Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Infobox heading survey: new section |
Adding RFC ID. |
||
Line 578: | Line 578: | ||
== Infobox heading survey == |
== Infobox heading survey == |
||
{{rfc|bio}} |
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=4399AC8}} |
||
Please state whether you think the Infobox heading should say '''Hillary Clinton''' (HC) or '''Hillary Rodham Clinton''' (HRC) and specify the reason why. |
Please state whether you think the Infobox heading should say '''Hillary Clinton''' (HC) or '''Hillary Rodham Clinton''' (HRC) and specify the reason why. |
||
Facts to consider: |
Facts to consider: |
Revision as of 22:00, 26 June 2015
Hillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
HC & HRC Books
FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: - Nice list. I always found it remarkable how many anti-Hillary books came out in 2007-2008 time frame. Wonder whether the driver there was have the election promote book sales, or to undermine the Clinton campaign, or both? NickCT (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Both. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
hrod17@clintonemail.com ?
Is it verifiable that Ms. Clinton also used hrod17@clintonemail.com as an email address during her tenure at the state department? I have heard this at several removes that make me doubt its veracity. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was her newer e-mail address, a change necessitated by Gawker publicizing the original one in 2013. Fringe blogs are trying to make scandalous hay out if it apparently, but it seems there's much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. My sole concern was the validity of the address itself, not its use. I am not sure how it could be a GOP "attack" if it's real, the CBS article seems to have a very odd political slant, but I'll assume it's reliable, so long as Dan (false but accurate) Rather wasn't involved. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- And whaddyaknow - it has the "rod" in there. Rod, as in Hillary Rodham Clinton, her name. Just sayin'. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is equally noteworthy that this email address was not her first choice. She only changed to it when her first email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, was made public. Also, she must have been peeved when she went to sign up for hrod@clintonemail.com and found that there were already 16 people before her with the same email address. It probably stands for "hot rod", since she could have spelled out "Rodham" if she had wanted. bd2412 T 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe she didn't want anyone to be confused. I doubt there were already 16 people on clintonemail.com with hrod ahead of her or 21 with hdr - there must be another explanation than that. I'm just pointing out that Rodham has never been abandoned (as in hdr too) contra what some have argued regarding her campaign and/or ballot listings. Just a comment in passing - not interested in a rehash! Tvoz/talk 00:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is equally noteworthy that this email address was not her first choice. She only changed to it when her first email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, was made public. Also, she must have been peeved when she went to sign up for hrod@clintonemail.com and found that there were already 16 people before her with the same email address. It probably stands for "hot rod", since she could have spelled out "Rodham" if she had wanted. bd2412 T 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- And whaddyaknow - it has the "rod" in there. Rod, as in Hillary Rodham Clinton, her name. Just sayin'. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Mention of Lewinsky scandal in lead
@SNUGGUMS: and @Cwobeel: have both recently removed from the article's lead any mention of the Lewinsky scandal. Which kind of surprises me, because mention of it has been in the lead continuously since 2007, with no one to my memory ever objecting to it being in the lead before. (The wording used to be "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" and then somewhere along the way it was changed to the shorter "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.")
Now, it may not get as much attention now as it once did, but for a whole year or more, the Lewinsky matter was pretty much the only thing that anyone talked about in terms of either Bill or Hillary, with considerable discussion as to whether Hillary would stay in the marriage and the reasons why she stayed once it was clear she was going to. Her favorability ratings shot upward during the scandal, and some people believe that without that boost she never would have attempted a political career on her own. When Hillary published her first memoir Living History in 2003, the material in it on the Lewinksy matter was what all the interviewers and reviewers focused on the most. In other words, it was a really big deal, and it has its own subsection in the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the subject's entire life, it seems to me mention of it should be there. Consider that some percentage of readers never go past the lead and are too young to have witnessed the Lewinsky matter; do you really want them to walk away without seeing it mentioned? I'm certainly open to the wording of it, which was part of SNUGGUMS' objection, but some kind of mention has always been there and I think should continue to be there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree to removing it if the lead were much shorter, but this lead is pretty big. It includes stuff like, "Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969." The Lewinsky scandal was the biggest challenge during her role as first lady, so it seems very apt to include very briefly in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- If Lewinsky is included, I at least wouldn't want the wording to be what it was when I removed it. "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" would be better than simply "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree to removing it if the lead were much shorter, but this lead is pretty big. It includes stuff like, "Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969." The Lewinsky scandal was the biggest challenge during her role as first lady, so it seems very apt to include very briefly in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is not related to HRC's Wikipedia article specifically, but page watchers may be interested in contributing to the discussion re: the deletion of WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. Please see the following link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you much for the announcement. I will be around to support Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, but lurking until the objection gains strength. She may very well be our next POTUS in America. Edit semi-protected (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Location and section header relative to emails controversy
There's been a flurry of changes on this. At issue is:
- Should the emails controversy be located in the Secretary of State section or in the section that deals with after Secretary of State and before 2016 presidential campaign?
