concise. Both of those are criteria included in our policy on article titles. So how is that not supported by policy? '''] ]''' 03:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
********Most supporters argued HC is the more common name than HRC. Others also argued its more concise. Both of those are criteria included in our policy on article titles. So how is that not supported by policy? '''] ]''' 03:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
*********Because HC is not a more common name than HRC. It's one thing to make a claim, it's a whole other thing to also prove that claim. Which was not done here. Since when does posting pictures of ballots overrule the facts? Are ballots a reliable source? Or political ads? Both are designed by either political operatives or government functionaries. If one is honest with themselves, they would have to admit that HRC has been the overwhelming way the subject of this article has been addressed the past 30+ years. And concise isn't a policy for moving an article that has been named and stable for 13 years. What possible difference does it make if the article is titled HRC or HC with redirects going to the article anyway? That's where ] should be used. Which is policy. So yea, I don't see any policy reason for moving the article. But that's not my job. Fortunately. And in the end, it's not going to effect anyone. ] (]) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
*********Because HC is not a more common name than HRC. It's one thing to make a claim, it's a whole other thing to also prove that claim. Which was not done here. Since when does posting pictures of ballots overrule the facts? Are ballots a reliable source? Or political ads? Both are designed by either political operatives or government functionaries. If one is honest with themselves, they would have to admit that HRC has been the overwhelming way the subject of this article has been addressed the past 30+ years. And concise isn't a policy for moving an article that has been named and stable for 13 years. What possible difference does it make if the article is titled HRC or HC with redirects going to the article anyway? That's where ] should be used. Which is policy. So yea, I don't see any policy reason for moving the article. But that's not my job. Fortunately. And in the end, it's not going to effect anyone. ] (]) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
**********{{User|DD2K}}, why do you keep ignoring ]? It is policy. And better adherence with ] ''is'' a good reason to change a title, so the ] does not apply in such a case. There can be no better reason to change a title than to bring it in better complicance with policy. In this case HC will comply just as well as HRC on recognizability, precision, consistency, and naturalness. We can pick nits, but there really is no strong case clearly favoring either on any of those four criteria. However, with respect to ''concision'' there is absolutely no question. This proposed move ''clearly'' brings this title into better adherence with policy. Frankly, it's so clear, there really shouldn't be any discussion about it. If this isn't a slam dunk, no title choice is. --]2] 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Doesn't change my vote one bit, but if this contact is used as a reason for overriding broadly majoritarian sensibilities regarding commonality, that essentially raises the question, does Misplaced Pages bow before the tyranny of the most strident minority in service to the powerful and well-connected (perhaps, at least, if they're of the correct politics)? ] (]) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Doesn't change my vote one bit, but if this contact is used as a reason for overriding broadly majoritarian sensibilities regarding commonality, that essentially raises the question, does Misplaced Pages bow before the tyranny of the most strident minority in service to the powerful and well-connected (perhaps, at least, if they're of the correct politics)? ] (]) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
view·edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be?
A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated.
Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives?
A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign.
Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}!
A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted.
Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies?
A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD.
Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it.
A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, 12 February 2007
RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, 21 December 2007
RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, 18 June 2011
RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, 20 November 2012
RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved to Hillary Clinton, 18 June 2013
MR, Closure as move of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved back to Hillary Rodham Clinton (no clear consensus for the previous move), 28 June 2013
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Requested Move 7
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: Speedily closed as no consensus. We had a very emotional requested move on this not too long ago. I strongly suggest that we either wait a bit longer to propose it again... or at least give a rationale that extends beyond two words. (non-admin closure) Red Slash03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from earlier today. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. The fact this keeps being brought up here over and over and over and over again suggests to me, with all due respect, that some editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above, and my arguments given in the last extensive discussion, this is the name she is commonly known by. I don't even consider this to be a valid RM filing; a wiki-gnome IP user that advances no substantive argument, just a throwaway one-liner. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The best, most reliable and reputably published biographies introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We should be guided by our best sources. They probably like to stick with including the "Rodham" because "Hillary Rodham" was a significant notable person, pre-clinton. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2014 (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.
First female Senator from NY
I'm not sure that's lead-worthy given that many states had already elected female senators. By analogy, we don't say in the Romney lead that he was the first Mormon governor of Massachusetts, even though he was. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm in Massachusetts too. Anyway, there are a lot more women in the U.S. than Mormons and when HRC was elected only about a dozen other states had elected female senators at the time. Hot Stoptalk-contribs07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's borderline to go in the lead, since the really significant 'first' from that period is first (and only) First Lady to run for office. The Women in the United States Senate article gives perspective on this ... she wasn't one of the first few female senators to win election, and she wasn't in the 1992 Year of the Women wave, but she is in the next wave after that. If I remember right, back in 2006-07 some other editors felt strongly that it should be in. It may remain in the lead now because it takes so few additional words (to take it out, you'd just remove "the first female"). I'm okay with it staying there, but it could also be moved to the article body (where it isn't now), as an addition to the last sentence in the "Senate election of 2000" section. Comparing with other leads from the list of early elected female senators, about half of them mention first in the state and half don't (typical WP!). I guess on balance I'd leave it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it doesn't belong in the lede. I don't remember hearing or reading anyone making something of her being the first female NY senator. The lede is currently too long. I'd cut "After moving to the state, Clinton was elected the first female Senator from New York; she is the only First Lady ever to have run for public office" to "In her eighth year as First Lady, Clinton ran for and was elected Senator for New York." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There is room in the body to expand on things in the lede. Don't be steered by these google things. Google is influenced by bored kids interested in simple trivia. Do reliable sources, do the published biographies, point to "first female NY senator" in their first few hundred words? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't steered by Google hits, just using it as backing evidence for the "remember hearing or reading anyone making something of" test that you used. This lead here is a 600-word mini-biography written with the assumption that the reader won't go on the article body (WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview"), which is a true assumption for some percentage of readers (exactly what percentage would be great to know, but I've never seen a usage study that tells us). Is "only First Lady ever to have run for public office" one of those things that such lead-only readers need to know? Definitely yes. Is "first female Senator from New York" one of those things? Borderline, to me. We'll see what some more others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As a historical milestone it is not important enough for an already-bloated lead, given how common female senators were. The only way to justify it in the lead would be if her gender substantially affected the outcome of the primary or the general election. Did it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in the sense that her gender was a constant theme of this particular election: her time as First Lady; was she really capable on her own or was she taking advantage of her husband's position; her riding of wave of sympathy as a scorned wife in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal; her "listening tour"; the kiss with Suha Arafat; Lazio invading her personal space during a debate; and so on. No, in the sense that I doubt there was any real barrier to a woman being elected Senator in New York by 2000. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then we ought to leave in the lead that she was the first First Lady in elective office, and remove that she was the first female NY senator. (Which seems about as relevant as that she was the first New York senator from Illinois via Wellesley via Arkansas). Lazio would have been screwing up her personal space even if she had been running to be the 5th woman senator from NY.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 8
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have done some research on this and found that in 2008, her name appeared on the primary ballot of every state in the U.S. to have a primary ballot as "Hillary Clinton"; state requirements vary, but generally prohibit candidates from using an alias or assumed name. bd2412T17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not a question of disambiguation or conciseness - it's a question of "what is her name?" We don't title William Howard Taft's article as "William Taft", even though it's more concise; we use the name he used and was known by. We do not drop the initial "B." from the article Lyndon B. Johnson in the name of conciseness; the "B." is not a disambiguator, but an essential part of the name he chose to use. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - given the numbers of previous move this should be numbered "RM 8" for clarity. But support, it's evident that the middle/maiden name is less used in US sources than plain Hillary, and not used at all outside US. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The best, most reliable and reputably published biographies introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We should be guided by our best sources. They probably like to stick with including the "Rodham" because "Hillary Rodham" was a significant notable person, pre-clinton. The nom appeals to recentism. Recentism should be avoided. If she runs for 2016, there will be all sorts of excitement, but a reference work should remain steady. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, yours is a name I usually see and agree with on RMs/RfC etc, but in this case I'm wondering if "introduce" is relevant to titles. We too "introduce" with WP:FULLNAME in lede, as per normal, but in a title the way books "introduce" vs text body mentions doesn't apply. As for recentism, it may be true in US newsprint, but I don't think that applies outside US where Hillary Clinton has almost never been Rodham in Australian, UK or Indian sources In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, with regards to recentism, I think the solution is to look at the sources currently, explicitly, used to supply the core content in the article. I don't see the nationality of sources as being obviously relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Introduce" is relevant to titles because the title is not just url text, it is the big text that occurs at the top of the page (whether a screen, or a printed page, or equivalent audio version). On an exported PDF, the title is very large and often far separated from the lede by the infobox.
But more important is that the title should reflect how the subject is introduced in quality sources. Introduce, as in first mentions, and not repeated mention of the subject in the same document. Repeated mentions will be shortened. The title is is not a repeated mention. To follow reliable source usage, you should look to biography title, which exist multiply in this case, or first mentions/introduction in other sorts of publications.
WP:COMMONNAME is the shortcut pointing to the policy section "Use commonly recognizable names", which is explained as meaning "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". Now, when referring to "reliable English-language sources", it follows that when they are multiple and varied, the more reliable, and the more reputable, should be weighed more highly. In this article, the current most relaible and reputable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes are the hard cover printed, independently (of the subject) published biographies. These favour "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
An important consideration is that Hillary Rodham was a notable subject pre-clinton.
What is the advantage of the shorter title, one that produces extra white space in the title line, that has no line-feed consequence on the standard output screen/page? I think none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ballot papers are not suitable sources to use. The sources that should be used are independent biographies, and the independent biographies prefer HRC.
I have little affection for the subject, and no sense that one title is better for or preferred by (going forward) the subject. My concern is a trend by Wikipedians to look at bad sources for sourcing, ghits, ballots, etc, and away from good sources, academic style independent published biographies. Misplaced Pages should follow its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Won't any 'reliable source' reporting on the ballot itself use the name appearing on the ballot? Wouldn't a source reporting on the campaign announcement or the campaign ads where she so announces herself of necessity do the same? DeistCosmos (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We should ignore ballots and other primary sources in favour of reliable secondary sources. Independent reliable secondary sources may very well reflect particular primary sources, but even if so this doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages should stop being a tertiary source. Do the authoritative, extensive biographies mention ballots' names? If yes, follow the information in these biographies. If not, then other sources do not indicate that ballots are of any importance, and so Misplaced Pages should not give them importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep as part of her name. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. There is no significant evidence that she is "de-Rodhamizing" it. All Department of State documents used the full name, just like Senate documents before that and First Lady documents before that. And in particular, the placeholder page at Simon & Schuster for her new memoir due out later this year uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a couple of days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. The fact this keeps being brought up here over and over and over and over again suggests to me, with all due respect, that some editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 10:48, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying that NPR, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times are not "serious" media? Because they do not generally always refer to her as Rodham on first mention. Dezastru (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasons given every other time, as nothing has changed. I reverted this insipid nonsense yesterday, but disruptive IPs are apparently not easily swayed. Once this closes as "no move" once again, I will head to the appropriate board and request a ban on future RMs. 6-12 months should do it. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm struggling to see the relevance of some of the arguments of those opposed. Particularly, referring to the "best, most reliable and reputably published biographies", the "serious media" and the "last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while". These arguments seem to contradict WP:COMMONNAME. That is, we don't use just the "best" or most serious sources for a person's name; we use the most common. And when people change their names, we can change our page titles to reflect that (as long as the change is reflected in the sources). -- Irn (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Supported it last time, still support it now. "Rodham" is an unnecessary disambiguator, and she's most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I should also note (again) that trying to compare the suitability of longer and shorter forms of a personal name by relying just on frequency stats can be tricky: even when the longer form is clearly preferred by a source, subsequent text may shorten it simply for brevity once the preferred name is established. (And with someone in the news there's also headlinese to consider.)
I'm afraid I see no new rationales advanced here that haven't already been considered in the previous unsuccessful move requests, and question the benefit of once again rehashing what's starting to look like a perennial proposal. ╠╣uw17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Support for the following reasons, which have not been presented or discussed previously:
First, per the subject's name appearing as "Hillary Clinton" on all United States Democratic Presidential Primary ballots in 2008, as demonstrated in the links and images below:
Third, per the candidate's own identification as "Hillary Clinton" in campaign ads for "Hillary Clinton" which end with the subject herself stating, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message":
In the 2008 campaign, she was self-identifying as just "Hillary" most of the time, no other names necessary, and when not that, as "Hillary Clinton". And in ballot boxes, shorter names are probably considered an advantage. However in 2006, when she was running for re-election as Senator and campaigning for other Democrats, she self-identified as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in a robocall that I got; I noted this at the time because the issue had already come up here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
bd2412: We've already discussed that usage is divided; simply introducing more specific instances that illustrate that fact is not really a new rationale. As for the specific themselves:
Regarding ballots: Yes, she did appear as "Hillary Clinton" in the 2008 Democratic Party primary election (which all of the linked and pictured ballots are from). However, in her Senate ballots she appeared as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". See, for instance, the ballot for her 2006 Senate run. Official election reports issued by the New York Board of Elections also refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for 2000 and 2006, as well as in their report for the special election of 2010. Suffice it to say that she's run as both HC and HRC... and seemingly more often as HRC.
