Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
===Survey === |
===Survey === |
||
==== Support ==== |
==== Support ==== |
||
* '''Support''' it's about time we do this. The research provided in this move request is solid and relevant. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per nom. Articles should be at the name that comes to mind when the typical reader thinks of the subject. Wikipedia does not stand on the kind of formalities that dictate the style of information outlets with inflexible editorial boards that can not easily adjust to changes in usage by an article subject or by people in general. I have watched the talk page for this article for a long time now, and it is a steadily increasing trend that an editor who has never been involved in this question before will arrive there and note that they are confused to find "Rodham" this title, and propose to move the page to "Hillary Clinton". It is inevitable that eventually this will lead to the page being moved, so we might as well do it now and avoid both future confusion and future extensive discussion of proposals that new editors will continue to bring. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 14:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. As stated above, her own Twitter feed and websites don't use Rodham. Reliable sources also do not report on her using Rodham. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], recognizability, and indeed every factor presented in the move proposal. Also, all the subsidiary articles' titles will work much better with the common name. (In terms of mentioning Hillary Rodham Clinton as formal iteration of her name, can simply mention that bolded in the lede, either in the same sentence with her full birth name, or in the sentence right after that.) Cheers to Calidum (and anyone else who helped) in factoring that excellently worded proposal. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and the simplicity of not having a maiden name. The "Rodham" doesn't add anything in disambiguation, so the shorter version should be used. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per all of the reasons described in the move request, especially conciseness.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per WP:COMMONNAME & because there's no other bio-article of a Hillary Clinton, therefore 'Rodham' isn't required to clarify wich Hillary Clinton we're mentioning. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' - Personally, I've never, ''ever'' heard her being addressed as Hilary Rodham Clinton. Now, sure, I'm British, but as far as I've noticed, Hilary Clinton is the COMMONNAME, pure and simple. BD2412's comment about "an editor who has never been involved in this question before" - well, that was me not that long ago. And given that her official website (at least, I'm hoping hillaryclinton.com is that) explicitly states "Hillary Clinton is running for president. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Let’s go." - not Hilary Rodham Clinton. Yes, people have the right to go by their maiden names if they so desire. Yes, she achieved things whilst still using her maiden name as her only surname. But when people take the name of their husbands, then that's often what we begin to refer to them as - want an example? [[Cheryl Cole]], even though the height of her career was arguably attained when she was called Tweedy still - and note she's still known by the Cole name, even if her surname doesn't reflect that any more. Why is that? COMMONNAME, again. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is used in reliable sources - but that doesn't make it the primary name, does it? No, no it doesn't, and I think anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry picking at best. [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:Navy">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick">no</span><span style="color:Green">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 18:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per COMMONNAME and a blind, objective reading of reliable sources as represented in [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hillary+Rodham+Clinton%2CHillary+Clinton&year_start=1980&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CHillary%20Rodham%20Clinton%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CHillary%20Clinton%3B%2Cc0 Ngram Viewer]. As evident there, "Hillary Clinton" has always led "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and the gap has only grown wider with time. The data ends with 2008, with the gap still widening, but there is no reason to believe that (1) the trend has reversed since, and (2) the trend has reversed enough to put "Hillary Rodham Clinton" ahead. To satisfy the COMMONNAME '''policy''', we needn't look any further. If Ngram Viewer showed the trend reversing by 2008, I might be more open to other criteria, but it does not. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">☎</span>]] 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per the above because "Hillary Clinton" is more commonly used, despite the fact that "Rodham" is used by some reliable sources. I've rarely ever heard Hillary's maiden name in the media, though, where the vast majority of mentions take place. And {{u|Lukeno94}}, the official website is https://www.hillaryclinton.com/, so yeah, I think people are going to call her "Hillary Clinton" more often than "Hillary ''Rodham'' Clinton". [[User:Epicgenius|Epic Genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per COMMONNAME and reliable sources, and ''her own, informal, usage of her own name'' in her official campaign channels. However: we can, and should, use "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" in the intro sentence, because that's her full, formal name, and add "also known as '''Hillary Clinton''' or '''Hillary Rodham Clinton'''" -- which are two, slightly different versions of her name, both of which she uses in public life. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' - And strongly so. It is clear that HR is the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. That being the case, there'd have to be some really good reason to maintain HRC. I don't see one. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' per COMMONNAME. Sources mostly speak of Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Rodham Clinton. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' - Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. I don't see any special reason why this topic should be treated differently from every other topic. In fact, I'm surprised that it's taken this long to fix this. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Strong Support'''. As the above proposal clearly lays out, multiple Wikipedia policies are overwhelmingly on the side of this move, most importantly among them WP:COMMONNAME. It is time for this move to finally happen. [[User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] ([[User talk:Rreagan007|talk]]) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per above, COMMONNAME and the fact she's known as ''Hillary Clinton'' - Do we call [[Barack Obama]] "Barack Hussein Obama II" or [[Gordon Brown]] "James Gordon Brown" .... No!, Therefore IMHO there's no reason why this shouldn't be moved to the correct name either. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' again. She is commonly known both in her own country and throughout the world simply as Hillary Clinton. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. On my unbiased research I found that she is referred to 3-10 times more often as Hillary Clinton, than Hillary Rodham Clinton. That easily overrules arguments about what name is used in personal sources, what matters is what name she is known by, what name she currently uses in her campaign and most importantly what name is used in the majority of news sources. '''[[User:EoRdE6|EoRdE6]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:EoRdE6|Come Talk to Me!]])</small></sup> 20:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==== Oppose ==== |
==== Oppose ==== |
||
*'''No, no, a thousand times no''' per the thousand times this has been suggested, well, eight or nine. She uses it on [[List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton#By Hillary Rodham Clinton|all her books and papers]] (many of which were published before her marriage), on her official papers, and loves her family name so much that's she's always used it as her official name. Since I'm male I don't fully know and appreciate the well acknowledged choice of women to keep their entire name as they prefer it, which seems to conform with policy here. Just to be clear, 'Rodham' is not her middle name, it's her family name and one she used as a stand-alone name in her accomplishments before marriage. Again, a fully acknowledged woman's right not to have it considered a middle name, but a part of her name (during last year's discussion Jimbo Wales asked her what she'd prefer on her Wikipedia page, and she got word to him that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' was her personal choice). [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' Will expand later but for now incorporate by reference the last 3 admin panel close and opposes that resulted in the name remaining at ''Hillary Rodham Clinton'', which is both encyclopedically suited to the subject, as shown by looking at reliable encyclopedic sources for biography, and the subject's preference, as well a "appropriate" under Wikipedia policy. I will note that it is incorrect as claimed above the sources do not report her name. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per [http://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton whitehouse.gov], ''[[Hard Choices]]'' (2014), and past consensus that [[WP:COMMONNAME]] prefers the common name in scholarly, academic sources to online sources. ''Brittanica'' also uses "Rodham Clinton" and Clinton is noted for her achievements pre-marriage. –'''''[[User:Chasewc91|Chase]]''''' ([[User talk:Chasewc91|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Chasewc91|contribs]]) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' for many reasons. First, though it has already been pointed out, some of the reasons given above are not valid. For example, the claim that HC is her preference, which has often been shown not to be the case. To take just one example, her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover. Hit counts are also invalid and misleading in a case like this, since (to give just one reason) it is quite common for articles to mention her as HRC once at the beginning, and then use a shorter version throughout the article. As for the argument that using two names is “more common with human names generally”, that’s irrelevant. It may indeed be more common for people to go by just their first and last names, but that is a preference, not a rule, and it is quite common for people to go by more than two names (or less, for that matter) when they choose to do so -- case in point, [[Philip Seymour Hoffman]]. Some editors also claim that HRC is not used in reliable sources. To quote [[User:Huwmanbeing|another editor]], “You may wish to mention that to reliable sources [http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/ since] [https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/authors/hillary-rodham-clinton-and-chelsea-clinton they] [https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton don't] [https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041 seem] [http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/index.htm to] [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=c001041 have] [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121809/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton gotten] [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html the] [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Clinton++Hillary+Rodham))+01631)) message]...” [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' There are two arguments against the nomination: |
|||
*: [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] uses that as her name. A primary source perhaps, but to exclude reality on that basis would be ridiculous. This is someone's name after all. In the case of [[Chelsea Manning]], WP was vehement in taking their choice of name over all argument from officialdom. |
|||
*: Secondly, any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects, just as we do it for so many other BLPs. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' the mass move since I can't justify supporting all of them. If they had been broken into multiple requests I'd likely have gone: ''Oppose; Support; Support; Support; Support'' -- — <code class="nowrap">{{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]}} <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></code> 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*:'''Note:''' The above comment was originally posted to [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton]]. [[User:Epicgenius|Epic Genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==== Neutral ==== |
==== Neutral ==== |
||
* I'm parking it here just while I work out whether there's ''really'' any reasoned argument against to be made. [[User:Pandeist|Pandeist]] ([[User talk:Pandeist|talk]]) 19:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* Undecided at the moment, will need some thought [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">edits]])</b> 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Strongest possible neutral''' This discussion is a waste of time. We should keep it at its current name, because it's a perfectly acceptable, well recognized name, and so there's no impending need to move it. Please note, I would make the '''exact same argument''' if it were already at the other title. We have two roughly equivalent names we could have this article at. Since they are equivalent, neither has a major advantage, and so there's no need to move from one to the other. Or the opposite either. The discussion has no reason to happen. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
=== Discussion === |
Revision as of 20:36, 26 April 2015
Structural comments
Comments regarding the structure of this move request can be added here. This section will then be collapsed once the move request is formally initiated, so that editors can focus on the merits of the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I want to preemptively mention that this is not "gaming the system" but simply looking for a new consensus. Unfortunately, even mentioning that in the nomination gets us into ugly discussion about wiki-minutia that should probably just be avoided. I am a little disheartened to see "don't move pages" used as a defense instead of a reasonable argument against the move (personal preference, it actually being common name, almost anything actually relating to the affirmative defense of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a name).