- Should the emails controversy be its own section?
- Should the emails controversy be part of the title of an enclosing section?
- What should the title of that section be?
On the first, I feel strongly that it should not be in the Secretary of State section. The discovery of the issue, the turning over of some of the emails and deleting of other emails, the publishing schedule and demands by the Gowdy committee, all these things are happening in 2015, two years after she left State.
I also don't think it should be its own section, not until we know whether it will achieve major impact upon her life or career. Consider the WP:10 year test – lots of controversies in Clinton's past occupied the headlines at the time, but they don't warrant a separate section now. Indeed the only one that shows up in a header in this article is Whitewater, because for that she was the subject of a long Independent Counsel investigation, which issued formal findings as to her actions, and during which she was subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury. Nothing equivalent to that has happened here. Maybe it will, but it hasn't yet. I get that recentism is a powerful force, but it's our job to resist it as best we can.
As to what the title of the post-Sec State, pre-2016 campaign section should be, there's no great answer for these years when a politician is out of office before staging another presidential run. I've had "Subsequent activities" which is kind of lame. Inclusion of the Clinton Foundation belongs, since she joined it as a named member, was part of a couple of initiatives, then stepped down from it during this period. But what else isn't exactly clear. In a snap reaction last night I made it "Clinton Foundation, emails controversy, and other activities", but as I'm saying here, I think I was wrong to include emails in the header. Better would just be "Clinton Foundation and other activities". Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- My personal feeling is that the "email controversy" relates directly to her time at Foggy Bottom, insofar as it would not have been an issue if she wasn't the Secretary of State at the time. That said, I think the current coverage in the article is far too much and totally disproportional to its significance. Trying to shoehorn this into the section on State is going to be difficult, because of the current structure of the article (strictly chronological). I think "subsequent activities" is a poor title to describe the period between her time at State and the beginning of her campaign, and it should probably be changed to something else. Part of the problem is that the email issue spans a period from the beginning of her time at State to some point in the future. We need a title that reflects that. If we can find a way to do that, we can then include a mention of the email issue in that section, although I would keep it to something like this:
- Beginning in March 2015, Clinton's use of her own private e-mail address and server throughout her time as Secretary of State drew scrutiny from political opponents and the media.
- It should only be expanded if, as you suggest, it leads to a major impact upon her life or career. Since it already has its own article, there is no need for us to dwell on the specific details that aren't biographically germane at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have come here last last night before removing "emails controversy" from the header, then tweaking it to "Clinton Foundation and other post-State Department activities" which I chose because it is more specific than just "other activities" and still think is a consistent title with the approach of this Featured Article. I feel strongly that the article's essentially chronological structure should be preserved, with the email matter a part of this post-State section whatever it's called, rather than in State. Further, in line with the rest of the article, it should not be a separate section unless and until it rises in significance to her whole complex life as we are writing this BLP about. Right now it is indeed disproportional to its significance, given the totality of her life experience. If that changes - if this matter has a significant impact on her life- we'd expand. Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with Scjessey about the amount of text given to this matter; I think what's there now is appropriate. This is not something that just political opponents and scoop-hungry reporters are concerned with. What Clinton did was a bad idea from a computer security viewpoint and a bad idea in terms of preserving the archival historical record. It also showed dubious political judgment, as she should have realized the optics would be poor if it ever became public. For all these reasons it is biographically relevant. As for the section title that includes it, Tvoz's suggestion could be shortened to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities". This approach to the title does have the advantage that the memoir, speeches, and emails addressed in that section do all relate to her time at State. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- That ("and post-State activities") would be fine with me. The amount of text is also ok with me, but not as a separate section which to me is what is disproportionate. Tvoz/talk 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- There being no further comments here, I've eliminated the separate subsection for emails since there was clear consensus that was not appropriate. I've changed the enclosing section to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities", since there seemed to be agreement on that. We didn't discuss it here, but I've also put in 'See also' xrefs at the top of the section to the articles on the foundation and on the emails (they were in some of the earlier formulations). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- That ("and post-State activities") would be fine with me. The amount of text is also ok with me, but not as a separate section which to me is what is disproportionate. Tvoz/talk 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with Scjessey about the amount of text given to this matter; I think what's there now is appropriate. This is not something that just political opponents and scoop-hungry reporters are concerned with. What Clinton did was a bad idea from a computer security viewpoint and a bad idea in terms of preserving the archival historical record. It also showed dubious political judgment, as she should have realized the optics would be poor if it ever became public. For all these reasons it is biographically relevant. As for the section title that includes it, Tvoz's suggestion could be shortened to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities". This approach to the title does have the advantage that the memoir, speeches, and emails addressed in that section do all relate to her time at State. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have come here last last night before removing "emails controversy" from the header, then tweaking it to "Clinton Foundation and other post-State Department activities" which I chose because it is more specific than just "other activities" and still think is a consistent title with the approach of this Featured Article. I feel strongly that the article's essentially chronological structure should be preserved, with the email matter a part of this post-State section whatever it's called, rather than in State. Further, in line with the rest of the article, it should not be a separate section unless and until it rises in significance to her whole complex life as we are writing this BLP about. Right now it is indeed disproportional to its significance, given the totality of her life experience. If that changes - if this matter has a significant impact on her life- we'd expand. Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Portrait
It does make sense that we used the most recent official portrait for an article, such as for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, for example. But in this case, she is out of office, but running for another office. Because of this, the reader who decides "I'll look up Hillary on Wikipedia" will see a portrait which is 6.5 nearly 7 years old. As an active candidate, actively campaigning, whose appearance has changed significantly (aging, weight) since the time of the portrait, the inclusion of the portrait I added (below) is pertinent. While taken at an event, it is very high resolution, high quality, in focus, and looks very professional (released by campaign), and her facial expression is smiling just like the official portrait. Strictly adhering to a 'official' preferred policy, in this case, detracts from the purpose of the article. While Jimmy Carter may have aged nearly 40 years from his info box portrait, the main purpose of his article is to enlighten over the subject of his life, whose height was a presidency from 1977-1981. But Hillary isn't retired and out of office, she is a current event. We use a 2015 photo of Jeb Bush for these same purposes.
Spartan7W § 03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. So we should not follow policy because you want people to see that HRC has been growing old and fat? Not that there is much different between the two photos, because there isn't. But your reasoning is beyond offensive. No. Dave Dial (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- That is not what I'm saying. Truth is, people get old. Chris Christie could be called obese, but he has been losing weight. If we were to change pictures for him because of his appearance change, nobody would object. What I am saying is this: sometimes an exception to a policy can benefit a reader. To attack me and my perfectly legitimate rationale is simply petty. I am bringing about a genuine issue for discussion. Spartan7W § 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Use the previous photograph. Use a recent photograph on the article on the current campaign. This articles covers her full lifetime and should not obsess with the recent events, especially given that there are subarticles covering recent events. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Use official portrait from 2009. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" approach isn't a rule but rather than informal guideline that's been adopted. I agree with it in general and argued for keeping the 2009 portrait at the top throughout her tenure as secretary even though some wanted a change. But now it's been 6½ years and I would be inclined to a switch to a current one if a really decent possible photo appeared, and I think this one qualifies – she looks good and it was made available by the campaign. (I've always thought that campaigns should release good quality portraits for use in WP.) Unfortunately Spartan7W has since poisoned the well with the above aging and weight comments, which really really shouldn't be the point. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think a more relaxed, natural image of Clinton would be more appropriate, and better represent her. This image (right) from 2011 has a much less artificial look. A cropped, less tall version with the right eye centered would be quite handsome and less staged-looking. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer the current, representing the subject at the high point of her career. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- But it doesn't represent her at the high point of her career, no photo can do that. It just represents a rather artificially posed grimace that is quite unflattering. I think we should use the most natural looking relatively image. The one I have suggested is only four years old and presents her in a genuine light. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are you talking about File:Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg? Whichever, way, I think you are quite confused. The current is verifiably the official Secretary of State portrait, and it is more flattering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- But it doesn't represent her at the high point of her career, no photo can do that. It just represents a rather artificially posed grimace that is quite unflattering. I think we should use the most natural looking relatively image. The one I have suggested is only four years old and presents her in a genuine light. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- The above image I used isn't a pose. Look at the link on its commons page, you'll see I've cropped it. It is actually a candid shot. Spartan7W § 05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Additional Comment (I !voted above): Neither image is particularly flattering. The recent one is pretty terrible and much more unflattering (not that she's older or heavier -- really who cares? -- but that she looks like she's been hit by a stun gun) than the official portrait. In light of that fact, the official portrait wins, unless a better image is put forth. In terms of the 2011 shot someone just posted above -- it's not facing forward, and it would need to be cropped top and right to center the image. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - As stated on my talk page, political figures are not pop culture icons; with their bios, we should aim for more of an air of professionalism rather than "Where Are They Now?" images. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer the photo proposed by Spartan7W as being most current and least WP:PROMOTIONAL. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't a where are they now as Tarc would suggest. If this were such an attempt by me, I would update every out of office politician with new pictures, I don't. Right now, I want to help build an encyclopedia which thoroughly and efficiently covers the U.S. presidential elections, and U.S. government, and do so in a uniform, standardized way. So no for Bill Clinton, Bush 43, etc. But in this case, she is out of office, yes. But she is actively campaigning for a very high public office. Perhaps my word choice wasn't everybody's favorite, but she does look different than she did in 2009, 6 almost 7 years ago. People will look her up on this site to read about her, they'll hear about her on the news and look her up. She isn't a past or current officeholder, she is one seeking an office. They go to secretary of state, they'll see her portrait. If she wins, we'll put up a new portrait from the White House. If she loses, we can revert to the state dept., her highest and last office. Spartan7W § 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I do not agree with the potential assertion by DD2K that presenting a current picture that presents a person as "
old and fat
". Neither do I agree with the view of Medeis that the earlier picture presents an "artificially posed grimace
". I think that it is possible for a picture of a person later in years to show dignity, states(wo)manship and experience. I also think that readers coming to the article right now will likely be doing so in regard to the developing of understandings of a presidential candidate and not of just a former Senator and Secretary of State. I also dispute reference to high point in career and think that her being in a serious contender for the top job in the U.S. and the potential of being the countries first woman president is pretty significant. Personally I think that there are merits in both options but favour the use of well presented current picture. GregKaye 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)- Greg, that was not Dave Dial's assertion, potential or otherwise. He was responding to Spartan7W's perhaps unintentional, but nonetheless offensive comment(which he's walked back a bit) bringing age and weight into the conversation. (Also, note that she was "a serious contender for the top job in the U.S." in 2007/8 too.) Tvoz/talk 19:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- To say that it is possible for a portrait in their old age to be dignified is not to say that these portraits are dignified--and I thing the hit with a stun gun comment gets it smack on the head. I did say when I proposed it that the candid 3/4 profile picture would need to be cropped, but I don't have the time to go through our cumbersome upload process to do that myself unless people support the idea. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you are going to say 'hit with a stun gun', then I would say the State Dept. picture is equally 'tasered'. If you go on YouTube, look up Hillary's campaigning in Iowa, you'll see this is a candid shot, this is how she smiles. She smiles like this in most pictures. I think Greg has it right in the proper line. More people still visit Bill Clinton's article than hers; those who come here are largely doing so, for she is a prominent candidate for President. As to Dave Dial's comment, no it wasn't offensive, it was a fact. If we changed Chris Christie's to reflect his weigh loss, nobody would object. Spartan7W § 20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bill's article having a larger viewership than Hillary's is not a problem we are trying to solve here, because it is not a problem. Consider these readership figures for last month: George H. W. Bush 163,000; George W. Bush 222,000; Jeb Bush 123,000. A one-term president who has been out of office for almost a quarter of a century gets more views than a lead-pack presidential candidate who's in the news on a regular basis. That's the readership power of actually having held the office. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you are going to say 'hit with a stun gun', then I would say the State Dept. picture is equally 'tasered'. If you go on YouTube, look up Hillary's campaigning in Iowa, you'll see this is a candid shot, this is how she smiles. She smiles like this in most pictures. I think Greg has it right in the proper line. More people still visit Bill Clinton's article than hers; those who come here are largely doing so, for she is a prominent candidate for President. As to Dave Dial's comment, no it wasn't offensive, it was a fact. If we changed Chris Christie's to reflect his weigh loss, nobody would object. Spartan7W § 20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Moratorium on HC/HRC pagemoves until after November 8, 2016?