Regarding videos: I searched YouTube myself and immediately found many significant contrary results where she is introduced as HRC, such as:
Support - Per BD2412. Clinton will run for president of the US in 2016 and this article should use the version that she tends to use for politics. GabeMc18:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That would require speculation. Above you say that you have provided reasons that have not been given before; but to me it seems that you have given another list of occurrences of the shorter name, not new reasons. The longer name is also used, and to my mind (for various reasons given in the past) is the appropriate name for the article. What would convince you of this? Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be convinced that a name is the common name of a subject if it can be shown to be used more broadly throughout reliable sources. Since our policies favor conciseness and consistency, a stronger showing of predominant use would be needed to support a longer version of an unambiguous human name. bd2412T18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Stronger than what? Both names are used, and plenty of examples of usage of the Rodham name have been given in past discussions. I see no evidence that anything has changed since last time. Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The legal name is not a factor per WP:COMMONNAME. Try James Paul McCartney and George Roger Waters for example. We go by their common name, not their legal one. Also, Ringo Starr's legal name is Richard Starkey, but we use the common name. GabeMc18:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Support, I have heard of Hillary Clinton, before today I have never heard of this "Rodham." That's not how she is known, and is it just going to cause a lot of people to think they have found the wrong page. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question: because many significant, official, reliable sources refer to her that way, including the White House, Congress, State Department, Clinton Foundation, and numerous others (see above). No one's suggesting always using full names for titles; I do suggest it'd be wrong to retitle the article while usage remains split and while so many prominent sources continue to favor HRC. ╠╣uw20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And Obama produces a lot more results than Barack Obama... yet we use Barack Obama. See my comment above about the risks of relying solely on raw counts to compare longer and shorter forms of a personal name, dude... :) ╠╣uw00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And Obama -Barack get 2.3 billion. See the problem? Even recognizing Obama as the primary occupant of the term "Obama" (which he is) we still don't title the article that way. Put simply: greater numbers for the shorter form in raw usage counts don't by themselves tell you what the preferred form of the name is. The White House, for instance, uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the title and the lede, but then refers to her as Hillary, Secretary Clinton, or Hillary Clinton in the text. (And again, for people in the news one must consider things like headlinese.) ╠╣uw02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Really? You don't see the difference? We're trying to decide on "Hillary Rodham Clinton" versus "Hillary Clinton", so the search string "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham gives all instances of "Hillary Clinton" in which "Rodham" doesn't appear. That's a result which can legitimately by compared to the result for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". On the other hand, no one is trying to rename Barack Obama to "Obama", so the search string you suggest is not helpful, especially since a search on Obama -Barack will bring up all the rresults on his wife and children, but also every article which uses "President Obama" instead of "Barack Obama" or "President Barack Obama". So the two examples, yours and mine, are not analogous is any way, since mine will only bring up instances of the specific phrase "Hillary Clinton".
I think you misunderstand. Of course the names aren't the same; rather, the comparison was simply meant to show that instances of a shorter form of a personal name are normally much more frequent that instances of a longer form.
For example, even controlling for other people with the same surname, the president is referred to simply as "Obama" much more frequently than as "Barack Obama" in most sources – but we don't title based just on that. This is the case with most people: once the preferred form is established, it's normally shortened in references thereafter. We see the same with Hillary: the White House, Congress, State Department, and various other significant sources all title and lead with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but then subsequently tend to refer to her as "Secretary Clinton", "Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary", etc. If you were to just go on raw frequency stats in such sources, HRC might not rank highest — yet it's nonetheless preferred. ╠╣uw16:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Huw. Though usage is mixed, the sheer number of quality and official sources describing her as HRC should put this debate to bed (again). Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Hillary Rodham Clinton is commonly referred to as such in most reliable sources. Whereas in most cases, such a "Rodham" would be dropped, in hers, it is usually retained. In fact, it may be a WP:BLP violation to excise the "Rodham", as she has purposely chosen to retain and use her maiden name. To drop it, in favour of her married name, perhaps defies the significance of her retaining it, that is, she is not owned by her husband, and that she retains her own name. Because of this, and because reliable sources tend to use the "Rodham", I think it is unacceptable to move the article to Hillary Clinton. RGloucester — ☎20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that she hasn't used the "short form", however, she has also legally chosen to retain the "Rodham", and has also used the "Rodham", at least as much as solely the "Clinton". It hardly matters what is on the ballots, as it is quite possible that they dropped the "Rodham" for the sake of space, or for some other considering of which we are not aware. In fact, it is quite possible that the dropping of the "Rodham" from the ballots is some kind of systemic bias towards women who legally choose to retain their maiden names. RGloucester — ☎21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have actually looked into the ballot issue quite intensely, and found that every state leaves it up to the candidate how they want their name to be presented on the ballot, so long as they are using some form of their legal name, and that there are quite often names on the ballot (for this or other offices) that are much longer than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This is entirely the candidate's choice, and not one influenced by any consideration other than how the candidate wishes to present herself. bd2412T21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
User:BD2412, looking at your ballot images, I find it hard to believe that Biden variously chose Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Joe Biden, and "Joe" Biden (the ballot's quotes, not mine) to be on the ballots. And Richardson shows similar variations. I believe what you are saying about your research, and I'm legitimately impressed by all the effort you put into this, but my guess is that in practice, somebody other than the candidate or any high campaign official is deciding on the names. It might be the flunky who organizes the signature petition drives to get on the ballot in the first place, for example. And in the case of that New Hampshire ballot with all the quoting of diminutive first names, it's clearly some style sheet on the part of the New Hampshire clerk's office that's prevailing, not the candidates' wishes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
bd2412: Please note that Hillary has run for office as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as or more frequently than she has as "Hillary Clinton", as for the Senate. The dozens of ballots you cite are all from the same election. ╠╣uw02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, one of the things that I found most striking about Clinton and Obama was that they were the only candidates whose names appeared uniformly across all ballots on which they appeared. To me, this suggests a stronger hand at the top enforcing this conformity. Whether this is Clinton herself or a campaign director, we can't know, but I find it highly incongruous to think that the subject was somehow steamrolled into using this particular name against her will. I didn't check for all 50 states, but I looked up the election laws of about a dozen, and most specifically require that the actual candidate sign off on their candidacy filings, which include the name as it appears on the ballot. Moreover, the voiceovers for the campaign ads where she says "I'm Hillary Clinton" are her speaking in her own voice, and match the ballot presentation. Whatever else can be said, it is clear that the subject was at the very least allowing a concerted, multi-million dollar "Hillary Clinton" branding effort to go forward. As for her previous campaigns, note that the primary campaign is not one election, it is dozens of small elections across a wide range of different dates. As for the previous elections, do we have a ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race? There's a video of a campaign ad from 2006 where the subject says "I'm Hillary Clinton", so it seems that she was already identifying herself that way at that point. bd2412T02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we have the ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race — it identifies her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
Frankly it seems that both the HC and HRC forms are used, and that she's hasn't been overly discriminating between them. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, profiles her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". ╠╣uw09:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
2006 was eight years ago - that's a long time in politics (and on the Internet as well). We are not discussing what the article should have been called 8 years ago, we're discussing what it should be called now. BMK (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact that both names have been used enhances the importance of other factors - for example, WP:CONCISE, which favors a shorter name between two equally informative possibilities. Here, it could be said that "Rodham" is the "and Providence Plantations" of Hillary Clinton. There is no other Hillary Clinton to confuse this subject with, so it is not needed for purposes of describing which Hillary Clinton is being referred to. Consistency is also an element of WP:TITLE, and as I point out on the subpage, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). The vast majority of American names are first-and-last-name only, with use of maiden names being very rare. In light of the fact that several participants in this discussion have indicated that they have heard of "Hillary Clinton" but never "Rodham", we would also have to consider WP:SURPRISE for the average person who watches the Kardashians rather than MacNeil-Lehrer (or who lives in a country where the "Rodham" is rarely reported). The chance of a reader arriving at "Hillary Clinton" and being surprised that the topic is at that title, or wondering if they have reached the wrong article, seems to be far lower than the chance of a reader reacting that way to a title with "Rodham" in it. bd2412T12:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
BMK & BD2412: And 2008 was six years ago, yet we have some pretty lengthy posts dealing with those primaries above. If others choose to bring up past election ballots (as BD2412 has), then in fairness we'll look at them all.
Nonetheless, I do agree that current usage is important... which is why I examined a number of the most significant reliable sources relevant to the individual, as they're shown today, to gauge the preferred form:
White House: HRC
Congress: HRC
State Department: HRC
Clinton Foundation: HRC
New York Times: HRC
Washington Post: HRC
Encyclopedia Britannica: HRC
Et cetera; more are linked elsewhere. Do all sources lead with HRC? Of course not. But many do, and those that do are among the most significant to this subject.
As for surprised reactions by readers coming across a page titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", is there any evidence that people arriving here don't know who they've found? It's true that another editor did suggest that people outside the US "never" know her as Rodham, but (as I linked elsewhere) various international and foreign media like the BBC, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. do in fact use HRC, so I have to question whether that's really so. ╠╣uw13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Huw, I entirely agree. She is referred to using several variations of her name, as people often are. But HRC is clearly the correct name for this article, for the reasons you and others have given in this discussion and in previous ones. I don't understand why we are going through this yet again. Omnedon (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And to BD2412 -- you say that "Rodham" is "rarely reported" in some countries. Where's the data that supports this? Omnedon (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Perception can be about systemic bias, as this New York Times article, which was cited earlier, demonstrates. It is quite possible that she dropped the "Rodham" from ballots, merely so that she would not be perceived negatively, as she was in the past. I do not think it is right to continue this trend of systemic bias. RGloucester — ☎21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an awful lot of speculation, and it seems to run against the persona of someone who thrusts themselves into the public spotlight at the highest levels. All we can know for sure is that the subject was in control of how her name appeared on the ballot and how she chose to announce her name in her own words in campaign ads, and that since 2006, she has done so as "Hillary Clinton". This also happens to coincide with how the vast majority of media outlets now report her name. bd2412T22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
HRC is used by many media outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Huffington Post, etc. Certainly there are many that do not, but that's the point: usage is mixed. As for the overall prevalence of shorter forms like Hillary Clinton (or increasingly even just Hillary), I certainly wouldn't argue that those do appear more frequently, but what of it? Obama appears much more frequently than Barack Obama by volume, but despite Obama occupying that term we still redirect to the longer name. In cases of comparing longer and shorter forms of personal names, particularly those that often appear in news pieces (see headlinese), one can't simply rely on raw usage counts like you could if you were (say) comparing two variant spellings. That's why it's good to look to various other significant and reliable sources like the White House, Congress, State Department, Britannica, her own foundation, etc., all of which commonly favor HRC. ╠╣uw10:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages already has a large problem with WP:Systemic bias. I do not think it is appropriate to take the patriarchal point of view that women are not entitled to use their own names. She has, throughout her career, made a conscious choice to have the "Rodham" known. Even if it is dropped in some instances, because of bad press and societal stigmas, it remains her name. It really seems unacceptable to be reducing her to an accessory of her husband, the former President Clinton. RGloucester — ☎03:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between "it is dropped" and her choosing to drop it. She also has the right, does she not, to choose to be known as "Hillary Clinton" if that is her wish. We are not mind-readers. We can't look at her ballot presentations and her "I'm Hillary Clinton" announcements and dismiss them as meaningless, although we can know fairly certainly that if she really wanted to continue using "Rodham" she could make sure that she uses it in her ads, on the ballot, and in many other venues. To presume otherwise suggests that women who choose to change their name, for whatever reason, are merely acting as weak-willed puppets of their circumstances, which certainly doesn't seem to describe this subject. I guess the question then becomes, at what point does a woman (or, really, any person) have the right to change their name without the choice being derided as "bad press and societal stigmas"? bd2412T03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
But, why did she choose to drop it? She has admitted in the past, as per that article, that she received terrible press with regard to her name in the Arkansas governor's election. In fact, to the point where, when Mr Clinton lost, his opponent said: "And my wife is 'Mrs. Frank White'." Knowing her past history, and the trouble she received because of retaining her name, knowing that the "Rodham" is used by a wide variety of reliable sources, and her self, I do not think it is appropriate to drop it in an effort to make the title more concise. If anything, this makes the title less concise, as it doesn't imply that she is the person that she is. "Hillary Clinton" can never truly describe who she is as a person. It is inappropriate to be saying that any woman who tries to retain their name, and enter politics, will be forced to drop it because people prefer a "shorter, more concise" name, despite the fact that this shorter name is ALWAYS the husband's name. RGloucester — ☎13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not what conciseness is about, though. The elements of personal identity make an interesting philosophical question, but the question here is whether the title contains more information than necessary to inform the average reader of the subject of the article. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that anyone is going to see the title "Hillary Clinton" and wonder who the article is about. bd2412T13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Conciseness is wrong if it is a WP:BLP violation. I think that dropping the Rodham, in this case, is a great harm to the person being described by the article. RGloucester — ☎13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