- I would also strongly oppose trying to get a triumvirate of arbitrators to close (esp. in advance!) or setting a deadline. I proposed Republic of Kosovo -> Kosovo and it closed just fine with a normal administrator; the emotions involved in this move request should be child's play compared to that. Without any intent to disparage any previous group of admins, I have personally never seen a triumvirate actually work half as well as a single administrator, either a BDD type who typically participates in move discussions and can read consensus easily, or an expert administrator who's uninvolved with move requests who we recruit over at the administrator's noticeboard. Red Slash 19:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey bd2412 - I've taken a first glance at this. I'm curious whether it might be worth referencing previous discussions on this issue? I think just jumping into the question without at least giving a nod to some of the previous discussion might be viewed dubiously by some. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- @NickCT:, I actually made some mention of that in my Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale page when I started assembling that in 2013, although I did not make an in-depth analysis of them. There have been nine or ten depending how you count, but the first few do not appear to have been conducted through the WP:RM process, and several of the later efforts have been speedy-closed without going through a full discussion process. Consequently, there have been a much smaller number of discussions that have been fully developed, and the last close was controversial to say the least. bd2412 T 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey bd2412 - I've taken a first glance at this. I'm curious whether it might be worth referencing previous discussions on this issue? I think just jumping into the question without at least giving a nod to some of the previous discussion might be viewed dubiously by some. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming she announces her run for president in the next couple days, we should lead with anything official from her campaign that shows a preference of HC over HRC. That should be enough to dispel the myth she prefers to use her maiden name. From there, we need to back it up with examples of HC being the common name, preferably over a lengthy amount of time. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- In the last discussion there was some objection asserting that "high level sources" use Rodham. I think that we need to get statistics from sites like SSRN and JSTOR, which archive peer-reviewed academic papers (the highest-level source available) to determine if this is an accurate assertion. bd2412 T 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Without re-reading that discussion, I believe the high level sources referenced meant favoring use in newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. instead of other news sources like Fox News or CNN. And speaking of the last move request, we should conclude the nomination by linking to previous discussions and noting they have been closed as "no consensus" and a majority of users have actually supported the move. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- With respect to the sources, the close of the last RM stated that "scholarly secondary works are preferred", and I would like to show that those works have also tended to use "Hillary Clinton". With respect to previous discussions, I have written a sentence about that - please feel free to adjust as needed. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have added some basic information from washingtonpost.com and independent.co.uk as the WP (lol) was mentioned on the talk page and the independent was the first UK source I came to - and have also added references to official websites, twitter, facebook page and a facebook campaign page which I think is official but this may best be checked. GregKaye 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- With respect to the sources, the close of the last RM stated that "scholarly secondary works are preferred", and I would like to show that those works have also tended to use "Hillary Clinton". With respect to previous discussions, I have written a sentence about that - please feel free to adjust as needed. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Without re-reading that discussion, I believe the high level sources referenced meant favoring use in newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. instead of other news sources like Fox News or CNN. And speaking of the last move request, we should conclude the nomination by linking to previous discussions and noting they have been closed as "no consensus" and a majority of users have actually supported the move. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Highest-level sources are reliable, reputable secondary source sources. For a biography, quality biographies should count very highly. Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Cited_bibliography is already the list of most important sources actually judged relevant to the article. List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton is another collection of the most important sources on how to introduce the subject at the top level.
- In the last discussion there was some objection asserting that "high level sources" use Rodham. I think that we need to get statistics from sites like SSRN and JSTOR, which archive peer-reviewed academic papers (the highest-level source available) to determine if this is an accurate assertion. bd2412 T 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with newspapers and this person is that newspapers run ongoing conversations, and this person does not need constant re-introduction. Scholarly journal articles on Clinton don't sound mainstream. Can you please provide some examples? Raw data results make very poor evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a single biography of this person that does not refer to her at multiple points as "Hillary Clinton". Of course, I also have yet to see a quality biography of her husband that does not refer to him at some point as William Jefferson Clinton, nor an authoritative biography of the current president that does not refer to him at some point at Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., so that would debunk the notion that biographies are authoritative as determiners of a common name. With respect to peer-reviewed academic publications, SSRN and JSTOR return, for example titles like:
- Ann McGinley, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law (June 2009)
- Rachelle Janice Suissa, The Impact of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin on Female Voting Behavior in the 2008 Presidential Election: A Comparative Perspective, American Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper (2010)
- Shawn J. Parry-Giles, Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics (February 2014, University of Illinois Press)
- However, if we go down the path of "how many sources can you point to" we end up facing the Wyoming/Virginia problem, where you can prove that Wyoming has as many people as Virginia if, for every person I name from Virginia, you can name one from Wyoming, until we run out of time after each naming a few thousand people. If we disqualify raw data results like census numbers, then you could convince a neutral arbitrator that you have thereby proved that Wyoming and Virginia have an equal population. This would also deviate from one of our most standard practices in RM discussions - citing Google results and other search engine returns to demonstrate the relative commonality of use for a particular name. There is no reason to suspect the particular search engine results provided, or the trending proportionate increase that they reflect over the past year, in the use of "Hillary Clinton" as the default identifier for this subject. bd2412 T 00:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a single biography of this person that does not refer to her at multiple points as "Hillary Clinton". Of course, I also have yet to see a quality biography of her husband that does not refer to him at some point as William Jefferson Clinton, nor an authoritative biography of the current president that does not refer to him at some point at Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., so that would debunk the notion that biographies are authoritative as determiners of a common name. With respect to peer-reviewed academic publications, SSRN and JSTOR return, for example titles like:
- The problem with newspapers and this person is that newspapers run ongoing conversations, and this person does not need constant re-introduction. Scholarly journal articles on Clinton don't sound mainstream. Can you please provide some examples? Raw data results make very poor evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks bd2412. "refer to her" does not correspond with titling. "Introduces" corresponds to titling. Her husband? "refer to" tests call up individual mentions buried in the text. Have you read "First in His Class: A Biography Of Bill Clinton"? How does it name by way of introduction the subject? "refer to" ... "at some point" will pick up everything that anybody has ever called the subject, including silly and funny titles. It is the point of a biography to collect these things.
- Are these peer reviewed academic publications in the article reference list or bibliography? Or worthy to be? (we don't want anyone messing with references just to game a RM debate).
- How many "can you point to" is not a game that does anybody credit. The most important ones are the most important.
- Raw data should only be used if referred to by secondary sources. WP:NOR is an important policy.
- The citing of google hits, long discredited at AfD, is a sign of the backwardness of RM. Similarly ngram data, especially when done clumsily, or with large smoothing factors can help or hurt the discussion. Ngram data doesn't discriminate between introductions and incidental mentions, or between quality books and junk.
- The data trends will reflect web-free sources most strongly. This article is about a 67-year-old woman from an historical context, and is not a news service for a candidate.