Should we impose a moratorium on page moves on Hillary Clinton during the 2015-2016 campaign season? BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I was one editor who opposed the move just discussed and closed, but as a longtime Wikipedian I'm concerned about the fallout if we try to remeasure consensus on this issue during the campaign season. I'd like to see what support we could muster to oppose any page moves on this subject until after the US presidential election in 2016. This proposed moratorium is not intended to impede moves related to bringing subpages and related pages in line with the most recent measurement of consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Additional comment: This request is not intended to short circuit any move review procedure, if editors who strongly disagree with the close decide to pursue such avenues. For my part I'm satisfied with the close, though my position is at odds with the outcome. My only interest is in preventing another contentious move discussion while the subject is actually running for office. I'm afraid such a (likely highly politicized) discussion could hurt Wikipedia's reputation, such as it is, of being a good place to get neutral encyclopedic information. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support as explained above. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. As things stand now, it seems like a page move is extremely unlikely given that only a minority has supported such a move during the two major efforts over the past year and a half. However, circumstances can change. Hillary might announce that she wants everyone to only call her Hillary Rodham Clinton, or just Hillary, and the press might oblige. There's no way to predict. A better moratorium might be on any page move without at least 150 !votes before 2017.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- On principle I oppose any moratorium running for longer than a year, because there is no telling what could happen in that time. I would definitely support the same restriction imposed after the previous move discussion, with any new move proposal having a substantial minimum length, to prevent fly-by requests made without a presentation of evidence. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Moot - As I have noted in the past, this was an issue of interest to a handful of vocal editors who are primarily involved in article move discussions across a variety of topics; RMs are their wiki-raison d'être, and no doubt have Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (which will, ironically, retain "Rodham" for all-time) out to the printers, being fitted for a frame above the mantelpiece. Those who are here because of their interest in politics and in improving Clinton-centric articles...while I certainly do not profess to literally speak for anyone else, I surmise that there's a the general sentiment of "we'll be glad to see their taillights". Tarc (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support was Comment any reason the Feb 2017 moratorium ( with the length requirements ) would not still be in place? PaleAqua (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion is that ANY extended discussion of the subject article name during the campaign season makes all wikipedians look like tools, and Wikipedia look (and act) like a political forum. This is one of the reasons I opposed the latest move request. The current moratorium didn't stop MOS activists from changing a pagename which had held steady for over ten years. To me, someone who rarely edits in the field of politics, it looked pointy. Most MOS "crusades" look pointy to me. But I'm over the move; my arguments didn't prevail. In the near future I'd prefer no herky-jerky motion on this pagespace with the whole world watching over our shoulders. BusterD (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like it had an escape clause which ended it with any successful close. In that case support, though I'd rather have Nov 8, 2016 for any RM without a strong exceptional reason and reinstating the 5000 min til Feb 2017. While I can understand those disliking on moratoriums in principall, I think there are a place for them especially if cases where the issue is relatively minor ( this article is easily found for example regardless of the name ) and the discussions have been disportionate. FWIW I actually slightly prefer HRC as I meantioned in previous discussions, even though I did not take part in the latest one. PaleAqua (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose moratorium. I'm a supporter of the current title (HC), but I oppose moratoriums on principle [1] - they are contrary to the spirit of WP. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support as a matter of common sense. There are other things to do people.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose moratorium but support the trouting of anyone who suggests a move in the near future. It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found, unless she divorces Bill and marries someone else and changes her name again, or if she makes such a big fuss in the near future about wanting to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton that it gets a media firestorm. Moratoriums are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, but anyone proposing a move in the foreseeable future should be stuffed in a bag and thrown in the river. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- "It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found,..." Exactly what I have been arguing for years. Strong policy arguments to move from HRC to HC; zero policy basis to move from HC back to HRC. That is the point of the yogurt principle and why it applied her. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- B2C, if there is never another attempt to move this article, I think the primary reason will be that no one wants to hear you prattle on about yogurt again. Ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can picture in my mind a Morgan Freeman voiceover... "somewhere, right now in the vastness of the Wikipedia, someone is striving for centre as the right choice for an article title, while others yearn for center. Is there a man with the courage to stop this madness?" Tarc (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- B2C, if there is never another attempt to move this article, I think the primary reason will be that no one wants to hear you prattle on about yogurt again. Ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- "It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found,..." Exactly what I have been arguing for years. Strong policy arguments to move from HRC to HC; zero policy basis to move from HC back to HRC. That is the point of the yogurt principle and why it applied her. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. The grinding has been coming from the +HC camp. If the +HRC camp starts a series of RMs in a grinding war of attrition, then we can consider it. A moratorium would needlessly tie our hands if real world circumstances change significantly or if there is a relevant policy change. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support except for the circumstance in which she suddenly started making predominant use of Hillary Rodham Clinton making a move request any time soon would just be a huge waste of time. All the same arguments would be used and the same result would most likely be achieved. We can't jut have moves back and forth for no reason. If circumstances change then fair enough. Otherwise please no. GregKaye 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per bd2412. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- December 2016 - February 2017 will be a good time to re-examine this page move, when the current campaign is all but forgotten. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, no because some not-yet-in-existence article about her might be created at an incorrect title and we don't need a broad rule saying it can't be moved. Certainly, though, this particular article and other major ones shouldn't be moved. --B (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support but think the moratorium should be until January 2017. I opposed this move, but (unlike some people when the result goes against them) I accept the decision by the administrators and move on. However, there could be policy-based reasons to move this article back to Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 2017, if she should be elected President, and if she chooses to take office as "President Hillary Rodham Clinton". I'm saying January 2017 rather than November 2016 because until a president takes office, we do not know what name they will use for their administration, or how they choose to be known to history. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused - why does it matter what name she uses to take the oath of office? Bill Clinton took the oath of office as "William Jefferson Clinton". George W. Bush took it as "George Walker Bush". I would assume that basically everyone takes it with their full name, not their Wikipedia article name. If Hillary is elected, she will most certainly take it as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", since that is her full legal name. If Rand Paul is elected, he will take it as "Randal Howard Paul". If Jeb Bush is elected, he will take it as "John Ellis Bush". --B (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. We never go with a name that is merely the "oath of office" name. This can be seen not only from the last seven straight presidential oaths of office, but also from the vice-presidential oaths, and from examples in other countries (see, e.g., introduction of "Margaret Hilda Thatcher" into the House of Lords). bd2412 T 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Funny. I don't see the word "oath" anywhere in Melanie's explanation. Dave Dial (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. No, I am not talking about the words she recites in her oath of office; that's irrelevant. I am talking about the name of her administration - the name the White House uses, during her administration and for posterity. As listed here, where you see "Barack Obama", "George W. Bush", "William Howard Taft" - this is the form of their name that the president is known by, during their time in office and for history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Umm ... that link lists Bill Clinton as "William J. Clinton". In fact, most 20th century presidents are listed with a middle initial there, but very few of their Wikipedia articles give them that middle initial. I'm not sure that this list is of any importance. The reason for moving the article title was to use her most common name and unless/until that changes, no move discussion should be successful. --B (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the majority of 20th century politicians (13 out of 17) ARE titled at Wikipedia exactly as on this list. The exceptions are Gerald R. Ford (our article omits the R.), Richard M. Nixon (our article omits the M.), James Carter (which NOBODY ever called him - even the White House's own linked biography calls him Jimmy), and William J. Clinton (where again, the White House's linked biography calls him Bill). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I object to the "unlike some people when the result goes against them" - Note that last year, when the decision went against us (i.e. the supporters of the move), many of us supported a similar 1 year moratorium on moving. And, we actually waited out the year before asking again.