BLP violation? Er, no. That's utterly ridiculous! I do wish people would stop throwing "BLP violation" around in situations where it clearly doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Support This is a tough one. There are good arguments on both sides. WP:COMMONNAME is not decisive in this case because "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is commonly used as is "Hillary Clinton". I typically say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and I was in the "oppose" camp when I came here. Since the arguments are good on either side, I decided to look at her official website . Since the arguments are sound either way, I think we go with her preference as expressed on her official website. I am One of Many (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Strongest Imaginable Support. If we go to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and search all the titles there (except for juvenile literature), we find "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 14 times, and "Hillary Clinton" 24 times. This confirms my sense that she is primarily referred to as "Hillary Clinton" in the mainstream media.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONAME. To those of us not from the US, I think it is a matter of suprise that this is even in issue. Globally, I suspect there is precious little knowledge that "Rodham" is her middle name let alone any usage of it. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't her middle name. It is part of her last name, or could be called her "maiden name". Her middle name is Diane. RGloucester — ☎22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that she isn't know that way outside the US. I'm British, and I know her that way. The BBC refers to her as such.RGloucester — ☎13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - I've made my position clear on this. Nothing that needs to be trotted out again. Hillary Clinton is absolutely the common name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Further comment. The idea that "common name" always prevails over accuracy and formality is a WP myth. There are many exceptions carved out. Hence Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (far from the most common use for either) and United States presidential election, 2012 (who says it with that word order?) and United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2008 (absolutely nobody says it like that) and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (several more concise forms of that get more Google hits) and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council (common use would use US and UN and omit other words) and Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (say what? common use is "Bush tax cuts" or "first round of the Bush tax cuts") and so forth. These are not isolated cases but illustrations of where whole subject areas are exempt from "common name". Another good example is that "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O" all get more Google hits than "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" does, and by the crude common name argument should win. But we correctly locate the article at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis because that was the name she used in the latter stages of her life and the name that serious media refered to her by then and after her death. In practice we do not determine article titles solely by Google hit counts or other popularity metrics, and we often value correctness and other considerations, and this should be such a case too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Because it's the name she self-identifies as, especially in more formal settings (such as in the positions she holds, the books she authors, etc). WP believes in formal writing (no contractions, etc), why not here too? WP believes in giving BLP subjects the benefit of the doubt in terms of controversial material; why not in naming too? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
BMK: It's also good to note that the longer form is favored by official sources from the White House, Congress, and the State Department, to papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, to HRC's own Clinton Foundation, to the Britannica, etc. (Links are earlier.) It's not really a question of "usurping" common name; it's recognizing that common name is in fact divided, with many of the most significant sources preferring the longer form. ╠╣uw02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A very America-centric list of sources. She's a global figure: outside of the US no one knows who this "Rodham" person is. DeCausa (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Classic cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF, none of which have a clear, commonly, and widely used alternative like Hillary Clinton. In the case of Diana, Diana arguably requires disambiguation anyway. The argument could be made for Princess Diana, and probably has. But at least there a specific royalty naming convention to which that current title corresponds. None such exists for this current title. Descriptive titles like "United States presidential election, 2012 are handled differently altogether. --B2C01:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, come on. "Boeing B-17" and "P-51 Mustang" are clear, commonly and widely-used alternatives, but every single military aircraft article uses the longer form. Well, I'm saying this should be handled differently too. It's the proper version of her name and the one she self-identifies with in formal writing situations, like what we do here. It's the better choice. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. A Google News search and her official website do suggest the simpler name has become the common one. Dralwik| 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support. 'Hillary Clinton' is her common name and is more concise. The arguments cited against moving aren't convincing. Hot Stop(Edits)03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose By the same reasoning as has been stated over and over and over (8 times in fact) again, and sustained - this is her name, the name she uses most often, the name she chooses, the name serious reliable sources always use, her official name as Secy of State, Senator, etc. It is clear that this is one of the times that we should be following the same logic we employ at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - the name she used, not the name with the most Google hits (see Lady Di, for example.) And this being brought up again, a month after the last time, seems abusive to the process. We are not supposed to lose a move attempt, or an AfD or anything like that and then turn around weeks later and try again. Further, as RGloucester and Wasted Time R say above, as a BLP we should respect the choice of the subject as we do regarding other facts. It is a conscious choice to use her full name officially, in her books, etc., and we should follow that as do most serious sources. Finally - User:BD2412 says that he/she notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project", yet I was not notified -and the last time I looked I was the editor with third highest number of article edits, and I have weighed in on just about every one of the previous move attempts that lasted more than a day - I wonder if other editors who have previously opposed this move were similarly passed over. I think this calls into question the nature of the canvass. Tvoz/talk04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be true, but it is not why we name the article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. We name it that way because that is the name she used for the last 30 years of her life and the one that serious reliable sources use. If she didn't - if she used Jacqueline Onassis, and reliable sources did, "Kennedy" would not be in the name of the article despite it being the key to her notability.Tvoz/talk05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. So let's say that "Hillary Clinton" is searched. Will it turn up a completely different person than if you searched "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? I'm not so sure about that. And that's not her full name. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is. Epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, and in accordance with WP:OFFICIALNAMES. (I wrote in support of this move in a previous discussion, and I was not notified either, so the suggestion that only those who previously opposed the move were not notified is erroneous.) Dezastru (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say "only" - but on a very quick look I see at least 4 opposes from recent move attempts - including one (other than me) who commented extensively in the June 2013 attempt - who were not notified. I haven't looked at each one, and I'm not saying this was deliberate - I am saying that if you say you've notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project" then you ought to have done so, or the canvass is questionable. Tvoz/talk05:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
support per WP:CRITERIA, Article titles should be based on 5 criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness (specifically, "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."), and Consistency. Let's look at each of these:
Recognizability BD2412's excellent research on ballots, which allow very long names (as evidenced above), suggest that there is no question "Hilary Clinton" is considered more recognizable - when you put your name on a ballot this is a careful decision informed by research, and I have no doubt that the decision to leave out the Rodham was an explicit one. Thus, HC is at least as recognizable as HRC, and quite likely more recognizeable. The missives from non-American editors also suggest that Rodham is much less well known outside of the US, so we have to be sure we're not showing an American bias here.
Naturalness The search results above show that people are much more likely to search for HC than HRC. We see inverse results for other people with 3 names, whereby the 3-name is searched more often than the two-name, but that's not the case here. Winner for HC.
Precision HC is equally precise as HRC, there are no other HCs that we need to worry about. Equal here.
Conciseness HC is more concise than HRC, as it's NO LONGER THAN NECESSARY. Anyone who claims otherwise will not get a fair hearing from me. Winner for HC.
Consistency There are 4 articles with HC in the title, and 7 with HRC. Slight edge to HRC, but it's a bit trivial as this is the head article, so if renamed those others will be as well.
COMMONNAME has also been adequately demonstrated. Even if we call COMMONNAME a wash, which I'm willing to do, on all the other criteria HC is equal or better, so we should clearly rename.
Finally, to the person who said this could be a BLP violation, that is potentially the worst and most ridiculous invocation of BLP I've ever seen in my time here, ever, especially given the frequency to which HC refers to herself as HC. The worst. Drop the bullshit stick please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Consistency is more about having the same sort of title as comparable subjects. I note on the subpage that Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). bd2412T12:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Rodham" is part of her last name. I do not know why this is hard to understand. I also have two "words" in my last name, each being a separate name. Hence, the present title does not deviate from "first name last name" conventions. "Diane" is her middle name. RGloucester — ☎13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, then why is the subject's name ever seen without the "Rodham"? Why would she ever announce herself as "Hillary Clinton" in an ad? This is really an anthroponymy question, since virtually all married women have a maiden name, and many retain their maiden name as part of their name, without it being considered part of their last name. Moreover, there are people like Madonna, Cher, and Björk, who have a last name, but don't even have that included in their article title because the average reader knows them by their mononym. bd2412T14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not her "maiden name", which would only apply if she had actually changed her name and dropped the Rodham entirely. In fact, it is quite possible that her legal name is "Hillary Rodham", as that's what it apparently was at the time of her marriage, according to the New York Times article linked above. "Clinton" is used by societal convention, not through legality, as far as we know. In a way, it is like a courtesy title. Regardless, even if "Clinton" is legally part of her name, it is by definition part of her "last name", her "family name", because it is a "family name", and not a "given name", like "Diane", or "Hillary". RGloucester — ☎15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I've written many biographies where the article title is the common name and I lead off the article with the full name in text, which is by far our common and usual practice. Its not that there's not a case for Rodham version here, its just much weaker as of 2014.--Milowent • 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
'Support By far "Hillary Clinton" is the more common name for her, and what she usually goes by. Even her official website doesn't include "Rodham". TJSpyke15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. Can't see why this isn't a textbook case of where to apply WP:COMMONNAME ("not necessarily ... the subject's 'official' name as an article title"). Also can't see how the fact that the "Rodham" part is a second last name and not a middle name would necessarily make a difference in applying WP:COMMONNAME. If it's significantly more common than the longer alternative, and is found also in high quality sources, and is demonstrably also acceptable to the BLP subject herself, then that's what to use. Fut.Perf.☼00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For the life of me, I don't understand the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Maybe because people here are under 25 years old or something and haven't went through 20 years(1991-2011) of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" being mentioned every week on the news. Almost every time she was introduced at an event, or being referred to by the news anchor at the desk, she was referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". That is what she prefers to be referred to. So how is WP:COMMONNAME being used as a vote for just "Hillary Clinton"?
She also signs all her official documents as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Perhaps the press has moved away from that lately and going with just Hillary Clinton, but for the vast majority of the last 30+ years, she has been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". So after thinking about it, I oppose the move. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I should point out that here in Britain, she has never, ever been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (probably because the continued use of a woman's maiden name in this way is alien to us). The British media has always called her plain "Hillary Clinton". I suspect this also goes for many other countries. And COMMONNAME doesn't just apply to the country of origin. International figures have to be taken in an international context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
All the British articles you cite are profiles, so do include her full name. However, searching for her on their websites reveals rather a different story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though HRC also appears in their news stories. As you say, it does seem that HRC is the preferred form for profiles or dedicated articles. ╠╣uw17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the context for those profiles is that they choose to head them with the full "official" name of the subject. But that is not Misplaced Pages policy. There is no way British media outlets habitually refer to her as "Rodham". Put BBC and "Hillary Clinton" into google and see what comes up. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but no — "full official name" does not seem to be the BBC's policy at all:
I do understand that many articles need to reflect internationally, but an American politician? If the vast majority of British press referred to Tony Blair as Tony Blair, but American and South American press referred to him as Anthony Charles Blair, should equal weight be given to American and South American press coverage? No. He is a British politician and the weight goes to how he is referred to in the UK. Same goes with HRC. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be true if she was overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country, but I'm guessing that the majority of support votes above are coming from Americans, which suggests she isn't. But I was merely refuting your comment that people commenting must either be very young or not have seen the media over the last twenty years - neither applies to me, and until the renaming discussions here I wasn't really aware that Americans did know her as Hillary Rodham Clinton, since we don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
She is definitely, 100%, "overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country". Which is why I stated those using WP:COMMONNAME for the shortened "Hillary Clinton" must not have been paying attention to the news from 1991-2011. Her common name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ballots that are designed so they can take up as least of space as possible does not change that. Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It is more common these days to find references to "Hillary Clinton" with no "Rodham" in sight , , but this was also true five years ago, , , , and ten years ago , , , . Also, about the name appearing on the ballot, I don't think saving space could possibly have anything to do with it. If you look at those ballots and the links to other ballots, there is plenty of room to include a much longer name. You mentioned "William "Bill" Richardson III" being on the ballot, but that name is long enough that if Clinton wanted to she could have fit two Rodhams on that ballot. I didn't base my vote on the name on the ballot, but it's a perfectly legitimate reason. - WPGA2345 - ☛23:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
"She is definitely, 100%, 'overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country'." – Her home country being where? In Bizarro World?
Google Ngram of books published in the US 1988–2008. Red (top) = "Hillary Clinton"; Blue (bottom) = "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
You better check again Mister Mxyzptlk, and get out of Bizarro World yourself. Your chart just shows books with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton(with Rodham and any other honorific). In other words, the Hillary Clinton results you are pointing to INCLUDE the results with Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you want to see results that have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" compared to books that do not specifically mention Rodham but do have "Hillary Clinton", you have this. Screen capture of Google book search of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" compared to "Hillary Clinton" without RodhamDave Dial (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Dave, you are totally misinterpreting your search. For one thing, these are verbatim text searches; the term (Hillary Clinton) looks for that term precisely as written. (There is a way to run wildcard searches, but you would need to include special operands for that.) Second, an Ngram search doesn't count the number of books in which a given phrase occurs; it counts the total number of times the phrase occurs across all the books in the research corpus (normalized by year). Think of the corpus as a library. An Ngram is searching for how many times a phrase occurs anywhere in the library, not how many books in the library contain the phrase. Third, the term ((Hillary Clinton) - (Rodham)) does not search for books that have "Hillary Clinton" but do not specifically mention "Rodham," as you think. The minus operand is not an exclusion command the way it would be in a regular Google web search (ie, it doesn't say, 'Count all of these excluding this'). It is a subtraction command. It says, 'Count all of these, count all of those, then find the difference.' When you use a subtraction operand in an Ngram search, as in ((A) - (B)), you are counting all the occurrences of phrase A, then counting all the occurrences of phrase B, and then calculating how much more frequently phrase A occurs than phrase B. (If the difference is a negative value, it means that phrase B occurs more often than phrase A does.) For your search to be a fair representation of the question we are interested in, you would need a subtraction operation for your upper plot as well. But you left that out, so your graph does not compare apples to apples.
We can actually investigate the question of how much more commonly "Hillary Clinton" occurs than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" with a single plot on the graph. The search term is ((Hillary Clinton) - (Hillary Rodham Clinton)).
Google Ngram showing how much more frequently the phrase "Hillary Clinton" has appeared than the phrase "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in English-language books published in the US from 1988 to 2008.