- Thanks for the example peer-reviewed academic publications. Could these be added to List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Scholarly_studies? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the first two are either journal articles or conference papers (which are typically published in a journal of the conference). Hillary Clinton in the News has been published as a book, available on Amazon.com. There are, incidentally, a number of biographies that spell out "William Jefferson Clinton" in the title. Also, with respect to search engines, there is a degree to which the value of Google results can be questioned, but I think that it is significant that the same predominance is seen across search engines with materials of different quality - not just Google, but Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News (each of which limit their results to media with a certain degree of vetting beyond just being on the Internet), and search results for SSRN, JSTOR, and even internal searches for stories on Fox News, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. Of course, even naming entire venues can lead to the presentation of numbers from countless media outlets, again raising the Wyoming/Virginia problem. I should probably call that the Wyoming/California problem, but I live in Virginia and am partial to it. bd2412 T 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the example peer-reviewed academic publications. Could these be added to List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Scholarly_studies? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mostly make sense, but seem to go a bit loopy on this Wyoming/Virginia problem. Non-primary sources, including Wyoming and Virginia, report for example populations of 62,448 and 8.3 million. It is well within allowable WP:SYNTH to infer that Virginia has the larger population. Your point in attempting to describe an appeal to ridicule through a clumsy attempt at proof by mathematical induction is not clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are comparable claims that could be made that don't involve populations. Heck, I could claim that "William Jefferson Clinton" is used as frequently as "Bill Clinton", and if we were merely to trade sources back and forth one at a time, I could find enough sources (including high-level sources) that use "William Jefferson Clinton" to insure that we could spend the seven days allotted for an RM stacking up an exactly equal number of thousands of sources each. If you wanted to prove to me that "Bill Clinton" was more commonly used than "William Jefferson Clinton", what evidence would you provide? bd2412 T 04:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is abhorrent. "William Jefferson Clinton" is not comparable. "Jefferson" is a middle name, whereas "Rodham" is part of her family name. Please do not conflate the two. It is very disrespectful. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is over-reaching quite a bit to say that something is "abhorrent" or "disrespectful" when we are talking about the name that the subject has suddenly begun using in the public sphere on a massive scale, a marked change from the situation that last time this matter was discussed. bd2412 T 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- No such change occurred. Her main usage is of "Hillary" alone. Marketing jargon is not representative of reality, what a surprise. We can't title the article "Hillary", nor "Hillary Clinton". It is easier to have a shorter slogan, no? Abhorrent. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is over-reaching quite a bit to say that something is "abhorrent" or "disrespectful" when we are talking about the name that the subject has suddenly begun using in the public sphere on a massive scale, a marked change from the situation that last time this matter was discussed. bd2412 T 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is abhorrent. "William Jefferson Clinton" is not comparable. "Jefferson" is a middle name, whereas "Rodham" is part of her family name. Please do not conflate the two. It is very disrespectful. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would take issue with your choice of words. "More commonly used"? A better question is required. I suggest: "More commonly used in reputable and authoritative sources to introduce the subject". I would not use the word "prove". See Proof (truth). It is a technical defined word and is not well used loosely like that.
- There are comparable claims that could be made that don't involve populations. Heck, I could claim that "William Jefferson Clinton" is used as frequently as "Bill Clinton", and if we were merely to trade sources back and forth one at a time, I could find enough sources (including high-level sources) that use "William Jefferson Clinton" to insure that we could spend the seven days allotted for an RM stacking up an exactly equal number of thousands of sources each. If you wanted to prove to me that "Bill Clinton" was more commonly used than "William Jefferson Clinton", what evidence would you provide? bd2412 T 04:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- You mostly make sense, but seem to go a bit loopy on this Wyoming/Virginia problem. Non-primary sources, including Wyoming and Virginia, report for example populations of 62,448 and 8.3 million. It is well within allowable WP:SYNTH to infer that Virginia has the larger population. Your point in attempting to describe an appeal to ridicule through a clumsy attempt at proof by mathematical induction is not clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- In deciding how to title the article, I would say: Start by looking at the sources that support the content. What name do they use to introduce the subject. Content editors have already chosen the best, best quality, and best representative sources, in choosing how to source the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe I think it would be well to remember the content of WP:UCRN: "
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
" Biographies are very simply not produced in very "prevalent" supply. Public Libraries are in less use year by year and, with bookshops going the same way, people are less likely to see this content on the shelf. Meanwhile the best, most reliable and reputably published sources of news information are prevalently broadcasting the self designation of "Hillary Clinton" far and wide. In all the coverage that I have heard I have not heard the name "Rodham" once. The guideline explicitly mentions prevalence in the context of ascertaining a commonly recognised name from, with no special reverence to hierarchy, reliable English-language sources. Surely this has to focus on the sources that have the actual ability to bring a name into common recognition. GregKaye 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)- Greg, that brings the question to the crux for me. Is Wikipedia like a tabloid, going by what is most commonly read, or is Wikipedia like an formal reference work, where the contents are scholarly. If you have not heard "Rodham" once, then you have not read anything scholarly about her, certainly life whole-life-encompassing, and have not read the bibliography and reference list of the Wikipedia article. If you have not heard "Rodham", then you have never read a biography on this subject. If you have never read a biography on her, I suggest that you are not qualified to decide on the best title, or any other part of her biography. It is true, and interesting, that there is a conflict between how the subject is introduced in the general media, and how the subject is introduced by the majority of the best quality sources. It could be because the general media doesn't feel the need to re-introduce someone so well known. She is probably the primary topic for simply "Hillary", but no formal work should use that as the top level title.
- It is interesting that, as BD2412 points out, even the scholarly sources are trending somewhat to dropping the "Rodham", and the subject herself is using it barely at all recently. I may yet support the move, but the debate should play out properly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @RGloucester and SmokeyJoe: Let's make it a real one to one comparison, then. Suppose I were to assert that the WP:COMMONNAME-titles for Laura Bush and Elizabeth Dole (respectively, the next First Lady, and a woman who was a cabinet secretary, senator, and presidential candidate) are actually Laura Welch Bush and Elizabeth Hanford Dole. Both uses appear in some high-level biographies. Now, that comparison can't be abhorrent or disrespectful, since we are talking about family names in each. What evidence would I need to present to make that case, and if I were to enumerate a dozen or two dozen biographies showing that usage for each, what evidence would you look for to determine that those versions were not in fact the common names of the subjects? How might you compare these subjects to someone who unquestionably is commonly known with their family name, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg? bd2412 T 12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe I think it would be well to remember the content of WP:UCRN: "
- In deciding how to title the article, I would say: Start by looking at the sources that support the content. What name do they use to introduce the subject. Content editors have already chosen the best, best quality, and best representative sources, in choosing how to source the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- For you to assert it with confidence, I would expect you to show that *most* high-level biographies, and scholarly works, both independent and non-independent, use that name in the title, or in the first introduction if not in the title. I would expect you to present a list of these sources, and some evidence or rationale for why the sources should be considered good sources. If you could do this, then I would accept that the names are commonly recognised in quality sources as naming the subject, no other evidence would invalidate that, regardless of the existence of other commonly recognized names. For Bush and Dole, I think you would fail; for Ginsberg, you would succeed.
- The name Hillary Clinton is well recognizable in amongst the sources that cover her. However, Hillary Rodham Clinton is more commonly seen in these sources, if you weigh more highly the sources that Wikipedia considered more reliable. Evidence of Wikipedia-judged reliability of sources is evidence in choices made in the article reference list.
- A critical difference between HRC and Bush & Dole is that Hillary Rodham (pre-Clinton) was notable. This is why scholarly biographical sources so consistently retain Rodham, whereas sources concerned only with non-complete biographical coverage, and common gossip sources, don't bother.
- Why do sources not similarly drop Bade from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Day from Sandra Day O'Connor, even though neither Ruth Bader nor Sandra Day were notable? I guess it is because these other women are not subject to the same level of gossip in normally reasonable sources, or from saturation shallow coverage in the media that makes the longer name tedious to repeat week after week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Joe, the reason is obvious, if speculative. The name "Clinton" has political cachet. Don't forget the common railing against Hillary for her apparent use of Bill to gain "power" during the 90s and early 2000s, riding on his supposed coattails. That type of misogyny is the origin of this mess. In the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor, there is no such concern, as they both reached more "elevated" positions than their husbands. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion, while academically fascinating, is of no immediate purpose to this draft, which is an effort by editors to collect the arguments and evidence favoring a move. You can more appropriately continue this discussion on either of your respective talk pages, or create a draft elsewhere for arguments in opposition to the proposal, or wait until the move request is formally launched and pick up the discussion in the discussion section of that page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Joe, the reason is obvious, if speculative. The name "Clinton" has political cachet. Don't forget the common railing against Hillary for her apparent use of Bill to gain "power" during the 90s and early 2000s, riding on his supposed coattails. That type of misogyny is the origin of this mess. In the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor, there is no such concern, as they both reached more "elevated" positions than their husbands. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why do sources not similarly drop Bade from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Day from Sandra Day O'Connor, even though neither Ruth Bader nor Sandra Day were notable? I guess it is because these other women are not subject to the same level of gossip in normally reasonable sources, or from saturation shallow coverage in the media that makes the longer name tedious to repeat week after week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate above about whether Rodham is a middle name. It might be helpful to remind readers about this, possibly even in the move request:
- She was born Hillary Diane Rodham. Hillary was her first name, Diane her middle name and Rodham her surname. Socially, she would have been called Hillary or Miss Rodham.
- When she married, she changed her name to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Hillary remained her first name and Diane remained a middle name. Rodham, her maiden name, became another a middle name, and Clinton became her surname. Socially, she would be called Hillary or Mrs Clinton. If she had chosen to use Rodham as part of her surname, and not a middle name, it would have been Mrs Rodham Clinton instead of Mrs Clinton.
This means Rodham is both her maiden name (her previous surname when she was a maiden, that is, before she married) and one of her two current middle names. Note that it is traditional, and arguably more common altogether, for women to drop completely their maiden name after marrying. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- My wife did the same, changing her surname to a middle name and adopting my surname. Ironically, I have a middle name and I use it professionally, to distinguish myself from other people in my profession who share my fairly common first name and fairly common last name. bd2412 T 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- How interesting. On quite an unrelated note, I always find it fascinating that Americans initialise only their middle names. For example, William J. Clinton should be W. J. Clinton in the United Kingdom. Back to the Clinton at matter, though... 31.54.156.31 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe I hope, while we admittedly we have large contents on celebrity tittle tattle and such topics as professional wrestling, that no one here thinks that Wikipedia is like a tabloid. I hope we present an encyclopaedia inside and out. That intends to present encyclopaedic verifiable contents that we draw from relatively reliable sources. To clarify, I have certainly read about various contents that have referenced "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and taken plenty of interest in various documentaries. At least in recent times, "In all the coverage that I have heard I have not heard the name "Rodham" once."
- I had added text to the RM, which I have withdrawn, to say: "
[[WP:UCRN]] clearly states, "{{tq|Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural}}". In this text, the only issue presented is that a ''commonly recognisable name'' should be used and no preference is expressed in regard to any perceived hierarchy of sources. The prevalence of news output within the media must be taken into significant account in any estimation of [[WP:Recognizability]].
" Personally I think that this is a valid position but I think you make a fair point on regarding an importance of topic specific sources beyond, say, the Washington Post. However I do not think that a presentation so as to say that biographies are the only credible source is relevant. Broadsheet sources are not tabloids. - Personally I think that a valid argument for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be made on ethics. Although "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her name, this is not what she presents and is, I'm sure many would agree, likely to be due to very negative reception from some quarters in the U.S.
- I have also added content on Naturalness which, thinking about it, may also be over done. The names Hillary and Clinton both appear in "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but I'm sure this point will be made. GregKaye 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe I think that your argument relates to historically significant name and may have reasonable justification and, in absence of actual policy, may have justification on an IAR basis. In the meantime WP:UCRN has its own specific parameters. GregKaye 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- With respect to naturalness, if you try having a ten-minute conversation with any person about this subject, and refer to her only as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for the duration of that discussion, it will quickly become clear that "Hillary Clinton" is more natural (contra "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"). bd2412 T 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed changes
Proposed Change 1
Can we change -
- There have been a number of previous proposals to move this page as proposed ........ has continued to grow over time.
To
- Title Stability - Dating back as far as 2007 there have been repeated efforts ending in "no consensus" to move this page as proposed ....... has continued to grow over time. The strong community preference should be acknowledged, so that this important article is less likely to be subjected to extended Requested Move discussions in future.
Main rationale is just to maintain formatting with the rest of the of the requested move, and to offer a little more information. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Change 2
Can we remove the <big> tag next to http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ ? I understand why we're doing it, but it strikes me as perhaps a little obnoxious. NickCT (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't we switch it for a <small> around the part that is de-emphasized on the website. bd2412 T 16:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Notification of change for discussion
Shortly after the original drafting of this page and before, I believe, any proposal type content was added to this page, I removed the following content:
- Conciseness/Preciseness: "Hillary Clinton" immediately and precisely identifies the subject.
- Consistency: Presentation of only a first name and last name, even where a middle or maiden name exists, is more common with human names generally, and with informality of names of well-known figures like Bill Clinton.
I personally think that the most pertinent word here is identifies but know that editors have various interpretations on the application of guidelines. Consistency with use of a two section presentation of name seems to be, if anything, a reinforcement of UCRN. I'm dubious as to whether name should be chosen in connection to specific people like "William Jefferson .." or "Chelsea Victoria..". GregKaye 08:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye:, I think that these should remain in the proposal, even if the wording is tweaked, perhaps to remove the specific examples. Different editors may give different weight to elements of WP:AT, but we have indicated in the lede that editors who support the move but particularly disagree with the applicability of one element can state their disagreement with that element. With respect to WP:CONCISE, there are cases where it is arguable that an additional word is helpful in identifying an ambiguous subject, but there is no utility in "Rodham" for that purpose. It is comparable to the "and Providence Plantations" sometimes appended to Rhode Island; technically correct but not helpful in informing the reader that "Rhode Island" is the topic. As for consistency, I did a lengthy examination of this in my previous draft. Something like 90% of human names in Wikipedia present only the given name and surname of the subject (with or without a parenthetical). This is even more so for living married women in the United States. A more direct comparison might be Elizabeth Dole (not "Elizabeth Hanford Dole") and Laura Bush (not "Laura Welch Bush"), even though the longer forms can often be found in high-level biographies. bd2412 T 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly see no problem with the Bush and Dole examples or similar.
- I wouldn't mind saying something like "Conciseness may be applied in cases where no clear argument for commonly recognizable name exists". For some editors I think there can be advantage that concise may not apply to cases such as James Clerk Maxwell and the like. However, by this point, I don't really have any great objection here. GregKaye 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that conciseness does not apply to James Clerk Maxwell, but that preciseness, naturalness, and recognizability do apply. "James Maxwell" is not precise because James Maxwell is the name of many people, so that title alone would not identify which James Maxwell we are talking about. We could have something like "James Maxwell (physicist)", but there's no need to do that when his middle name is recognizable. bd2412 T 22:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye:, I think that these should remain in the proposal, even if the wording is tweaked, perhaps to remove the specific examples. Different editors may give different weight to elements of WP:AT, but we have indicated in the lede that editors who support the move but particularly disagree with the applicability of one element can state their disagreement with that element. With respect to WP:CONCISE, there are cases where it is arguable that an additional word is helpful in identifying an ambiguous subject, but there is no utility in "Rodham" for that purpose. It is comparable to the "and Providence Plantations" sometimes appended to Rhode Island; technically correct but not helpful in informing the reader that "Rhode Island" is the topic. As for consistency, I did a lengthy examination of this in my previous draft. Something like 90% of human names in Wikipedia present only the given name and surname of the subject (with or without a parenthetical). This is even more so for living married women in the United States. A more direct comparison might be Elizabeth Dole (not "Elizabeth Hanford Dole") and Laura Bush (not "Laura Welch Bush"), even though the longer forms can often be found in high-level biographies. bd2412 T 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed change 3
Suggest removal of the headings "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" so as to leave a single flow or survey response.
Many RMs incorporate survey and discussion into one. GregKaye 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would definitely strongly oppose this. I have closed hundreds of RMs and other discussions, and there is nothing more aggravating for an admin than a lengthy discussion where everything is jumbled together, and must be separated out just to determined how many people were on either side of the issue (much less what their relative arguments were). bd2412 T 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- For reference, compare the Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request with the follow-up Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request. If you were an admin trying to determine how much support each side had, which structure would make it easier for you to make that determination? This discussion could be as long or longer than that. Also, this structure makes it easier to weed out things like duplicate votes and people writing "support" when they mean "support not moving the page", and vice versa. bd2412 T 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. One thing I don't understand though is why discussion is placed after survey. Perhaps the discussion can follow the proposal. GregKaye 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- The reason the survey comes before the discussion is that, for contentious issues, the discussion can sprout all sorts of lengthy tangential arguments that barely relate to the question at issue. Again, Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request is instructive. There is an orderly process, but if you look at the discussion, there are about a dozen different hatted diversions where people have raised issues about the mechanics of a potential close, about whether issues are relevant to the discussion, etc. During the discussion, those were generally not hatted, so the page was much longer. In an ideal world, the discussion would be a straightforward examination of policies and evidence, but it never turns out that way. By putting the survey first, we clear the air about what editors prefer with a thumbnail explanation of their reasoning, and then give those who wish to vent or argue at length (usually a small subset of the whole) the ability to do that without pushing the survey too far down the page. bd2412 T 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed change 4
suggest adding text:
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics presents as guideline: "
The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known.
"
However, the mention of this content raised objection at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Lacking civility "The section you quote is on patronymic-metronymic culture - that has nothing to do with the present situation - which is the biography of a woman not in patronymic-metronymic culture. Moreover, that "best known" links to AT - just goes back to the same need to review the hierarchy of sources for encyclopedic biography. Systemic bias as used in the last move close was about bias against women - not patromymic-metronymic culture.