That counts all the "Hillary Clinton" occurrences, then it counts all the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurrences, then it calculates the difference. The result shows that "Hillary Clinton" occurs more frequently than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" does, and that the disparity has been growing. Another way to look at this is to graph , which shows that of all the mentions of "Hillary Clinton" and of "Hillary Rodham Clinton," you find that most of the time the term being used is "Hillary Clinton." And you find that that proportion has been growing since at least 2002 (the ratio of "Hillary Clinton" to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was 60–40 in 1988; it was 72–28 in 2008). Dezastru (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not the way I interpreted the directions here. I encourage others to read the page(especially the Ngram Compositions, and ()parentheses). In any case, as I've shown below, the search results are not accurate from Google Book. I have to believe that people will use common sense and realize that when journalists, authors and scholars refer to HRC, they almost always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton(excluding when they are addressing her directly, and use a variety of Secretary Clinton, Senator Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton). But when journalists, authors and scholars write about HRC, it is almost always as Hillary Rodham Clinton. They may use a Hillary Clinton in the headline, or after describing her as HRC, but she is well known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Overwhelming so. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Support: COMMONNAME does seem to apply (and it doesn't really matter anyway as long as all the redirects are in place) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
But bear in mind in 2008 her campaign frequently used "Hillary" alone as an ID, but of course that didn't mean she dropped the Rodham or the Clinton. Her name is what it has been for years, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as her books, her signature, and multiple official websites approved by her have it, and as User: RGloucester pointed out, we should respect her choice of name here, especially since it is the name used by all serious media outlets. That some editors "never heard" of Rodham speaks, I guess, to their unfamiliarity with the subject. I would never, ever, search for "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", and would find her if I searched on Kate Middleton - the far more common name. Yet we respect the formal name as our article name. Here it is simpler - she indeed is known commonly with the Rodham, and if some reader doesn't know it, and searches on "Hillary Clinton", of course they'll land here. But it should not be the name of the article - we should not be eliminating her self-identification in favor of her husband's name. Tvoz/talk01:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Support and Oppose. Really, it doesn't matter. A redirect from the other alternative will be there. I don't see general consequences from this discussion. It doesn't matter. Back away, everyone who cares. I suggest the panel of three closers should agree to flip coins to "settle" it. Honestly, a random choice is best, because it doesn't matter. --doncram02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional comment. Since graphics seem to be the order of the day in this RM, here are all the covers of the books she has published. File:HRC books.PNG Every single one uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Now what are you going to believe, the books that the author is personally involved in writing and supervising the publication and promotion of, or the ballots that some state clerks or campaign functionaries are involved in putting together? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to look at book titles rather than book authors to help us name this Misplaced Pages article? That's why my support referenced only the titles at List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. There are lots of examples of book covers that list authors different from their Misplaced Pages article titles, e.g. Teresa Heinz. According to book cover design expert Derek Murphy, the considerations that go into creating an author name are kind of specialized. He writes: “How to create your author pen name? Try to start from your real name and make little changes. Maybe use your middle name, or initials, or a name that’s almost the same but a little cooler….”. Even if we just look at the "pro-Clinton" books at List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton, the choice seems clear. If people are concerned with self-identification, see newspaper op-eds that she has written like these under the name "Hillary Clinton":
User:Anythingyouwant, I'd be curious to know how many of those are intentional. As Mitt found out, when you publish an op-ed, you don't have full control over how it appears ("Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"). Many years ago I published an op-ed in Newsday and they liberally shortened, rewrote, and in one case seriously changed the meaning of, my original, all without telling me in advance. Some of these Clinton bylines may be being cast into the house style of how they use her name, or the op-ed page may have its own style guide. Or maybe she has been inconsistent. When you look at official State Department documents over 2009-2013, the large large majority use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but I'm sure you can find some outliers. To get the most recent usage, I looked at a bunch of press releases for events involving her since she left office, since I figure press releases are probably coming directly from her office or are rewrites of what comes from her office, and they seem to use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", see for example this one just a few days ago and this one just a month old and this one and this one and this one and so forth. My search was on "former secretary of state hillary" and then look for press releases within those hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
excuses excuses excuses... how many people read press releases? Also since when do we care what the official name of the subject is. You realize that WP:OFFICIALNAME is an essay, not a policy, right? It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that HC is more common than HRC, but EVEN if you contest that and call it a wash, HC is more concise, and more natural - both of these are covered by POLICY, not fuzzy preference. Clinton's preference has no bearing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Obi-Wan, think a little outside the box. Why shouldn't self-identification and preference have some bearing? WP is so formal in other respects - no contractions in writing, always refer to people by last name, use more footnotes than a law review article, etc - that the common name obsession has always seemed out of place to me. And WP is so deferential to BLP subjects - any derogatory statements without strong sources get thrown out on sight, special procedures if subjects think they have had incorrect things written about them, etc - that again, not calling people by their preferred name seems wrong. Now in practice, self-identified name and common name line up at least 95% of the time - Bill Clinton will still be Bill Clinton, Ringo Starr will still be Ringo Starr, Cher will still be Cher - so it's not nearly as big a change as you might fear. And why should conciseness be so important? With web links, our redirects, and search predictive completions, nobody's every going to be typing out more than a few characters of any of these names. Why not have correctness be more important than length? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WTR, the NYT did not go so far as to change the presentation of Romney's name (e.g. to Willard). The op-eds I listed are from a wide cross-section of very reliable sources, and even if they all wanted to mess with her name (which is extremely unlikely), she could have easily insisted that they not. The only credible explanation is that she has more than one single preference as regards her name. That is very common. Some authors purposely use different versions of their name when writing in different categories. Millions of people use more formal versions for more formal settings.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WTR, so are you basically agreeing that, per our policies (excluding IAR), we would choose HC? But, we should ignore those, and choose HRC anyway because we have some vague sense that she prefers it for more formal occasions (one must admit the ballot evidence from 2008 is rather damning however)? I think this is a terrible article on which to make that stand. Take Ivory Coast instead - the government there has formally asked, on multiple occasions, that the country be called Cote d'Ivoire, and our government has complied for the most part - Cote d'Ivoire has official name and preferred name and name-most-used-by-official-government-sources in spades. I guarantee you at the UN our Ambassador doesn't go up and shake the hand of the delegate from Ivory Coast. And yet, that article was moved there. Or, try Cat Stevens or Myanmar, again much more obvious cases. If you want to change policy, do a REAL test case, where preferences of the entity have been made clear and have been done in writing, multiple times, and where the entity is CONSISTENT in their use of the new name. Then if you succeed, use it to change policy more broadly. But this one is much too muddy, its quite obvious to me that Clinton doesn't have strong feelings either way these days (otherwise the ballots in 2008 NEVER would have happened, her website NEVER would have happened, her op-eds NEVER would have happened - do you really believe a woman as powerful as HC would just let them misspell her name at the bottom of an op-ed? There are corrections, it's the web, but they didn't make the correction, so she DOESNT CARE enough). You talk about the obsession of commonname, but my argument holds even if commonname is a WASH - throw commonname out the window, call it a tie. HC still wins by a landslide based on OTHER WP:CRITERIA which consensus has deemed important.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Obi-Wan, to paraphrase a saying, you don't pick your test cases, they pick you. I mentioned to BD2412 that the best test case of all for naming people would have been Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali, because for several years a majority of people in the sports and news world kept using the old name, even though - or in many cases, because - he took great offense to it. Common name versus self-identification and BLP protection - what to do? I would have switched to Muhammad Ali right away. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose She obviously prefers the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are used by Reliable Sources. Note that "Rodham" is not a middle name; "Hillary Rodham" is her maiden name, the name under which she established her legal career, and the name she continued to use after marrying Bill Clinton, adding his name to hers only when he went into politics. She has used "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her name ever since, with the possible exception of the 2008 presidential election where she did call herself "Hillary Clinton" on occasion. There is no doubt in my mind that if she should be elected president, she would assume office as Hillary Rodham Clinton. IMO her article should be titled as is done for other high-level, potential-president American politicians. Every U.S. president that I could find is titled according to the name they themselves preferred - the name they ran under, and the name chose to be called when they assumed office. So their article may be titled with full name (William Howard Taft); name with middle initial (Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson); name without middle initial (Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan); or even by nickname (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter) when the person himself preferred it. I couldn't find a single case where some other name was used instead of the name the person himself preferred. Clinton isn't president yet, and she may never be. But she is a serious enough candidate that I think we should follow what appears to be the precedent for article titles for people at or near that level. Since both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are used by Reliable Sources, but she clearly prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton when the choice is up to her, I believe the article should remain titled as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, Rodham may not be a middle name, but it's not a last name either. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and Rodham, like the maiden names of millions of American women, behaves for all intents and purposes like a middle name, even if on some legal document somewhere it's marked as a last name. If it disappears, it's behaving like a middle name, and if she erases it, she's treating it like one. Women who hyphenate like Jackie Joyner-Kersee don't EVER get rid of their maiden name. HC clearly doesn't care enough anymore to make a big deal of it either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's not a last name. I never said it was; in fact I said (somewhere above) that is isn't. Her last name isn't "Rodham Clinton", it is "Clinton". Her alphabetized name is "Clinton, Hillary Rodham", not "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". But "Rodham" is also more than just a disposable middle name. "Rodham" is part of her name, just as the initial "F." is part of John F. Kennedy's name, or the name "Louis" is part of Robert Louis Stevenson's name. You wouldn't expect us to change the article about Robert Louis Stevenson to Robert Stevenson! We name articles according to the name that the subject uses and that Reliable Sources use. In the case of presidents, we use the name they take office under (even if it's Jimmy Carter). If this gets changed to Hillary Clinton, and she subsequently gets elected president, we are going to have to change it back to HRC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose rehashing another useless lengthy bullshit argument when both names are equally common names and there are substantial reliable sources on both sides of the argument. either option works, no option is more important than the other, however no cogent argument overwhelmingly says "change the status quo". This is much ado about nothing, and who the fuck cares. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Try swearing more, it really helps people take you seriously. People obviously care if we have to keep having this discussion. And there's an argument about the shorter name being more appropriate per WP:CONCISE, which hasn't been refuted. Hot Stop(Edits)16:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If "both names are equally common", shouldn't we go with the briefer version? The one without the unnecessary disambiguator? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
exactly. Strong evidence has been presented that the most COMMON name is indeed HC, but even if we say, no, that's a wash, as I pointed out above on every other WP:CRITERIA HC wins or ties over HRC. Arguments that she "obviously prefers" HRC must unfortunately fall on deaf ears, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever of that, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she doesn't have a strong preference one way or the other. In any case, what people prefer is IRRELEVANT here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What? She signs her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and she is almost always referred to in that manner in official biographies. Also, the press asked in 1993 and she specifically had her press secretary tell the press that is her preferred name. If she wanted to be just HC, she would just sign her name that way. In any case, it's not up to those who oppose a move to prove a negative. It's up to supporters to prove she prefers HC to HRC. Which clearly isn't the case. Does anyone really have any doubt that if she wins the 2016 election and becomes President Clinton45, she will be referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton? She was sworn in as US Secretary of State with a "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, do solemnly swear..." Not "Hillary Clinton", not "Hillary Diane Clinton", and not "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton". Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
did you read the op-eds linked above? Those all have a by-line of HC. 1993 was LONG time ago, I think the evidence is all around us, through what she puts on her ballots to how she signs op-eds. I actually don't know what we will call her in 2016 - do you? Pollsters and political operatives will likely do research to let her know which name works better. Official biographies like this one are titled with a full and formal name, but again, that's not the name we use here. And, you're missing the point - we don't really care what someone prefers in almost all cases. I'm quite sure Cat Stevens would prefer that we call him something else, but alas, we don't. Kiev would prefer to be called Kyev, and I can list umpteen other examples. Preference is the weakest of the weak arguments that have been presented. "I, William Jefferson Clinton, do solemnly swear" , etc. WEAK!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Support moving either to Hillary Clintonor to Hillary Diane Rodman Clinton but oppose leaving at Hillary Rodman Clinton. Nature abhors a vacuum, but what I abhor is a half-measure. Diane derives from the moon-goddessDiana the huntress, and is not less nor more her name than Rodman. Another question, if Rodman is simply part of an extended last name, why is she not referred to in any US official document anywhere ever as Senator Rodman Clinton or Secretary Rodman Clinton? Why instead is Rodman accorded the treatment of a functionally optionalmiddle name, perhaps best to be used in the middle of nowhere, in the Middle Kingdom, in the middle of the night?? Riddle me that.... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Update -- for purposes of the debate at hand, "Rodman" and "Rodham" = same difference. Where does any US document reference "Secretary Rodham Clinton" or "Senator Rodham Clinton"? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
DeistCosmos, your mockery of her, and of middle names in general, is unbecoming. But I assume your suggestion of "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" was intended to make an actual point. However, the suggestion is moot, because it is not generally used to describe her, either by herself or by Reliable Sources. We at Misplaced Pages are not tasked with trying to make up a name that we like or find logical; our job is to determine what her name is. There are only two possibilities that have enough usage to be valid choices: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton. There is no case at all for "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" (or for that matter for "Hillary R. Clinton") because those are not names that have been used about her or by her. Likewise, she has not chosen to use the two names as a double last name so that's not an option. It is very common for American women to drop their "given" middle name when they marry and use their maiden name instead; in fact that is what I have done. Then the woman's "common name" or "preferred name" is the one they prefer to use: "Mary Smith", or "Mary J. Smith", or "Mary Jones Smith" (just as men choose whether they want to be known as "John Kennedy" or "John F. Kennedy" or "John Fitzgerald Kennedy"). Hillary has chosen the "Mary Jones Smith" format for reasons that seem good to her, and that choice has been respected by many of the most reliable sources available to us, as well as in her official positions. We should respect it too. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No mockery intended, I just thought it was Rodman. Somebody pointed out otherwise, so I made clear that the distinction is of no moment. Somebody argued up the page somewhere that this was a compound surname so I want to see the references to Senator Rodham Clinton. Or to Senator Rodman Clinton even. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
yeah - the move rationale is fully based on WP:CRITERIA and makes a compelling and indisputable case but we should chuck that all our for touchy-freely 'preference' which doesn't show up anywhere in policy. Sounds like a bad idea to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not make an undisputable case. In fact it shows great bias and does not at all seem neutral or present a balanced approach to the argument. It's, "this is my interpretation of our guidelines and policies and why I think the name should be changed". It really is all about what they think in one direction...to change the name. The problem is...it is her name and is pretty common for several decades. Now a few years since a website dropped the use of the maiden name we think that is justification?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, good luck disputing it. I haven't seen anyone even make a valiant effort here. The most oppose has been able to muster is "she uses it on official documents" and "in 1993 she said she prefers it". weak weak weak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The official Whitehouse biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
IMDB is not a source I would use in an article but it does demonstrate just how common the full use of Hillary Rodham Clinton is.
The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and culture, published by The Central Arkansas Library System uses has a biography and uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
Look, there's no point in getting into a pissing contest seeing who can dredge up more uses or more "official" of which version of the name. I think we can all agree that there are plenty of publications which include Rodham and plenty which exclude it. The question that policies are aiming to answer is what the person using Misplaced Pages is going to look for, and what they are going to expect to find. I think it is telling that there are people who have supported this move because they have not even heard of a version other than Hillary Clinton. That should seal it, really, because why would we choose a title which only some people will recognize right away over one which everyone unquestionably will recognize right away? That makes no sense on Misplaced Pages. Lets be realists here - the name to use for maximum recognizability and minimum surprise is the one no one can say they don't recognize, which is Hillary Clinton. - WPGA2345 - ☛22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually...it is the entire point. This isn't about what some random person reading the article will or will not recognize, its about the most common name in other biographical uses and whether the subject themselves identifies as one name or the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The "random person reading the article" is the reason we have an article in the first place. It's the reason why Misplaced Pages exists. This is not some political blog aimed at wonks, and we are certainly not a publicity house for political figures. We should reflect what people are likely to look for, and I posted a link above showing that people looking for the topic are about a hundred times as likely to look for "Hillary Clinton" than any other version of the name. If there is a policy that says that this is not what we should be doing, what policy is that? Not WP:TITLE or WP:OFFICIAL. - WPGA2345 - ☛23:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, regardless of why you perceive Misplaced Pages's existence to be about, this is not about the reader, it is about the subject. What are you saying? Do you think the reader's perception is more important than the accurate information? Sorry...but that doesn't fly at Misplaced Pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, WPGA2345. We should NOT "reflect what people are likely to look for".
We should disseminate accurate information already published elsewhere. And the presentation of the information should be guided by the sources.
Yes, we should make it well accessible, but that is not an issue at hand here.
In that case, you are both in luck because there are plenty of sources right on this page that meet WP:RS and that show that "Hillary Clinton" is therefore one accurate way to refer to the subject. Since we can all agree that both "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" can be verified as names used to refer to the subject, the tiebreaker is the set of rules at WP:TITLE, which actually favors recognizability, along with conciseness and consistency, all of which favor "Hillary Clinton." In fact, WP:BLP has a WP:PUBLICFIGURE rule that says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I don't think the subject in this case has such a dislike or she would not currently be using this version, but that just shows that the subject's preference really doesn't matter. - WPGA2345 - ☛00:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
ME: Nope it says "Clinton, Hillary Rodham" just like it also says "McCain, John Sidney".
MM: "The Clinton Library biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton".
ME: Actually, that link is ambiguous, as it also says "Biography -- Hillary R. Clinton".
MM: "The Clinton Foundation biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
ME: It's not so clear.
MM: "The National Women's History Museum's biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton."
ME: Okay, but the National Museum of American History does not.
MM: "The PBS biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton."
ME: Okay, but C-Span begs to differ.
MM: "IMDB is not a source I would use in an article but it does demonstrate just how common the full use of Hillary Rodham Clinton is."
ME: No one disputes that it's common. One of the issues here is which name is more common. Google is probably better than Imdb for figuring that out.
MM: "The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and culture, published by The Central Arkansas Library System uses has a biography and uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton."
ME: So we should move the title to that?
MM: "The Encyclopædia Britannica's biography uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton."
It wouldn't upset me if we did, but it also wouldn't upset me if it were just Hillary Clinton. I had supported the name once but feel that the subject herself seems to lean towards using the maiden name and most of the main biographical sites seem to use the "Rodham".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Associated press came out with a story about two hours ago . I noticed that the title of the article is:"Hillary Clinton: Partisanship taking US backwards", but the first line of the article is "Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night...". It seems to me that the dropping off of the maiden name has been done to shorten the title of the article but they still refer to her using the maiden name. Looking a little further it seems to be very common in the media to shorten her name to "Hillary Clinton" and even to just "Clinton" in the titles but still use the maiden name in the article. Don't know how that effects this discussion...just something I noticed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that not precisely what we would do, then? Use "Hillary Clinton" in the title with a fuller name in the first sentence? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't like to predict what we would do, but I would say we have no reason to shorten the name to save title space or for a brevity.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It seems that the most serious biographical sources tend to favor "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and therefore, so should we. When there is a close balance between use of a briefer name and a fuller name in reliable sources, I think that Misplaced Pages should favor the fuller name as the title. In the end, though, it is no big deal. CullenLet's discuss it05:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
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. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
So, since the article was stable and there is no real controversy or reason to change the article title other than varying opinion....I would support this RFC being closed as disruptive. Not that I am going to ask for it....just that I see this as a non issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Several editors in this discussion have given their testimony of the title as it stands being actually confusing to the man-on-the-street (especially if that street is in another country) who surely knows of Hillary Clinton, but is not familiar with a Rodham. So taking these testimonies in good faith, there is a reason grounded in sound policy right there -- don't use potentially unrecognizable names where clearly recognizable ones are available. And in this case, the more recognizable one (or possibly to some swaths of the world the only recognizable one) is, as well, the more concise, and the one by great leaps more likely to be actually sought. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I know for sure that it is NOT a part of Misplaced Pages policy guidelines to exclude a name because several editors have expressed a concern that using her maiden name (which has been done for decades) is confusing. That is a matter of opinion and is not based in policy or guidelines. I see this as disruptive in that, per our guidelines, there was no good reason to begin this discussion...AGAIN, and as yet not one single editor has been able to explain why this discussion does not violate our guideline on disrupting the page by requesting a name change when the article has remained stable in that regard.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen many a move request brought with less reason being presented than this one without the legitimacy of the request itself being questioned. DeistCosmos (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - The trends seem to be quite clear in moving away from routine use of her middle name. There's no reason we shouldn't follow suit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, surprisingly enough there exists a Google tool which shows exactly this trend (I know it has been argued that instances of "Hillary Clinton" will include those with another name included, but subtracting all results including Rodham still results in a solid trend towards the shorter form -- one frankly unlikely to have been tempered in any respect by the presentation made in the 2008 campaign. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a Google Book tool. It only shows the reference to her in book form out of what has been scanned by Google which has had to remove a great many of their scans from a recent lawsuit they lost. There is a Google trend tool and oddly enough when you type in "Hillary" it auto fills "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As for the trends.... searching that tool with either name results in the exact same trend information. It isn't about the name...its about the person. What is Misplaced Pages's guideline on using Google trends for the basis of an argument for or against inclusion of material? I seem to remember that it is discouraged. Either because the trending stats as well as the "hits" stats are not encyclopedic and only shows social trends and we are more concerned with academic trends and mainstream resources.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As Mark Miller states, that is a Google book tool, and your search criteria is incorrect, as I've demonstrated in the above discussion concerning the book tool. The search should be these criteria. In any case, as Mark also states, those are books Google scanned + they had to remove a great many. Also claimed below is a link to Google Trends. Well Google Trends also has George Bush outpacing George W. Bush and Franklin Roosevelt outpacing Franklin D. Roosevelt. Shall we rename those articles too? The point is, many headlines use a shorter name, but when people talk or introduce the person the article is about, they almost always use the article name. George W. Bush. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Also, some have argued the average person doesn't know who "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is. That is pure poppycock. Even our Simple English article is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton. And while the French Misplaced Pages moved Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton in October 2013, the Polish Misplaced Pages title is still Hillary Rodham Clinton. Besides, she is an American politician and should not have her Family name stripped from her by some men who don't understand why she wants to use her chosen name. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, did someone put a gun to her head and force her to do all those ads where she says "I'm Hillary Clinton"? If anyone has stripped her family name from her, it's her. Also, if we are going to start looking at other Wikipedias, it looks like about 3/4 of them use only Hillary Clinton or the local language version of it. These include:
Extended content
Afrikaans ... afwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Alemannisch ... alswiki ... Hillary Clinton
azərbaycanca ... azwiki ... Hillari Klinton
žemaitėška ... bat_smgwiki ... Hilarė Klėntuon
беларуская (тарашкевіца) ... be_x_oldwiki ... Гілары Клінтан
беларуская ... bewiki ... Хілары Клінтан
български ... bgwiki ... Хилъри Клинтън
বাংলা ... bnwiki ... হিলারি ক্লিনটন
brezhoneg ... brwiki ... Hillary Clinton
bosanski ... bswiki ... Hillary Clinton
کوردی ... ckbwiki ... ھیلاری کلینتۆن
čeština ... cswiki ... Hillary Clintonová
dansk ... dawiki ... Hillary Clinton
Deutsch ... dewiki ... Hillary Clinton
Ελληνικά ... elwiki ... Χίλαρι Κλίντον
español ... eswiki ... Hillary Clinton
eesti ... etwiki ... Hillary Clinton
euskara ... euwiki ... Hillary Clinton
فارسی ... fawiki ... هیلاری کلینتون
suomi ... fiwiki ... Hillary Clinton
føroyskt ... fowiki ... Hillary Clinton
français ... frwiki ... Hillary Clinton
galego ... glwiki ... Hillary Clinton
ગુજરાતી ... guwiki ... હિલેરી ક્લિન્ટન
magyar ... huwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Հայերեն ... hywiki ... Հիլարի Քլինթոն
Bahasa Indonesia ... idwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Ido ... iowiki ... Hillary Clinton
íslenska ... iswiki ... Hillary Clinton
italiano ... itwiki ... Hillary Clinton
日本語 ... jawiki ... ヒラリー・クリントン
Basa Jawa ... jvwiki ... Hillary Clinton
ქართული ... kawiki ... ჰილარი კლინტონი
қазақша ... kkwiki ... Хиллари Клинтон
한국어 ... kowiki ... 힐러리 클린턴
Ripoarisch ... kshwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Kurdî ... kuwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Latina ... lawiki ... Hilaria Clinton
Lëtzebuergesch ... lbwiki ... Hillary Clinton
lietuvių ... ltwiki ... Hillary Clinton
latviešu ... lvwiki ... Hilarija Klintone
македонски ... mkwiki ... Хилари Клинтон
മലയാളം ... mlwiki ... ഹിലരി ക്ലിന്റൺ
монгол ... mnwiki ... Хиллари Клинтон
मराठी ... mrwiki ... हिलरी क्लिंटन
Nederlands ... nlwiki ... Hillary Clinton
norsk nynorsk ... nnwiki ... Hillary Clinton
norsk bokmål ... nowiki ... Hillary Clinton
português ... ptwiki ... Hillary Clinton
Runa Simi ... quwiki ... Hillary Clinton
русский ... ruwiki ... Клинтон, Хиллари
sicilianu ... scnwiki ... Hillary Clinton
srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски ... shwiki ... Hillary Clinton
The whole point was that it wasn't "unheard of" in other countries. Not that it was most common in foreign languages other than English. This is English Misplaced Pages and HRC is an American politician. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"English" doesn't mean "American" - there are more English speaking people outside the United States then there are inside it. It has been pointed out before that Hillary Clinton is an international figure. - WPGA2345 - ☛18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But then again, there are more English speakers in the U.S. than there are people in all of the U.K. and Ireland combined. Epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are actually more English speakers just between India and Pakistan then there are in the United States. The largest circulating English-language newspaper in the world is the Times of India, which uses "Hillary Clinton" in its articles. , , . - WPGA2345 - ☛03:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to clarify that this is not her middle name. This is her family name, which she has purposefully retained. Calling it a 'middle name' is disgraceful, diminishes the importance of it, and goes against the principle that women have the right decided what their name is, and not merely become property of their husbands upon marriage. We don't ever refer to the last names of men as their 'middle names', even if they have a double-barrelled name, like I do. RGloucester — ☎17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Aha! I couldn't for the life of me figure what was behind the concern to keep Rodham, despite it's lack of use. Now I understand. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. While the "Rodham" version is widely used, the version without seems to be even more widely used (per above sources). Finally, the notion that removing it would be a BLP violation when even the subject of the article commonly uses the short version is frankly bizarre. Lankiveil08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is all well and good, but it doesn't really point to one or the other name in this case, because usage is clearly quite mixed. I say the name that has been used for so many years should be kept. Also per Wasted Time R and Huw above. —Torchiestedits10:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That actually is what we are supposed to do in a case where it cannot be shown or demonstrated that one is preferred over another and yes...I think that is where we are.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Both names are commonly used. HRC is the name she has expressly said she prefers. Whenever we can do so without affecting the utility of the encyclopedia we should title a biography with the subject's preferred name. It's the human, respectful thing. Doing so in this case will not negatively affect the reader experience, so in this case we should do it. Doing otherwise - disregarding the subject's naming preference in deference to a trivial wiki-rule - diminishes the encyclopedia. This is an IAR argument.