"
I answered this at length in an edit at: 17:50, 18 April 2015 but an wondering whether any further content need be added by way of clarification.
GregKaye 08:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Comparative test
Since the utility of Google and Google news hits has been questioned, I performed a test wherein I compared Google results for another notable woman widely known by both her maiden and married name, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" gets 528,000 Google hits, while "Ruth Ginsburg gets 35,900 Google hits, and "Ruth Ginsburg" -Bader get's 26,100 Google hits. In additio n, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" gets 17,900 Google News hits, while "Ruth Ginsburg" gets 493 Google News hits, and "Ruth Ginsburg" -Bader 310 Google News hits. Based on these results, I am quite satisfied that Google accurately reflects the real-world common name proportion in both general sources and news sources. bd2412 T 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Pity that more people don't subscribe to the lessons of Wikipedia:Search_engine_test. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- A search engine test is not a reliable source. Showing that a search engine test usually agrees with reliable sources does not make the search engines reliable sources. --|SmokeyJoe (talk)
- Absent some reason to believe that the algorithm has a pretty serious flaw, a search engine test that shows one result being eight to ten times as common as another is hard to write off. A consistent trend of one name being several times more common in all major search engines with multiple kinds of databases (internet, books, news, even videos), is probably reliable to something like a 99.99999% confidence level. bd2412 T 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you are basing your arguments on this, and are assuming that the results/algorithm are not flawed, you're looking with biased eyes. It's obvious, and amusing at the same time(99.99999% confidence level). Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is the discussion to draft arguments in favor of a possible proposed move. If you have information to add to that, please do; if not please find a more appropriate venue to comment. You are certainly free to create a draft page for counterarguments, but that is obviously not the purpose of this page. bd2412 T 02:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is not your page, and I will comment where and when I like. Do not try to intimidate me. If you don't like that, please find another project to participate in. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you're going to insist on being off-topic, then I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of continuing to interact with you. If you happen to have the search engine algorithms for all of the major search engines, and can point out some coding flaw that would cause them to show the results and trends discussed here, then you might have something relevant to add to the conversation. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @DD2K: - It's obvious huh? So obvious I guess that you're the only one who seems to be able to see it. Pray tell, how is this logic "obviously" flawed? NickCT (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources
This should serve as a list of sources we may or may not include in a future request.
- Clinton Foundation page [1] uses both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Note her husband's bio [2] uses his fullname, which we don't. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Her campaign website unambiguously uses Hillary Clinton [3]. Ditto for her Facebook page [4]. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have now been informed by Alanscottwalker that my "proposed text ... is clearly objectionable
" and that I am not working/reading/something "in the context of all policy, in particular sourcing policy - which is emphasized in all three core content policies and is incorporated in article titling policy) - reliable sources in Wikipedia are always evaluated in context - we don't use, for example, unreliable sources, and we deprecate sources not fit to the subject matter - in this case encyclopedic biography. Quality of sources in context is always to be considered.
" I hope a content such as the following may suffice.
A search in books on ("Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton") AND (Biography OR Autobiography) on 15 April 15 sequentially listed the following 10 results of books classified as "Biography & Autobiography" or "BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY". The sequential list also includes reference to books placed in other categories and these have been given a double indent. A sequential approach was taken so as to not selectively present content in a partisan way.
- Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton 2012 - 629 pages
- Hillary Clinton: A Biography by Dena B. Levy, Nicole R. Krassas 2008 - 130 pages
- Hard Choices By Hillary Rodham Clinton 2014 - 656 pages
- HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton By Jonathan Allen, Amie Parnes 2014 - 448 pages
- TIME Magazine Biography--Hillary Rodham Clinton By Garth Sundem 2014 - 5 pages
- Hillary Clinton By Jean F. Blashfield 2010 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
- Hillary Clinton: A Life in Politics By Jeff Burlingame 2008 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
- Hillary Rodham Clinton: Secretary of State By JoAnn Bren Guernsey 2009 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
- Hillary Rodham Clinton By Bernard Ryan 2009
- Hillary Clinton By Sally Lee 2011 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 24 pages
- Hillary Rodham Clinton By Sarah Tieck 2010 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 32 pages
- Hillary Rodham Clinton: Politician Dennis Abrams 2009 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 144 pages
- further instances of Juvenile Nonfiction are not included on the list
- A Woman in Charge Carl Bernstein 2007 - 640 pages "Drawing on hundreds of interviews with colleagues, friends and with unique access to campaign records, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Carl Bernstein offers a complex and nuanced portrait of one of the most controversial figures of our time: Hillary Clinton."
- Dictionary of World Biography Barry Jones 2013 - BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY - (~0.7 of) 934 pages entry on Bill Clinton, Mentions "Hillary Diane Rodham" once and "Hilary Clinton" three times
- Michelle Obama: A Biography (Google eBook) Alma Halbert Bond - 167 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 6 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used 3 times
- Oprah Winfrey: A Biography: A Biography, Second Edition (Google eBook) Helen S. Garson 2011 - Social Science - 212 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 6 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used once
- Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (Google eBook) By Webster Griffin Tarpley 2008 - 436 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 19 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used three times
- The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse (Google eBook) By Colleen E. Kelley 2001 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 311 pages
I would suggest that this text can be added in a collapsible box or as a later addition to the text.
GregKaye 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I can assure you that any suggestion that we diminish the value of high level news sources in favor of biographies is nonsense. There is no basis in policy for that kind of distinction, and in fact there should not be because anybody from a respected historian down to the least qualified political hack can publish a "biography" and call it whatever they want. Unless we know what sort of peer review process a specific biography went through, it is of less value than a vetted report on MSNBC or Fox News, or a peer reviewed publication in an academic journal.
- It is also worth noting that unlike Wikipedia, biographers may merely be trying to sell books, and may therefore use whatever tricks are available to inflate the perceived grandeur of their work. I would also note that one issue that has been apparent throughout the discussions of this topic is the trend of "Rodham" tending to be used less and less over time.
- By the way, note that an internal search of Amazon.com itself shows 5,930 results for books for "Hillary Clinton" and 3,352 results for books for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". However, for books published in 2015, 208 results for Books "Hillary Clinton", but only 69 results for Books: "Hillary Rodham Clinton". bd2412 T 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Times of India
The Times of India is the most widely circulated English-language newspaper in the world. A search of articles from the archives of The Times of India returns dozens of articles that mention "Hillary Clinton" (including many that focus entirely on her), but only four articles that mention "Rodham". bd2412 T 21:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested move
Request move from:
- Hillary Rodham Clinton -> Hillary Clinton
- Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton -> Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
- Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors -> Hillary Clinton awards and honors
- List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton -> List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
- Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton -> Political positions of Hillary Clinton
This move would presumably extend to the names of categories and Wikiprojects relating to Hillary. Note that certain titles regarding her are already at the shorter titles (Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements), and will not be affected by this move.
This move is proposed for the following reasons:
- Recognizability: Many readers have expressed confusion with the title because they are unaware of Hillary's use of "Rodham" -- this is especially true for those from countries outside the U.S., as "Hillary Clinton" is almost always used in the rest of the English-speaking world. As of her campaign launch on April 12 of this year, the prominence of the use of "Hillary Clinton" on her most public self-representations (such as her campaign page and newly-created Facebook page, which has already drawn millions of views), intensifies this situation. There is no need to allow possible reader confusion when an alternative is available that is not confusing to anyone.
- WP:COMMONNAME presents the guidance that: "
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural
". - Plainly and simply, "prevalence" is indicated as being the issue that determines the common recognizability of a name.
- "Hillary Clinton" is primarily and more commonly presented in a larger number of secondary sources than can be found using "Hillary Rodham Clinton". In particular, people speaking or releasing statements about Hillary, including current and potential political opponents, most frequently refer to the her as "Hillary Clinton." Using search engine testing for instance:
- site:www.wsj.com/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 75,900 results"
- site:www.wsj.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 1,340 results"
- as per: List of newspapers in the United States by circulation
- site:telegraph.co.uk/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 72,700 results"
- site:telegraph.co.uk/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 2,930 results"
- as per: List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation
- Ngrams raw data favours "Hillary Clinton"
- Google trends indicates that in the last twelve months (beginning after the close of the last move request on this topic) there has been a spike in Google searches for "Hillary Clinton" over "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Over the past year (and particularly since June 2014), people performing Google searches were at least 28 times as likely to search for "Hillary Clinton"; however, since her announcement of candidacy and the reveal of her campaign website and Facebook page, people are now more than 100 times as likely to search for "Hillary Clinton". By contrast, people are about as likely to search for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as to search for "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton".
- In view of "prevalence" in sources, "Hillary Clinton" is by far the most her "commonly recognizable name."