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy. I'd appreciate it if the closers would bear in mind that IAR is policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the closers can do that. The voters can say that they agree that WP:OFFICIAL supports the move, but still oppose because IAR. Even admins could vote in the discussion and say that. But if the closers can just say IAR because they don't like the way a particular rule will apply, then we might as well not have discussions, and only have administrators decide what they like best. Also, do we really know the preference here, as of today? We know what preference the article subject expressed 15-20 years ago, but we have all seen circumstances here where a person's preference has changed over time. We have to wonder, what does this announcement have to say about such a change in this person's preference? - WPGA2345 - ☛16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting the closers should IAR and close this discussion against consensus. I'm just asking that they do not disregard my !vote on the basis that it contradicts WP:COMMONNAME. As for Clinton's preference: I'd rather we didn't guess at that. We have her explicit statement and should rely on that - not our own tea-leaf reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope that the closers don't disregard any !vote in this discussion, nor do I think that it would be allowable for them to. As for Clinton's preference, saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for president," and "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message" is a pretty explicit statement all its own isn't it? (She actually started using "I'm Hillary Clinton" to describe herself in 2006, it seems.) But under WP:OFFICIAL, it doesn't seem that this carries a lot of weight no matter what we think her preference is these days. - WPGA2345 - ☛05:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I take it you've never closed a discussion before. It is not only allowable....it is the very way closings are done. Closing admin routinely dismiss or ignore comments and !votes that make no sense, argue from a personal point or have no basis in policy, guidelines etc.. Also, no, just because she ends an ad with a statement is NOT an explicit statement. Such a statement would be: "I do not go by the name ________". Or "I go be the name________". But I wouldn't worry about the closing admin. I believe this may be closed by a three admin panel and if not the one volunteering admin for closing is someone I trust to find the accurate consensus, whatever it turns out to be.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
if Clinton really cared, her website and campaign messages and buttons and twitter handle and ballots and op-eds would all be HRC. They don't so the obviously doesn't care enough to make a significant effort to distance herself from HC. IAR is a fine argument to make but be careful, yet claiming IAR you are also admitting that per policy/guidelines the other side is ahead, so you have to make a case that the encyclopedia is significantly better. IMHO you failed to make this point through the weak 'I think she kinda prefers' argument, the fact that she herself has used HC on multiple occasions makes your argument rather moot - in any case the wiki is not for her, it's for our readers, and more readers will recognize HC and search for HC, this has been demonstrated in spades.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Clinton's preference: Wasted Time R answers your claims well in the next comment. How would the encyclopedia be better if we - where we can without diminishing the encyclopedia - titled BLPs with the subject's preferred name? An encyclopedia that takes into account the dignity of its subjects is a better encyclopedia. If we adopt the position that our BLP subject's preference is irrelevant, we would be a psychopathic institution. Your claim that either name would pose a problem for anyone looking for the article is simply absurd. There is no down side to naming the article HRC. The down side to calling it HC is it is disrespectful to our BLP subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
the only absurd thing here is suggesting that us using a name regularly and in the main used by reliable sources, including high quality RS, as well as a name that Clinton herself ran for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES under is somehow disrespectful. It's comedy to say this is disrespectful - was she being disrespectful of herself when she ran for president? Was she being disrespectful of herself when she signed her tag line as HC? It's absurd absurd absurd to claim this. With Cote d'Ivoire you may have a case, the country has regularly asked to be called Cote D'Ivoire and as far as I can tell they have never joined an international organization as Ivory Coast - but Misplaced Pages in its wisdom, after many years at Côte d'Ivoire, moved the article to Ivory Coast. We should do the same for this one - the constant barrage of move requests suggests the title isn't stable, once moved it will remain there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I know you think it is absurd to take account of our subjects' dignity - you argued ad nauseam in support of the sexist, demeaning title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and didn't get it when everybody complained about you moving women authors out of the category "American authors". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)In formal settings, such as official documents she released as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and the books she has published, she has always used "Hillary Rodham Clinton". She has a new memoir coming out later this year, and if the placeholder page at the publisher is any indication, it will be by "Hillary Rodham Clinton" too. Does the full name mean something to her? Yes, it reflects how she sees her identity as a married woman. Is she perfectly consistent about using it? No. Did she switch to the shorter form when she ran for president? Yes; it fits better on a button. Did she switch to the shorter form for Twitter? Yes; it fits better in that form too. Does she make a big fuss if people use the shorter form? No; she is, after all, a politician, and her job is to maximize support, not alienate people unnecessarily. Now note that the search issue is irrelevant - nobody has any trouble finding this article no matter what title it is on (this morning somebody mentioned something to me about a baroness that they had met in London; I was able to find her article easily even though it was under the non-quite-concise title of "First name last name, Baroness last name of the house name"). At the end of the day, to me, the key is that WP is a formal publication. Our articles have the look and feel of scholarly journals - formal writing style, lots of text and footnotes, few illustrations - not the look and feel of glossy magazines or modern websites - casual writing style, lots of illustrations, some text, no footnotes. Therefore in cases like this where there are a lot of uses of both, we should be more predisposed to use the formal name, especially since it better represents how she identifies herself. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There are different categories of formality. Writing an op-ed, and announcing candidacy for POTUS, are a type of formal event no less than writing a book. I think HC/HRC likes having two different name formats that she can use when she likes. Alas, there's only one Misplaced Pages article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. With a little software support we could alternate the title back and forth from one day to the next. In fact, that could solve a lot of naming disputes here. And there is precedent in co-headlining concert tours featuring artists of equal stature: A opens for B one night, then B opens for A the next night. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"At the end of the day, to me, the key is that WP is a formal publication." Well, that's swell. But we do have a formal policy on whether to use official names for article titles. The WP:COMMONNAME policy says that Misplaced Pages prefers common names over official names. Please don't confuse Misplaced Pages's preference for a formal style of writing with a preference for using formal or official names as article titles. Dezastru (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not confusing them. But all sorts of projects have been granted exemptions from absolute applications of the common name and conciseness policies. All royalty and peerage articles are exempt, military aircraft are exempt, election articles are exempt, articles about ambassadorial positions are exempt, several articles about U.S. presidents are exempt, articles about laws are exempt (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when everyone says either "Obamacare" or "ACA"!), and so on and on. Those exemptions all come from people agreeing that correctness or formality or self-identification or some other criteria needed more weight than pure common name and conciseness. And my point is that this article also merits such an exemption. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
WTR: I think that's well-stated, and would agree that it seems quite justified in this case. ╠╣uw20:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if they ignored all rules, they would move the article. The policy based reasons discussed here all point to keeping the article named "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We can throw out all the WP:COMMONNAME support votes, because it has been proven in this RFC that it does not apply. Also, we can throw out all "ballots", political advertisments, and the like. They do not apply here. The strongest, and only as far as I can see, policy argument is WP:CONCISE. But that does not outweigh the fact that this article has been named "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for years, and has been stable. Admins only have to look at WP:TITLECHANGES and follow the policy based instructions there.
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. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub
And Concise is not a good enough reason to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, with so much opposition. Why not move Philip Seymour Hoffman to Phillip Hoffman? John Wayne Gacy to John Gacey? Mark David Chapman to Mark Chapman? Do actors, serial killers and assassins have more right to take up precious characters in a title than the former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State? Concise doesn't apply here either. The example of Rhode Island or the record albulm do not apply to this discussion or article. So with the results from Google books shown to be inaccurate(at best), and WP:COMMONNAME a wash(at best), there is no significant policy based reason to move this article. Dave Dial (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
DD2K (talk·contribs), your argument fails at the gate. There is no question that the topic of this article is primary for the concise form in question, Hillary Clinton. The concise title already redirects here - it's a settled issue. In contrast, there is plenty of question about that issue for each of the concise forms in your example. In fact, none of the concise forms (sans middle name) redirect to the corresponding article. Therefore, each of them require disambiguation, and natural disambiguation with middle name is usually preferred to parenthetic disambiguation in the case of people who are well known by their full names. But in this case the Rodham middle name is quintessential unnecessary disambiguation per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. --B2C20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction! Okay John Gacy redirects to John Wayne Gacy, but as has been noted, that person is virtually unknown without the middle name. JG/JWG is not a situation of having two names used about equally in reliable sources, where the WP:Concision razor (a new essay written by Yours Truly) would be appropriate to use; but in the case of HC/HRC it is. --B2C20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not really the policy, is it? Perhaps if the article was already titled "Hillary Clinton" and editors wanted to move it to "Hillary Rodham Clinton", that would be a policy reason to keep the article name as Hillary Clinton. Heck, I might even vote for it to stay that way. If that were the case. Maybe. But that's not the case. The article is named Hillary Rodham Clinton. There are no policy reasons given in this move discussion that support a move of the page. Not WP:COMMONNAME and not WP:CONCISE. If one reads the Concise policy it states:
"The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area."
It then goes on to list two examples. The first lists the official name of Rhode Island, which is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I think we can all agree that everyone knows the State Rhode Island, but nobody outside of that State(except perhaps some Government functionaries) has ever heard of the official name. That does not apply here. Almost everyone has heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton. That has been demonstrated here on this page succinctly. Besides, Rodham is not the same as adding "State of * and Providence Plantations" to an article title, and this article was created in 2001(That's almost 14 years!) and has been stable ever since. Also, the number of page views the article has been steadily and overwhelmingly more that the redirect page of "Hillary Clinton". It's not even close. The other example in the policy WP:CONCISE points to Fiona Apple's 1999 album which consists of 90 words and 444 characters. I think we can all agree that doesn't apply here either. And WP:TITLECHANGES is clear here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It is interesting that the vast majority of comments attempting to counter the move or "throw out" rationales for the move come from the same half dozen or so editors, while the number of editors voting in support of the move is the most I have ever seen for a move request, outside of the Chelsea Manning situation. There were also a lot of oppose votes there, passionately argued at some length. It is actually really an amazing thing to see this many Misplaced Pages editors come out in support of a move. By the way, pageviews are meaningless where anyone following the redirect will count for a pageview for both the redirect and the article, and anyone typing "Hillary Clinton" into Google will be given this page, even if they never heard of or wanted anything more than "Hillary Clinton." The fact that some people have not heard of any other version is a serious recognizability issue which, for utility purposes, should override any matter of personal preference by editors who like the current title but would recognize the title if it was just "Hillary Clinton." - WPGA2345 - ☛04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
DD2K (talk·contribs), WP:CONCISEis policy (part of WP:AT), and the examples there are meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive in terms of covering every type of situation. In fact, an example where the shorter one is also preferable per WP:COMMONNAME (Rhode Island) is probably not a good example - thanks for bringing that to our attention. But let's not misunderstand. We are to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic". There is no question that in this case HC and HRC both identify the topic spectacularly well. That's not an issue. Therefore the only way to balance the "identify the topic" consideration with brevity is to choose the shorter one. That's HC, clearly. That's policy. --B2C05:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I will say this...it is simply NOT something one can demonstrate that "some people have not heard of any other version" with one name or the other. It is a false argument because of how impossible it is to argue or prove, one way or the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You could simply ask people. If somebody tells you they've not heard your version, you could assume them to be telling the truth about that. Or perhaps people have "heard" both versions, but one being simpler and more common in the construction of names might have been the only one they remembered. For people born in, for example, 1991, they were nine when she ceased to be first lady (and became simply one amongst a hundred senators), and were sixteen when they likely heard the first thing out of her mouth, that being "I'm Hillary Clinton" -- so it is quite possible that a great proportion of the under-twenty-three set has had exactly this experience. Somebody turning twenty later this year could have been six in 2001 and thirteen in 2007. DeistCosmos (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an absurd line of discussion. Both clearly meet the recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA. Neither meets it demonstrably and significantly better. This is obvious. Whether anyone has not heard of one or the other is not an issue. There is no point in asking people. With respect to recognizability, and WP:COMMONNAME, we have a tie.
Equally absurd would be any discussion which one meets WP:CONCISION better. Clearly that is the shorter one. This is the only strong policy-based argument favoring either title, and it favors Hillary Clinton. --B2C16:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
7 April 2014
Oppose. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she prefers. Adopting her husband's name was only for political expediency, so he would be reelected in Arkansas. For want of a better word, it is her "slave name". If you change this, you will also have to consider moving "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning, on the basis that the U.S. military system will only deliver mail to that name. —Neotarf (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And we have a winner for most irrational reason to oppose the move. It somehow manages to be utterly false (she's never stated a preference for HRC over HC, especially considering she ran for president under the latter) and manages to compare a woman voluntarily taking her husband's last name to the the systematic enslavement of millions. Congrats. Let's just shut the whole debate down now. Hot Stop(Edits)15:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment There is a discussion about this debate at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton . Responding to comments that dropping "Rodham" would be misogyny and that it is only being proposed because Misplaced Pages is a "boy's club", Jimbo said:
"I tend to agree with this point. It seems that all available evidence is that in this particular case it doesn't matter from the perspective of search engines being able to direct people appropriately. It probably does matter from the perspective of understanding - it's an important part of her public persona that she has chosen to keep her birth name in this fashion. (Naming conventions are changing, and she's an important catalyst in that.) And it certainly matters from a BLP perspective - and that's true even though it is a relatively minor matter.--Jimbo Wales 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"
Right. So I guess the Cat Stevens article will forthwith become the "Yusuf Islam" article. Since the subject of that BLP has expressed a clear preference for the latter name, search engines can direct readers to the correct place, and keeping the current name of Cat Stevens could be considered a form of bias from an organization composed of individuals who are for the most part not Muslim. Dezastru (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Misogyny? Children in the United States are typically given the surnames of their fathers only because in old England children were considered to be the property of their father. It is no sign of respect to treat a woman as though she remains the property of her father and has to be stamped with his last name even if she herself decides not to use it in her most high profile activities. At this point, not moving the page would appear to be some kind of capitulation to archaic PC societal constraint. - WPGA2345 - ☛17:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
In old England, a girl was the property of her father and used his last name until she married, when she became the property of her husband and took his last name. That's ancient history. We are not in old England now; women are nobody's property, and women have the ability to choose what name they want to be known by. Their name is not dictated by their father, their husband, the courts, or Misplaced Pages. THAT would be misogyny. The issue here is not her husband's name as Hot Stop claimed; she took her husband's name voluntarily (if possibly reluctantly) and she has used it ever since. Nobody is trying to take away the "Clinton" part of her name. The issue is her birth name, which obviously means a lot to her and which she has clung to throughout her adult life (with a few exceptions which don't alter the basic pattern that she calls herself Hillary Rodham Clinton). Why are you guys trying to delete her birth name, deprive her of her choice of name, based on a few Google counts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If we were trying to avoid depriving her of her birth name, wouldn't we need to go to the thousands of Misplaced Pages articles where she is referred to as "Hillary Clinton" and change those, too? For example, where it says in Curt Schilling that Schilling "criticized then-presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Clinton (D) for her comments criticizing the war in Iraq"? - WPGA2345 - ☛17:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Misplaced Pages has never been 100%, encyclopedia-wide consistent about what things or people are called. We are talking about the name of her main article, where you guys (I use the word "guys" advisedly) are claiming that you know, better than she does, what her name is or should be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No, why? But have no fear, he says he's contacting "her people" via the we're-the-people-that-matter network to find out what she wants us to do. No indication he's contacting Yusuf Islam's "people" to get instructions from him though. Funny that. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo heard back from "her people". So this should settle the question of whether she really has a preference, or if her preference might have changed.
"To your question, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be the preference." is the response.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"
Oppose - Rodham didn't invent itself. It's her name and she uses it. Dropping it is her choice, not WP's. It does less harm to call her by the name she uses for herself per Chelsea. --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - Her common name is Hillary Clinton, and it has been since at least her 2008 run for president. Orser67 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. I am an anonymous user, but one who contributes regularly to Misplaced Pages and chooses not to have an account (I would feel an obligation to spend too much time on the website). I am from the United Kingdom, where my personal experience, at least in the past ten years or so, has been that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' is exceptionally rare. It appears as if quite a few users are using arguments of 'misogyny', which is, at least in my opinion, a little far-fetched. I think most agree that 'Hillary Clinton' is the common name. Some have doubts, though, about what Mrs Clinton prefers. Unlike the Bradley Manning situation, I do not think one could claim that Mrs Clinton finds the use of 'Hillary Clinton' offensive in any way. If she had a meaningful personal preference for including Rodham (which does function merely as a middle name, whatever its origins), then she would ensure that all her material uses Rodham. Since this does not happen, and she regularly uses 'Hillary Clinton', we are violating WP:NPOV and WP:V by speculating on her personal feelings. For this reason, it seems most natural for the article to be renamed to Mrs Clinton's common name, which is 'Hillary Clinton'. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Just to recap here, in addition to HRC's press secretary stating in 1993 that "Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the First Lady's name all along, since 1982", when asked what name the First Lady wish to be addressed by. Plus the fact she became a notable person as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the scores of official biographies titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the millions of times she has been referred to by the media as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the 10's of thousands of times she has signed documents as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the various books she has written as an author by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", we now have word from Clinton's people in 2014 that she wishes to be referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", via Jimbo. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:BLP, and WP:Commonname. Per above Dave Dial link, she prefers the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it's a common name for this subject, so there is no reason not to use it as this article title, and good reason, per human dignity (as honored in BLP policy) to go with the subject's preference. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) In addition, deference to the long-term title also gives reason to oppose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Meaningless. When you type "Hillary" into the Google search box, it prefills the "Clinton" and lets you click that, so of course no one is going to type anything longer than that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What about her appearance as "Hillary Clinton" on the primary ballots, and in campaign ads stating "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message"? bd2412T18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
One wonders why Google does not prompt the user to enter "Hillary Rodham Clinton", if that is the more commonly used name. — goethean19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, I have notified all relevant Wikiprojects, and all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project, other than those who have already weighed in here, or are currently blocked. In light of the previous issue arising from a contentious non-admin closure, I have also requested a three-administrator panel to oversee and close this discussion. Cheers! bd2412T18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you did not notify "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project". Tvoz/talk04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to both of you. In order to avoid sending a notice to anyone who had already weighed in on the conversation, I filtered out names of editors that already appeared on this talk page. Unfortunately, this was too broad a brush, as it caught some people who had commented in other discussions on this page, but not in this one. For the record, this notice went to 33 of the 46 editors who had previously participated in these discussions. Of those 33 editors, 16 had previously opposed the move and 17 had previously supported it, which roughly reflects total participation in the previous discussions (a substantial number of the remaining editors who have previously opposed this move had already weighed in on this discussion before I got here, and obviously did not require a notification). I have now rectified this error, and in an abundance of caution, I have now notified every registered editor who (so far as I can determine) has ever participated in a move discussion on this topic prior to this one (except for two - Kauffner, and GoodDay - who are currently indef-banned). I have also included a few editors who have previously commented on one or more proposed moves without having specifically registered support or opposition. Cheers! bd2412T10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only did you NOT notify other editors who previously discussed this, you deleted your user Talk page and moved it without providing links. I don't remember which Admin warned you, but you were warned on your last move request to wait 6 months before starting a new one, or you would be blocked for disruptive editing. Now those warnings are gone from your user Talk page, with no mention of HRC. Now it's barely 1 month later and here we are again. With you so obsessed with this that your edits on this page take up swaths of sections. This move request should be closed. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have me confused with someone else. You can search through the history of this talk page, and all of the previous discussions, and you will see that I have never started a move request with respect to this article. I have never received any warning from any admin, on my talk page or anywhere else, relating to any proposed move of this page. Furthermore, I didn't start the current move request. An anon IP did; I merely supported the move, and provided a detailed rationale in support of it. Cheers! bd2412T17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I do agree, however, that I have gotten very involved in this discussion. I have said everything I wanted to say, and will leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412T03:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: In a past discussion User:Dezastru had provided us with the following table of search results. If we ask nicely, maybe User:Dezastru could update his research to the current state? There are news cites where a really comprehensive search could be done to show which was used more, and by how much, over the last year, year before that, year before that, back to 2007.
I would, but my library has since eliminated access to that search service (budget cuts). However, the searches were run only a year ago. It's unlikely there was a huge change in the pattern since then. (If anything, the number of HC counts relative to HRC counts has probably grown even more.) Dezastru (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Those results are definitely skewed. I searched for ""Hillary Clinton" -Misplaced Pages -Rodham" in books and the first book title was "HRC", where the author constantly refers to Mrs. Clinton as Hillary Rodham Clinton. The 2nd book was titled "The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power". Inside that book the author also constantly refers to Mrs. Clinton as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I stopped researching after that. If anything, it shows these search results the Supports are pointing to mean absolutely nothing. Those using WP:COMMONNAME are actually in favor of keeping the article as currently titled, based on the facts presented here on this page. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I did a more inquisitive search and found that just within the past 48 hours the following news stories have published in media outlets large and small that mention "Hillary Clinton" but make no mention at all of "Rodham," not in an introductory sentence, or even in a caption or a footnote. If excluding the "Rodham" is a mistake, then a lot of major news organizations, including CNN, Fox News, CBS News, etc., are being surprisingly sloppy. Digging deeper, it seems, uncovers the common use of "Hillary Clinton" without anything appended to it. - WPGA2345 - ☛18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the long "discussions" in the Discussion section. In any case, I can make a long list to, but of reliable sources addressing Hillary Rodham Clinton as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As I said before, there's no point in getting into a pissing contest over who can show the most sources using one form or the other. We all know that there are probably a million sources that use only "Hillary Clinton" a million that use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - including, at various times, Clinton herself. This is why other policies become the tiebreakers, policies like recognizability and conciseness. I really haven't seen any dispute here about those policies applying. - WPGA2345 - ☛02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Given my experience with previous contentious discussions (particularly the Chelsea Manning situation), I think it would be prudent to edit-protect this page for the duration of this discussion, to prevent IP edits and newly-created SPAs from jumping in with unconstructive comments. Would anyone object to that? Cheers! bd2412T20:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It was an IP address with about 10 lifetime edits that started RM8! And another IP address who started RM7. Who may or may not be the same and may or may not be a real editor. I think the taint you want to prevent is already there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about comments like the IP who popped in to say "She's trying to coast into office on Bill's name"; whether true or not, this is irrelevant to the discussion and aimed to provoke an off-topic response. Further issues along these lines may not arise at all, but I have seen them come up in high-profile move discussions more than once. bd2412T00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-discussion analysis by community
For the record, Jimbo conveyed a message from the Clinton people at 22:46, 7 April 2014 over at his talk page, and I responded there at 01:17, 8 April 2014. Then this discussion was closed at 01:19, 8 April 2014. I hope that my comment of 01:17 is considered here, if anything else at Jimbo's talk page is considered here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I made a response to Anythingyouwant and not to be cute or anything but please consider my response to them as well as it does have some pertinent information I think should be weighed with their response to Jimbo.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The comprehensive, reliable biographies overwhelmingly include the maiden name.
Misplaced Pages articles should strive to be comprehensive and reliable, and so should strive to be like the above. To obsess about primary source materials, and recent internet trends is unhistoriographical, unencyclopedic, unreliable inconsistent recentism.
Where works use "Hillary Clinton", they tend to focus in the very recent and current and anticpated near future events (basically 2007 - 2016), This is a small fraction of her life, Misplaced Pages should cover the entirity of the person. Eight years ago is only 12% of her current lifetime.
As a matter of accuracy, note that "Rodham" is not a middle name, but a maiden name.
On the ballot issue, User:bd2412 has done considerable Original Research. If others haven't published this, we should ignore it. Similar to how she signs hotel invoices. Misplaced Pages editors should not be investigators, but collectors of reliably published secondary source material.
"Hillary Clinton" is not more concise than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" because the first throws away significiant information, namely the name of the person in the early years and the significance of the early person to the person in the later years. Concise is not about mere brevity, but efficiency in communicating much information.
"Clearly Hillary Clinton is the WP:COMMONNAME". This ignores how WP:COMMONNAME is measured, and probably mistakes WP:COMMONNAME for common vernacular in recent online materials.
Google books ngram data picks up trivial mentions in passing (sources not much concerned with the subject) and repeated mentions in sources directly discussing the subject. Google books ngram data would be more interesting to this question if it would select the first mention of the subject in books that make repeated mention of the subject. The question here is about the first mention of the suject in the article, and has no bearing on repeated mentions of the subject within the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh........It's as if nobody else reads the discussions here. That has already been shown to be a false comparison. Your search is for Hillary Clinton, and returns all results with Hillary Clinton, even the results WITH "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the main reference, compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you want to measure results that specifically match "Hillary Clinton" without mention of Rodham and compare it to results that specifically show results with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the search looks like this. Which, of course, shows the exact opposite of your claim. HRC overwhelmingly outnumbers HC-R. Dave Dial (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that when possible we should consider the wishes of the subject of a BLP, especially when WP:COMMONNAME does not clearly favor either name. When I supported the name change it was because I thought it was now Hillary Rodham Clinton's preferred name based on her website. After Jimbo's reported communication, I no longer believe that. So, if the discussion were still open, I would have changed from support to oppose. I am One of Many (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That might be difficult to say for sure. Many on Jimbo's talk page are actually offended that he even asked her and are stating outright that if any admin closing this thread take that into consideration they will be violating policy and guidelines. Of course the only thing I feel should be considered is that if she has made it clear her preference is HRC, then that, at the very least, counters everyone's argument that she prefers or wants to be called HC.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I am asking. Has her people's comments to Jimbo changed anyone else opinion as it has I am One of Many's.--v/r - TP00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't !vote (I just made a comment and was watching the discussion), but I would have !voted in support with that information, given that WP:COMMONNAME wasn't that strongly in favor of HC. (Although I'm not totally comfortable with Jimbo's using his connections in this manner and part of me wants to ignore it for that reason.) -- Irn (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not inclined to consider flipping. But I'll ask again right now if someone would please tell us whether the subject of the BLP expressed to Jimbo Wales a general preference about how she wants to be publicly known, versus a mere preference about how this Misplaced Pages article should be named. I have asked twice at Jimbo's talk page. As things stand, I would just go with what reliable sources say about prevalent use, and with what reliable sources say about her own use of her name, which together strongly support the move.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but no one supporting the move actually said she prefers HC over HRC. The argument is that she has, on different occasions, used both names, so while she may favor one she isn't opposed to the other. I don't think the comments made to Jimbo should have any bearing, since it's an obvious attempt by those opposing the move (not Jimbo himself) to undermine consensus here, where it seems a strong majority feel HC is the more common name. Hot Stop(Edits)00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"An obvious attempt by those opposing to undermine consensus" not only lumps all opposers together, it is also a questionable statement. In any case, there was no consensus -- clearly. HC may be commonly-used, but there's far more involved than just that, as also must be clear. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to lump all opposers together, but the post in that thread is a clear attempt to either canvass or have Jimbo personally intervene. I also doubt there's no consensus. This discussion isn't a vote per se, but when 70 percent of commenters say they support the move, consensus seems pretty clear. Hot Stop(Edits)02:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
A big majority of editors can change policy, perhaps, but they cannot override policy. There are swaths of votes from supporters that are not supported by the facts/policy. And after all, it's up to those wanting to change a long standing title to make a solid case for a move based on policy. Not on those who want to keep an article "as is". Dave Dial (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Most supporters argued HC is the more common name than HRC. Others also argued its more concise. Both of those are criteria included in our policy on article titles. So how is that not supported by policy? Hot Stop(Edits)03:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because HC is not a more common name than HRC. It's one thing to make a claim, it's a whole other thing to also prove that claim. Which was not done here. Since when does posting pictures of ballots overrule the facts? Are ballots a reliable source? Or political ads? Both are designed by either political operatives or government functionaries. If one is honest with themselves, they would have to admit that HRC has been the overwhelming way the subject of this article has been addressed the past 30+ years. And concise isn't a policy for moving an article that has been named and stable for 13 years. What possible difference does it make if the article is titled HRC or HC with redirects going to the article anyway? That's where WP:TITLECHANGES should be used. Which is policy. So yea, I don't see any policy reason for moving the article. But that's not my job. Fortunately. And in the end, it's not going to effect anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
DD2K (talk·contribs), why do you keep ignoring WP:CONCISION? It is policy. And better adherence with title policyis a good reason to change a title, so the WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply in such a case. There can be no better reason to change a title than to bring it in better complicance with policy. In this case HC will comply just as well as HRC on recognizability, precision, consistency, and naturalness. We can pick nits, but there really is no strong case clearly favoring either on any of those four criteria. However, with respect to concision there is absolutely no question. This proposed move clearly brings this title into better adherence with policy. Frankly, it's so clear, there really shouldn't be any discussion about it. If this isn't a slam dunk, no title choice is. --B2C05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't change my vote one bit, but if this contact is used as a reason for overriding broadly majoritarian sensibilities regarding commonality, that essentially raises the question, does Misplaced Pages bow before the tyranny of the most strident minority in service to the powerful and well-connected (perhaps, at least, if they're of the correct politics)? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Since my response to Hot Stop was deleted in the above discussion (I had the window open over breakfast and didn't even realized the discussion was closing), I would like to reintroduce the material here about what Hillary has said about her own name.