- High level sources:
- It has previously been argued that "high-level sources" should be given special consideration. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". With respect to solely these highest-level sources:
- Google Scholar returns since 2014 show "about 3,710 results" for "Hillary Clinton" and "about 613 results" for "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
- The Social Science Research Network directory of peer-reviewed scholastic journals returns the following:
- JSTOR, another archive of peer-reviewed scholastic journals returns the following:
- "Hillary Clinton" gets 3,667 results
- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets 1,324 results
- JSTOR results are searchable by date range; a search for results from only the past year shows a substantial increase in the proportion of scholarly publications using "Hillary Clinton":
- "Hillary Clinton" gets 138 results
- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets 23 results
- Since the previous discussion, the predominance of "Hillary Clinton" in these highest-level sources has increased from 73.5% to over 85.5%.
- A search of records from the United States Government Publishing Office indicates that in the past year there have been 105 U.S. government documents published that reference "Hillary Clinton" while only 30 U.S. government documents published that reference "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
- Naturalness "Hillary Clinton" is a name which fits with the WP:NATURALNESS description of a "
title ... that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
" This is clearly shown in extreme results from a "Hillary Clinton" : "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Google trends search.
- About 2300 main pages link to the redirect page "Hillary Clinton" which can be judged to overlap significantly with the
- About 2800 main pages that directly and/or indirectly link to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This number should be noted to be inclusive of pages that include/also include redirects from namespaces such as Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary R. Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will also be inclusive of pages that include widely used templates 1234 which are amongst pages that use redirects such as "
[[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillary Clinton]]
" and "[[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Clinton]]
"
- Preciseness/Conciseness: The conditions of Preciseness are fully met with concision with "Hillary Clinton" immediately and precisely identifying her. Nothing more than that is needed. There is no other "Hillary Clinton" from which disambiguation might be needed.
- Consistency: Presentation of only a first name and last name, even where a middle or maiden name exists, is more common with human names generally, and particularly with human names found throughout Wikipedia. For example, we use Elizabeth Dole (not "Elizabeth Hanford Dole") and Laura Bush (not "Laura Welch Bush"), even though the longer forms can often be found in high-level biographies.
- Hillary's preference: "Hillary Clinton" is presented in the public arena primary sources and particularly in primary sources related to political campaigning: for example in campaign ads, announcements, on ballots, twitter, facebook and websites.
- Her twitter account: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton presents: "Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton" - as appearing as page title and on all posts. "Rodham" was not used.
- Her facebook page https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton makes several mentions of "Hillary Clinton" but makes no mention of Rodham.
- Her facebook campaign page https://www.facebook.com/Hillary2016 presents: 43 uses of "Hillary Clinton" inclusive of 27 uses of "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" (as at 11/04/2015). "Rodham" was not used.
- At http://www.hillaryclinton.com, "Hillary Clinton" is the web page title text as shown through any "Hillary Clinton" web search that reaches the main page. The name "Hillary Clinton" similarly appears within the text of many of the site's pages as well as, of course, in the web address itself. The name "Rodham" only seems to appear twice and both times in signatures, once on an English page and once on a Spanish page.
- http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents: "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...". Notably, the site's own "Bio" page, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/bio/, completely omits the use of "Rodham" despite describing her childhood at length.
- The facebook page give prominent reference to hillarypac.org which makes 14 references to "hillary clinton" without references to "rodham" being made.
- WP:NOTSHOWCASE/WP:NOTADVOCATE Wikipedia only responds to real world situations of actuality and does not give any special consideration to any privately expressed view as to how a subject may personally want to have their name presented.
- Title Stability - On this high visibility article, it may be desirable to have a stable title. The current title has prompted numerous previous proposals to move this page as proposed. While the majority of respondents in those previous proposals have generally favored a move, enough support was not garnered to avoid a "no consensus" finding. The most recent discussion (initiated March 31, 2014), resulting in a substantial majority of 44 editors favoring the move and 20 opposing the move, was closed as "no consensus"; the prior discussion (initiated in June 2013), resulting in a majority of 12 editors favoring the move and 10 opposing the move, was initially closed by a non-administrator as moved, but reversed on review due to the reasoning of the close, not the discussion itself. It is proposed that these discussions show that there is a consistent preference of the community to move the page, and that this preference has continued to grow over time. Furthermore, there have been substantial changes favoring the title "Hillary Clinton" since the last discussion, most notably her launch of a campaign where "Hillary Clinton" is her most prominently used style of conveying her name.
- Revisions to policy page. During the past year, the policy on article titles has evolved, including the "nutshell" which is a consensus summary of the policy. As this diff shows, the conciseness and naturalness standards are both new in the nutshell, and this change of emphasis supports "Hillary Clinton" instead of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" per the discussion above. Another new part of that policy page is the following: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness", which implies that omitting or abbreviating middle names and other names for conciseness is usually fine. Indeed, a further new part of the policy states: "When deciding whether to use middle names....[s]ee also WP:CONCISE above."
Calidum T|C 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion guidelines
Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.
Users either supporting or opposing the move should indicate at least the most pertinent reasons for doing so. This will help the closing admin(s) determine consensus.
Comments that are placed in the wrong section may be moved to the correct section by administrators or other participants. Excessively lengthy or off-topic discussions may be collapsed.
Notes
Survey
Support
- Support it's about time we do this. The research provided in this move request is solid and relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Articles should be at the name that comes to mind when the typical reader thinks of the subject. Wikipedia does not stand on the kind of formalities that dictate the style of information outlets with inflexible editorial boards that can not easily adjust to changes in usage by an article subject or by people in general. I have watched the talk page for this article for a long time now, and it is a steadily increasing trend that an editor who has never been involved in this question before will arrive there and note that they are confused to find "Rodham" this title, and propose to move the page to "Hillary Clinton". It is inevitable that eventually this will lead to the page being moved, so we might as well do it now and avoid both future confusion and future extensive discussion of proposals that new editors will continue to bring. bd2412 T 14:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As stated above, her own Twitter feed and websites don't use Rodham. Reliable sources also do not report on her using Rodham. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME, recognizability, and indeed every factor presented in the move proposal. Also, all the subsidiary articles' titles will work much better with the common name. (In terms of mentioning Hillary Rodham Clinton as formal iteration of her name, can simply mention that bolded in the lede, either in the same sentence with her full birth name, or in the sentence right after that.) Cheers to Calidum (and anyone else who helped) in factoring that excellently worded proposal. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the simplicity of not having a maiden name. The "Rodham" doesn't add anything in disambiguation, so the shorter version should be used. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per all of the reasons described in the move request, especially conciseness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME & because there's no other bio-article of a Hillary Clinton, therefore 'Rodham' isn't required to clarify wich Hillary Clinton we're mentioning. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Personally, I've never, ever heard her being addressed as Hilary Rodham Clinton. Now, sure, I'm British, but as far as I've noticed, Hilary Clinton is the COMMONNAME, pure and simple. BD2412's comment about "an editor who has never been involved in this question before" - well, that was me not that long ago. And given that her official website (at least, I'm hoping hillaryclinton.com is that) explicitly states "Hillary Clinton is running for president. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Let’s go." - not Hilary Rodham Clinton. Yes, people have the right to go by their maiden names if they so desire. Yes, she achieved things whilst still using her maiden name as her only surname. But when people take the name of their husbands, then that's often what we begin to refer to them as - want an example? Cheryl Cole, even though the height of her career was arguably attained when she was called Tweedy still - and note she's still known by the Cole name, even if her surname doesn't reflect that any more. Why is that? COMMONNAME, again. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is used in reliable sources - but that doesn't make it the primary name, does it? No, no it doesn't, and I think anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry picking at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per COMMONNAME and a blind, objective reading of reliable sources as represented in Ngram Viewer. As evident there, "Hillary Clinton" has always led "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and the gap has only grown wider with time. The data ends with 2008, with the gap still widening, but there is no reason to believe that (1) the trend has reversed since, and (2) the trend has reversed enough to put "Hillary Rodham Clinton" ahead. To satisfy the COMMONNAME policy, we needn't look any further. If Ngram Viewer showed the trend reversing by 2008, I might be more open to other criteria, but it does not. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per the above because "Hillary Clinton" is more commonly used, despite the fact that "Rodham" is used by some reliable sources. I've rarely ever heard Hillary's maiden name in the media, though, where the vast majority of mentions take place. And Lukeno94, the official website is https://www.hillaryclinton.com/, so yeah, I think people are going to call her "Hillary Clinton" more often than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Epic Genius (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per COMMONNAME and reliable sources, and her own, informal, usage of her own name in her official campaign channels. However: we can, and should, use "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" in the intro sentence, because that's her full, formal name, and add "also known as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- which are two, slightly different versions of her name, both of which she uses in public life. -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - And strongly so. It is clear that HR is the WP:COMMONNAME. That being the case, there'd have to be some really good reason to maintain HRC. I don't see one. NickCT (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per COMMONNAME. Sources mostly speak of Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mbcap (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see any special reason why this topic should be treated differently from every other topic. In fact, I'm surprised that it's taken this long to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support. As the above proposal clearly lays out, multiple Wikipedia policies are overwhelmingly on the side of this move, most importantly among them WP:COMMONNAME. It is time for this move to finally happen. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per above, COMMONNAME and the fact she's known as Hillary Clinton - Do we call Barack Obama "Barack Hussein Obama II" or Gordon Brown "James Gordon Brown" .... No!, Therefore IMHO there's no reason why this shouldn't be moved to the correct name either. –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support again. She is commonly known both in her own country and throughout the world simply as Hillary Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. On my unbiased research I found that she is referred to 3-10 times more often as Hillary Clinton, than Hillary Rodham Clinton. That easily overrules arguments about what name is used in personal sources, what matters is what name she is known by, what name she currently uses in her campaign and most importantly what name is used in the majority of news sources. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- No, no, a thousand times no per the thousand times this has been suggested, well, eight or nine. She uses it on all her books and papers (many of which were published before her marriage), on her official papers, and loves her family name so much that's she's always used it as her official name. Since I'm male I don't fully know and appreciate the well acknowledged choice of women to keep their entire name as they prefer it, which seems to conform with policy here. Just to be clear, 'Rodham' is not her middle name, it's her family name and one she used as a stand-alone name in her accomplishments before marriage. Again, a fully acknowledged woman's right not to have it considered a middle name, but a part of her name (during last year's discussion Jimbo Wales asked her what she'd prefer on her Wikipedia page, and she got word to him that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' was her personal choice). Randy Kryn 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Will expand later but for now incorporate by reference the last 3 admin panel close and opposes that resulted in the name remaining at Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is both encyclopedically suited to the subject, as shown by looking at reliable encyclopedic sources for biography, and the subject's preference, as well a "appropriate" under Wikipedia policy. I will note that it is incorrect as claimed above the sources do not report her name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per whitehouse.gov, Hard Choices (2014), and past consensus that WP:COMMONNAME prefers the common name in scholarly, academic sources to online sources. Brittanica also uses "Rodham Clinton" and Clinton is noted for her achievements pre-marriage. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for many reasons. First, though it has already been pointed out, some of the reasons given above are not valid. For example, the claim that HC is her preference, which has often been shown not to be the case. To take just one example, her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover. Hit counts are also invalid and misleading in a case like this, since (to give just one reason) it is quite common for articles to mention her as HRC once at the beginning, and then use a shorter version throughout the article. As for the argument that using two names is “more common with human names generally”, that’s irrelevant. It may indeed be more common for people to go by just their first and last names, but that is a preference, not a rule, and it is quite common for people to go by more than two names (or less, for that matter) when they choose to do so -- case in point, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Some editors also claim that HRC is not used in reliable sources. To quote another editor, “You may wish to mention that to reliable sources since they don't seem to have gotten the message...” Omnedon (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There are two arguments against the nomination:
- Hillary Rodham Clinton uses that as her name. A primary source perhaps, but to exclude reality on that basis would be ridiculous. This is someone's name after all. In the case of Chelsea Manning, WP was vehement in taking their choice of name over all argument from officialdom.
- Secondly, any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects, just as we do it for so many other BLPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose the mass move since I can't justify supporting all of them. If they had been broken into multiple requests I'd likely have gone: Oppose; Support; Support; Support; Support -- —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)- Note: The above comment was originally posted to Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Epic Genius (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
- I'm parking it here just while I work out whether there's really any reasoned argument against to be made. Pandeist (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Undecided at the moment, will need some thought Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strongest possible neutral This discussion is a waste of time. We should keep it at its current name, because it's a perfectly acceptable, well recognized name, and so there's no impending need to move it. Please note, I would make the exact same argument if it were already at the other title. We have two roughly equivalent names we could have this article at. Since they are equivalent, neither has a major advantage, and so there's no need to move from one to the other. Or the opposite either. The discussion has no reason to happen. --Jayron32 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- @Alanscottwalker: I haven't read every reliable source on the Earth, but the ones I read do not refer to her using Rodham. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your support !vote is ridiculous. Every source on Earth? Did you even bother to read any of the past move requests, or any source? This just shows how systemic bias works, without editors even knowing it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- My comment about sources on Earth was a reply to criticism of my post by the used I named, not my rationale for support. Please show me where it is written that I or any user must research the entire history of a page before posting a comment about a proposal regarding it. My opinion was solicited, I have given it. No more, no less. It's disappointing when others like yourself make negative comments such as that. Instead of making such comments, why not simply point out reasons for disagreement or correction? That said, I can only go by what I read, as can any person. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I further invite you to support your claims regarding sources by linking to some that back up what you are saying. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure.
compared to:"Hillary Clinton" -Rodham -- Google News archive search:34,500
Dave Dial (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now look at the headline of the very first result to come up under "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - "Hillary Clinton pledges support for Yankees" (from 1999); the article also has a quote from Rudy Giuliani referring to her as "Hillary Clinton". That's the very definition of "common name". bd2412 T 17:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- One example out of tens of thousands of hits makes a definition? Omnedon (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. So even though the article starts off stating:
-You think the headline is more of an example? I see. So Twitter handles, headlines and campaign posters count, while real world names mean nothing. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)"Hillary Rodham Clinton, who grew up rooting for the Chicago Cubs.."
- One example out of tens of thousands of hits makes a definition when it is typical, even when digging all the way back to 16-year old newspapers. Rodham should be mentioned in the lede; if this were an argument that it should be removed from the article entirely, that would be a valid point. It is inapplicable to the question of what is someone's common name. Also, the fact that Hillary Clinton uses "Hillary Clinton" for her Facebook page is a thousand times more significant that her Twitter handle. bd2412 T 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- A thousand times more significant than her Twitter handle? Who assigns these numbers for significance? I would argue a move request that bases it's significance on Twitter, Facebook and campaign slogans is absurd. Instead, we should use Wikipedia policy. You know, policies that state:
and WP:SPNC, which cites BLP policy and weight should be given to the subject of an articles preference of name. Dave Dial (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)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.
- A thousand times more significant than her Twitter handle? Who assigns these numbers for significance? I would argue a move request that bases it's significance on Twitter, Facebook and campaign slogans is absurd. Instead, we should use Wikipedia policy. You know, policies that state:
- One example out of tens of thousands of hits makes a definition when it is typical, even when digging all the way back to 16-year old newspapers. Rodham should be mentioned in the lede; if this were an argument that it should be removed from the article entirely, that would be a valid point. It is inapplicable to the question of what is someone's common name. Also, the fact that Hillary Clinton uses "Hillary Clinton" for her Facebook page is a thousand times more significant that her Twitter handle. bd2412 T 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now look at the headline of the very first result to come up under "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - "Hillary Clinton pledges support for Yankees" (from 1999); the article also has a quote from Rudy Giuliani referring to her as "Hillary Clinton". That's the very definition of "common name". bd2412 T 17:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure.
- Another example of the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Editor user:Anythingyouwant adds reasoning here for a move, citing Article Title policy
Hillary's family name is Rodham, it's NOT her 'middle name'. So the editor cites policy that would prevent a move from HRC to HC, and doesn't even realize it. Unfortunately, there will be many such !votes like this. Totally disregarding policy as if it doesn't exist, because the editor has no clue. Dave Dial (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Another new part of that policy page: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness", so omission of middle names and other additional names for conciseness is usually fine.