Hillary's early work, when she first became notable, was done as "Hillary Rodham", but she began using her husband's name on the advice of political advisers after her husband lost an election. After her husband won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary told the press corps that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Jimbo has now contacted her office and confirmed that this is indeed her current preference. —Neotarf (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
When two names of a BLP are both commonly used by reliable sources, the personal preference of the subject is not a tie-breaker, per policy. Making subjective judgements about the "quality" of the reliable sources and going with the more common usage in the "higher quality" sources is also not a tie-breaker (SmokeyJoe (talk·contribs)), per policy. The policy-based tie-breaker is looking at any WP:CRITERIA by which a significant distinction can be made. In this case that's WP:CONCISION. --B2C05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Harvard Law episode
Should Hillary's story about not going to Harvard Law School and the reason why be in the main text or a Note? User:Dezastru says main text, because it's "more than just an aside - she's made the fight for gender equality a key focus of her political career, and this recollection shows how important it was for her even at that early point in her youth". I say it belongs in a Note, because:
even women who didn't focus on gender politics would be put off by comments like this
Yale didn't treat her this way, a school just as good, so she didn't suffer any loss (compared to, say, Sandra Day O'Connor or Ruth Bader Ginsberg, both of whom were shut out of the most desirable jobs early in their careers)
it's only her version of the tale, there's no corroboration or other side of the story that I've seen, which means we should probably give it a little less weight
it disrupts the flow of the narrative - instead of the reader getting into her time and accomplishments at Yale, they are immediately disrupted by thinking about Harvard
it's less important than other things that the article shows in Notes (such as the full "Tammy Wynette" and "baking cookies" remarks, or the details behind the "vast right-wing conspiracy", or the "What difference at this point does it make?" statement at Senate hearings, just to pick three).
The structure of the article is to keep the narrative moving forward without getting bogged down in matters like this, and I think the Harvard Law episode is thus best dealt with in a Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Even women who didn't focus on gender politics would be put off by similar comments, but that doesn't mean that they would have decided to go to a different law school based on those comments, or that they would have made a point many years later, when recalling moments in their lives that left lasting impressions, of sharing the experience with others. It's only her version of the tale – and attributed as such in the text; only her version matters because it's the recollection, her understanding of events that shaped her life, that matters, not whether the incident occurred exactly as she says it did. If she says this incident strongly influenced a major decision she made in life, then that should be what we report. (If some other evidence were to surface that would pose a reasonable challenge to the accuracy of her recollection, then we would report that too.) The Tammy Wynette, baking cookies, and "vast right-wing conspiracy" incidents are all at least mentioned in the text, even if additional details are provided in the notes; yet you are arguing to put everything the article says about her recollection of the Harvard professor's remark in the notes. If there is an issue with 'breaking the flow' and getting the reader right into her time at Yale, just move the mention of the Harvard professor's remark to the beginning - ie, talk about how she decided which law school to attend before getting into which one she actually enrolled at and what happened while she was there. Dezastru (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
WTR, I may as well chime in before my latest ArbCom appearance precludes it. Perhaps there is an analogy here to be made with her choice to attend college where no males were allowed at all. If the Harvard incident goes in main text, maybe this Wellesley aspect should go with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, Hillary says in Living History page 38 that "I was leaning towards Yale anyway, but this encounter removed any doubts about my choice." So it wasn't the deciding factor. Secondly, whether to go to Harvard Law or Yale Law is not really a major life decision - the two are practically identical in terms of quality and getting you on the inside track to the upper crust of American life. You could flip a coin and your general future would be the same either way (modulo the random accidents of who you happen to meet in either place, such as future spouses). By contrast, for example, marrying and going to Arkansas with Bill versus staying single in Washington where she had promising career prospects was a major life decision. As for Wellesley, in Living History, she says that she applied to it and to Smith based upon the recommendation of two of her high school teachers because "if go to a women's college, could concentrate on your studies during the week and have fun on the weekends." She didn't visit either college and picked Wellesley based on liking photographs of its campus. (Things were simpler back then; I picked the college I went to on roughly the same criteria, and also never visited it.) So User:Anythingyouwant, I don't think there are any reasons to delve into this either. But I do think you're an absolute masochist, ending up at ArbCom over gun control articles!? After all your issues with abortion articles?? Next I suggest you get into Israeli-Palestinian topics as well as naming disputes in the Balkans ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a masochist who will probably soon face the ultimate pleasure at Misplaced Pages, though undeservedly so I might add. And just why does Hillary begrudge Professor Charles Kingsfield wanting his students to study during the week and play on the weekends? :-) Take it easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No sympathy for my predicament, Dezastru? BTW, I'm with Wasted on this one, it's just some filler for her six-figure speeches. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Dezastru, I don't see this phrase in any of the dictionaries I have, but if factor A is 75% responsible for a decision and factor B is 25% responsible, seems to me that if we mention either factor, it should be A. In this case I think we should just say she went to Yale and be done with it, which is why I never put the Harvard episode in the article in the first place. But I'm willing to compromise and include it as a Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to add any other factors Clinton has said contributed to her decision to attend Yale instead of Harvard, and feel free to put those other ones in a note. Her specific remark about how the Harvard professor's comment affected her decision-making on this issue should be in the body of the article, not in a note. She has recounted the incident a number of times in public. She mentioned it in her 2003 memoir; she mentioned it at a visit to her undergraduate alma mater, Wellesley, in 2007; she brought it up again as she talked about the course of her life during a black-tie gala just 3 months ago.Dezastru (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On 5 March 2014, Clinton saw parallels between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler, in the former's position on the 2014 Crimean crisis:
“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s. Hitler kept saying: ‘They’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.’ And that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous. The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe,”
While I'm not sure I agree with the proposed wording ("saw parallels"?), this request raises an interesting point. There really is no section covering what could be called (for lack of a better term) Clinton's post-political career. Granted, it may only be temporary, but although she is neither an office-holder nor a candidate at this point, she is still a newsmaker whose activities and opinions are widely reported. There should be at least a brief section mentioning what she has been doing since leaving the State Department, including her weighing in on the Crimea situation. bd2412T03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
There is such a section, "Subsequent activities". As for weighing in on Crimea, I'm reluctant to include that here, because what she thinks doesn't matter that much now that she's out of office. It could be included in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, however, where there's more space. The thing here is that she subsequently clarified her initial remark, see for example this Reuters story. So she's not comparing Putin to Hitler (I'm sure at some point she's heard about Godwin's Law), but she is saying that this particular Putin tactic was one of the ones used by Germany in the late 1930s. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, indeed there is. Perhaps there should be a line there indicating that, although Clinton is not presently active as a politician, her public comments have continued to be widely reported. bd2412T17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Dezastru, here are the relevant passages from the Mark Bowden book The Finish, which you have misinterpreted from that CNN interview. It concerns the big, final approval meeting of April 28 in the White House Situation Room, where many advisors were present.
page 198: "In fact, there was overwhelming support for launching the raid."
page 201: "Nearly everyone present favored the raid."
page 203: "Everyone else favored sending in the SEALs. At first it didn't seem like Clinton would. She had famously faulted Obama years earlier for asserting that he would take a shot in Pakistan unilaterally if there was a good chance of getting bin Laden, and now, as secretary of state, she would bear the brunt of the diplomatic fallout if he did. Presenting a detailed assessment of pros and cons, she outlined the likely dire consequences for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship but wound up concluding that, because it was built more on mutual dependence than friendship and trust, it would likely survive. Someone pointed out that if going after bin Laden was enough to destroy the relationship, it was probably doomed anyway. Suspense built as Clinton worked her way around to her surprising bottom line. They could not ignore a chance to get Osama bin Laden. It was too important to the country. It outweighed the risks. Send in the SEALs."
page 203: "Admiral Mullen, the president's top military adviser, gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation before delivering his verdict. McRaven's rehearsals for him and the others had achieved the desired effect. Mullen said he had such high confidence in the SEAL team that he advocated launching the raid."
page 203-4: "Brennan, Donilon, Clapper, Panetta, and Morell all agreed. Brennan had long believed in his bones that it was bin Laden hiding in the compound, and if they indeed had found him, he argued, they had to go after him. The CIA director felt particularly strongly about it, which was not unexpected. This had been his project all along, and the analysts who worked for him were so eager to go in that they would have felt betrayed by their boss if he hadn't supported them. The former congressman told Obama that he ought to ask himself, "What would the average American say if he knew we had the best chance of getting bin Laden since Tora Bora and we didn't take a shot?" And going in on the ground would give them the proof they needed to make the mission worthwhile, or, possibly, gave them a chance of slipping out if bin Laden was not there."
So when you say that "Clinton was one of two senior national security advisors, the other being CIA Director Leon Panetta, who argued most strongly for President Obama to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid to capture or kill Osama bin Laden", yes that it true about Pannetta, but is natural and unremarkable given his institutional representation. It is not true about Hillary - yes she favored doing it, but so did nearly every other advisor, and often just as strongly, such as Mullen and Brennan just to name two.
The CNN interview you are using as a source does not contradict this - Amanpour asks "Who do you think amongst his circle were those who were egging him on or agreeing with him? And who were those pulling back? Who did he really listen to?" and Bowden responds that Pannetta was the "was the most enthusiastic advocate of sending in the SEALs" and then goes on about Hillary "surprised everyone in the room". In any case, the definitive source is what Bowden wrote in his book, not what he was trying to cram into the little sound bites that TV interviews give you. The other source, the LA Times article about some Q-and-A Hillary did after a recent speech, is useless as a source - it's some reporter saying what some other reporter said what some state legislator said about what Hillary said about the April 28 meeting. Even if it is correct that Hillary's playing up her role compared to Biden, that just bears out JFK's famous saying, "Victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan." Hillary was right about going ahead with the bin Laden raid, but so were a lot of other advisors, and this article should not overstate her role. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The decision to go after bin Laden – in Pakistan without advance notification of Pakistani authorities, and with a fairly high degree of uncertainty in the intelligence on whether the person they had been monitoring at the target site was actually bin Laden – was one of the most significant foreign policy and national security events of Obama's presidency, and of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. The potential diplomatic (not to mention domestic) fallout that would have resulted from a failed mission could have been overwhelming. Yet the version of the article you are arguing for devotes a mere single line to the whole incident, and only says that Clinton played a role in the decision to not release the photographs of bin Laden's remains after the mission had been completed. Do you really think that the one thing about the mission that readers of this article will be interested in is that Clinton argued against releasing the photographs? And of those of us who were closely following the news of these events at the time, how many even recall the debate about whether to release the photos? Or paid attention to the fact that Clinton had argued against releasing them, once that information was made public?
I've rewritten the section to include the point that a number of advisors apart from Clinton favored ordering the raid. The section does need to mention that this was a difficult decision for the administration and that Clinton argued in favor of the raid. Bowen's is not the only account available; Bowen was not in the room at the time (other who were have said that the advice was conflicting); and Bowen himself has said that Clinton's opinion was very influential.
In April 2011 internal deliberations of the president's innermost circle of advisors over whether to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid into Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Obama had received conflicting advice. Clinton was among those who argued that the President should order the raid. Following completion of the mission, which resulted in bin Laden's death, Clinton played a key role in the administration's decision not to release photographs of the dead al-Qaeda leader.
I think we are making progress. You are right that the article needs to say where Clinton stood on the raid decision; I didn't add it originally, because this kind of background wasn't known then, but it was an omission on my part not to add it later.
I've consulted another source, the recent Allen and Parnes Sec State years bio HRC, pages 233 to 238. Of course it focuses on the role of Hillary more than others, but generally agrees with Bowden's narrative, and indeed the back matter notes indicate Bowden's magazine article version was a main source. The main area whether they differ is that they say Hillary's decision in favor was not a surprise, that her support for taking action was known all along. They also play up the importance of Hillary being in favor, given that the Veep and Sec Def were against. They quote an unnamed Hillary inner circle person as saying, "I don't think the president needed her per se, but I do know that other people in the room were either swayed or comforted by her confidence and her certainty." Well, that's what a Hillary inner circle person would say ... we'd need people outside her circle who said that in order to state in the article that her support was especially influential.
I have changed the wording to avoid explicitly saying Obama received conflicting advice - I think that's already implicit given the "internal deliberations" and "among those who argued in favor". I've used the space to give the nature of Hillary's advice, that she thought the benefits outweighed the diplomatic risk, since that was her institutional territory.
I have also changed the wording of the text to avoid "capture or kill". This wasn't a mission to capture and that only would have happened under very unlikely circumstances. Nobody wanted that - the problems of where to keep him, how to try him, etc would have been very difficult to deal with. If capture was discussed, it was mostly as a fig leaf. See Daniel Klaidman, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, for example. Fortunately, we don't have to get into this question here, just avoid it. So now the text is:
In April 2011 internal deliberations of the president's innermost circle of advisors over whether to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid into Pakistan against Osama bin Laden, Clinton was among those who argued in favor, saying the importance of getting bin Laden outweighed the risks to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Following completion of the mission on May 2, which resulted in bin Laden's death, Clinton played a key role in the administration's decision not to release photographs of the dead al-Qaeda leader.
I have also only used book cites for the first part of this. That's because books are generally valued more as sources than news articles are; because they are shorter, take less space, and have faster load times; and because they don't have links that go bad or disappear behind paywalls. Past FACs have urged the use of book cites as much as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case.
This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case.
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be?
A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated.
Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives?
A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign.
Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}!
A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted.
Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies?
A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD.
Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it.
A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.
Comment: Does anyone else see any other famous Hillary Clinton in the search results? Epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the