- Actually, since she took the surname Clinton upon marriage, Clinton is her family name. Rodham is her maiden name (or birth name if you will). I'm saying this to avoid confusion, because if people start talking about family name ambiguously, that doesn't help but rather confuses the issue, so it's best to use crystal clear terms like maiden name (or birth surname), versus married name (or married surname). Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Really? So her family name is gone like smoke because she got married? Is that the case for any male person? What's crystal clear is that Rodham is her family name. Period. HRC did NOT take the Clinton name when she got married. She went by Hillary Rodham for years, until 1983. So it would help if editors actually knew the difference between policy, reality and made up stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maiden name is defined as "a woman's family name before she got married and started using her husband's family name".[5][6] "Rodham" was the subject's "family name" before she got married, not now. That is all I can, will, or want to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Chasewc91: Your statement that scholarly sources prefer HRC over HC is incorrect. The nomination clearly shows a strong preference amongst high level sources (ie scholarly, academic ones) for "Hillary Clinton." Calidum T|C 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's blatantly and patently false. In fact, the MR should be altered because the reasoning at the intro is dishonest, at best. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some sources use a mix of both "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton"; I have searched extensively and have yet to find a scholarly source on this subject that addresses the subject at length but does not refer to her in some places as "Hillary Clinton". The trend for high-level peer-reviewed academic publications in the past year (the important period for this move request, since it is addresses changes since the last one) is to use only "Hillary Clinton". This can be confirmed by a simple search of SSRS, JSTOR, and Google Scholar publications. bd2412 T 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the reason why this move request is so blatantly dishonest is because the same people (you, Calidum and NickCT) were also the main editors from the last move request. And you KNOW that the ngrams and google results were flawed. You KNOW that the results showing "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham had many an instance with the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Yet the results leading off this MR are hidden with caveats like "since 2014" and such. You also know there has been no name change, and article title policy advises against moving contentious moves for stable articles. You also know since the last MR that policy has changed to give weight to the BLP subjects preference of their name. Which should make even more difficult to move HRC to HC. And despite all that, have worded the MR in a totally biased manner. Disregarding policy and reality. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- The ngrams and Google results are not flawed; sources tend to use "Hillary Clinton", even if a minority also use "Rodham" at some point. Certainly the Google Trends indications and results from other search engines are not flawed. The editors who participate in this discussion are perfectly capable of seeing these things for themselves. bd2412 T 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Twitter argument is poor since Twitter usernames must be <16 characters and display names <21 (source). @HillaryRodhamClinton = 20 characters. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" = 22 characters. It would be technically impossible for Clinton to use her full name in either her username or display name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the Twitter argument is not poor. There are two parameters on Twitter: Your name, and your handle/username (the @ thing). The name has no such length restrictions, yet she uses only Hillary Clinton for that as well [7]. Nor does she use the initial R in her username (@HillaryRClinton), as she might well do if it was important to her. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Omnedon: You wrote "Hit counts are also invalid and misleading in a case like this, since (to give just one reason) it is quite common for articles to mention her as HRC once at the beginning, and then use a shorter version throughout the article." Google results numbers are numbers of articles, not numbers of individual iterations of the phrase, so these hit counts are not misleading. Softlavender (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Omnedon: You said, To quote another editor, “You may wish to mention that to reliable sources since they don't seem to have gotten the message
. Actually, these are primary sources, written by people possibly connected to Clinton herself, so they show the maiden name at first, much like many other sources about a prominent person world. The vast majority of sources assume that we know what they're talking about when they say "Hillary Clinton". Epic Genius (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: You said, In the case of Chelsea Manning, WP was vehement in taking their choice of name over all argument from officialdom.
Secondly, any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects, just as we do it for so many other BLPs.
WP:COMMONNAME was the basis for the Chelsea Manning article being moved. If anything, the Chelsea Manning case supports the move request here, as it was moved to the current common name rather than keeping it at the past common name. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear that the common name should be used as the article title. Just because other articles may violate this policy is not a good argument for this article to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What about the usage by all her opponents?
Since her announcement of candidacy ALL of her opponents, female or male, married or not, from the left and from the right, have acceded to that primacy of use established on Hillary Clinton's website/Facebook page/all other aspects of her rollout, referencing her solely as "Hillary Clinton." This evinces a universality of recognition that the common name here is "Hillary Clinton" because neither she nor anybody opposed to her projects any utility in reducing the clarity inherit get in using that name. For example, here is left-most Senator Bernie Sanders, “I do have doubts that Hillary Clinton or any Republican out there will take on big-money interests who control so much of our economy," and on the other side here is corporatist/rightist Carly Fiorina (hmmmm, not Carly Sneed Fiorina), "Hillary Clinton must not be president." Statements similarly reflecting "Hillary Clinton" can be found from declared and undeclared candidates on both sides -- Ted Cruz and Martin O'Malley; Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren; Marco Rubio and Lincoln Chafee; and yet I cannot find a single statement by a single potential 2016 rival which disagrees with Hillary Clinton's own website. Pandeist (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, Hillary Clinton is more commonly referred to, so that's what the name of this article should be. No word on whether she is a fit candidate for president, because I'm not voting. Epic Genius (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but I'm keen to see if opposers of the move have any answer to this proposition. If not I'd have to cut the estimation of opposition neatly by half. Pandeist (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note: Typo or malapropism in "the clarity inherit get in". (Feel free to delete this when you fix it.) :-) Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but I'm keen to see if opposers of the move have any answer to this proposition. If not I'd have to cut the estimation of opposition neatly by half. Pandeist (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
One person, many valid names
I've added the words "also known as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton" to the intro, which seems to be appropriate regardless of the decision regarding this move. As far as I can see, she has had, or used, the following names:
- Hillary Diane Rodham, her official birth name
- Hillary Rodham, the name she used, and was most commonly referred to by, before her marriage
- Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, her official name after taking her husband's name
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, her preferred name for herself. both then and now
- Hillary Clinton, the name the public knows her by, which is also the name she primarily uses in her official campaign materials
All of these names are, or have been, in their respective contexts, valid names for the same person, and she currently uses both of the last two herself, in two different contexts -- The Anome (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing requirements
Discussion on how to close an anticipated contentious discussion are starting to pollute the main talk page. I think that should be avoided, as multiply tangential to discussions about edits to improve the article. Better to discuss here.
I suggest that a three person panel of admins to close the discussion might be nice. It ensures no gut reaction by a drive by impatient admin, not that this is commonly seen. Participants should not preclude the possibility that the discussion with be consensus-seeking. One side may largely persuade the other. In this case, the close may be trivial. Someone is suggesting that the hypothetical panel should be composed of RM-experienced closers. Ultimately, if the close is improper or otherwise poor, there is WP:MR. In general, the closing of RM discussions is in my opinion very good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- A closing panel has been requested. bd2412 T 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd ask the closing panel to take into consideration the reasoning and subsequent clear decision by last year's closing panel. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Section order request
Hi. For fairness wouldn't it be more logical to not have the 'Support' and 'Oppose' sections, but just let people add their comments when they arrive at the party, ah, I mean page? Although I haven't been involved very long in name change requests I haven't seen this form before. The 'Support' section, which people will read long before they even spot the 'Opposed' section well down the road, will likely become the length of a novella. Why not just toss the scorpions into the jar at the same time, which seems fairer somehow. Randy Kryn 2:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is the typical layout for discussions that are expected to be lengthy so that it is easier for readers and the supervising administrators to see who has expressed what opinion. This was done at Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request, and is the format always used for RfA discussions (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec) and often for any other kind of proposal where the discussion is expected to be lengthy and involved (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard"). You can see from those discussions (and from a substantial number of unsuccessful RfA discussions) that this structure does not interfere with the ability of participants to register opposition. A good example of this is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlanM1, which had about as many participants as the last move discussion on this topic. The goal of this structure is to avoid confusing the discussion and impeding the community and the closers from seeing what is going on. bd2412 T 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the comment and the recent history. The unfairness comes from someone who's "undecided" coming in and reading the page from top to bottom and seeing all the 'Supports' before getting to the 'Opposed'. But I guess the closers know what to look for. It just all seems like a huge waste of time, but some editors seem to be gearing up for it. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 3:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
1 year lock-in
I have no opinion on the issue itself at the moment, but in accordance with the close at Village Pump I request the RfC explicitly invite the closer to consider a 1-year lock-in against repeated move requests. And regardless of the RfC text, the discussion at Village Pump provides abundant basis for reasonable closer discretion in the matter. Alsee (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is some question about what power admins have to impose moratoria absent consensus of the community in favor of that outcome. That said, I am not sure that this is the best place to discuss such a proposal, since the focus of this page should purely be on the question of whether the article should be renamed. bd2412 T 01:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any moratorium, I think, should be a question for the closer(s). It should be based upon discussion of a moratorium in the RM discussion. I think there is no good reason to worry about it before starting the RM. The question of a moratorium presumes a no consensus outcome, a presumption which is probably a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I supported a moratorium in the Village Pump discussion, but there was no consensus favoring one. I continue to support the idea, but would not impose my preference on the community unless consensus shifts in favor of it. bd2412 T 15:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus in the Village Pump discussion was clearly against any moratorium. An admin has no authority to go against community consensus in imposing a moratorium. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I supported a moratorium in the Village Pump discussion, but there was no consensus favoring one. I continue to support the idea, but would not impose my preference on the community unless consensus shifts in favor of it. bd2412 T 15:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any moratorium, I think, should be a question for the closer(s). It should be based upon discussion of a moratorium in the RM discussion. I think there is no good reason to worry about it before starting the RM. The question of a moratorium presumes a no consensus outcome, a presumption which is probably a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Notifications Sent
For the record, User:BD2412 maintained a list of all past participants on this discussion. I have sent all those users notifications of this discussion. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)