- Actually the majority of 20th century politicians (13 out of 17) ARE titled at Wikipedia exactly as on this list. The exceptions are Gerald R. Ford (our article omits the R.), Richard M. Nixon (our article omits the M.), James Carter (which NOBODY ever called him - even the White House's own linked biography calls him Jimmy), and William J. Clinton (where again, the White House's linked biography calls him Bill). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Umm ... that link lists Bill Clinton as "William J. Clinton". In fact, most 20th century presidents are listed with a middle initial there, but very few of their Wikipedia articles give them that middle initial. I'm not sure that this list is of any importance. The reason for moving the article title was to use her most common name and unless/until that changes, no move discussion should be successful. --B (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. No, I am not talking about the words she recites in her oath of office; that's irrelevant. I am talking about the name of her administration - the name the White House uses, during her administration and for posterity. As listed here, where you see "Barack Obama", "George W. Bush", "William Howard Taft" - this is the form of their name that the president is known by, during their time in office and for history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't tar us all with the same brush Mel. It's not in the spirit of WP:AGF. We're not all sexist, bigoted, whining sore-losers. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I said "some", not "all". You realize I didn't mean you. I'm sure you also realize there were some people who did NOT quietly accept the decision. As for "sexist, bigoted, whining sore-losers" - your words, not mine. I don't talk that way and I don't think that way. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't tar us all with the same brush Mel. It's not in the spirit of WP:AGF. We're not all sexist, bigoted, whining sore-losers. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused - why does it matter what name she uses to take the oath of office? Bill Clinton took the oath of office as "William Jefferson Clinton". George W. Bush took it as "George Walker Bush". I would assume that basically everyone takes it with their full name, not their Wikipedia article name. If Hillary is elected, she will most certainly take it as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", since that is her full legal name. If Rand Paul is elected, he will take it as "Randal Howard Paul". If Jeb Bush is elected, he will take it as "John Ellis Bush". --B (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't "some" a weasel word? ;-)
- The serious point there is that saying "Some of the people supporting position X were acting poorly" sorta tars everyone supporting position X. You know Mel, some of the folks opposing the move weren't doing so for the most savory reasons. Some of those folks were thinking and talking the way mentioned above.
- Regardless, it's going to be interesting to see if this debate does get recycled later. If it does, I hope you're there to debate it with MelanieN. NickCT (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - We just had a moratorium on this article, and boom, look what happened. In fact I would be interested in participating if there is a new move request even though I support the current name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Section break
- Support minimum one year moratorium/until the end of active candidacy whichever is the later In general I'm against pre-emptive moratoriums and feel RM restrictions should only be applied when an article has actually been subject to repeated move requests within a few months and usually involving the same users renominating the same options - see Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move 17 March 2015 for one I set recently. Given the RMs have come from astonishment the article was not at the most common name it seemed as though the move itself would reduce the prospect of this.
However the announcement below that a new RM is being prepared just two weeks after a big one closed with actual consensus shows that we're clearly into such territory. This is clearly disruptive and it seems we need restrictions in place. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
An enlisting of Hillary?
I will be interested to see how, if at all, the Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton page move may effect the frequency with which readers visit the page.
The HC/HRC page I think has had a real problem as far as Google and possibly other searches are concerned and, in very many versions of Google, the HC/HRC page doesn't get listed at all. In various geographic locations and when making use of various top level domains within which a google.??? search may be conducted, a Hillary Clinton listing may not individually appear at all. In many cases a search on "Clinton" will give Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page as a first item on the search list and present Hillary as a subsidiary link within the BC listing. It appears as:
Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Wikipedia
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United ...
Hillary Clinton - Chelsea Clinton - Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Roger Clinton, Jr.
I think that the reason for this is that when people searched for "Hillary Clinton", Google did not make a most direct link to a "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article. Normally a Wikipedia article comes at the highest ranking point in any google listing. This has not been the case with HRC and it may be hoped that this may change subsequent to the move to HC.
The thing that I found perplexing was that, even though Hillary is far more prominently featured in the news certainly since she stood for election, Bill's article still gets more visits. Currently at the top 5000 articles by visits as found at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages Bill's article ranks at 700 while Hillary Rodham Clinton article ranks at 1041. I think (hope) that the lowly ratings may have been due to the Hillary Rodham Clinton not being as searchable as it might be.
I don't know exactly how it might happen but my hope is that the recent page move may help Hillary's Wikipedia article to get out of the Google shadow of Bill's Wikipedia article. GregKaye 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, interestingly enough, some of this might possibly have to do with WP:RECENTISM actually working in the real world--even though HC is way more prominent in the news, her actual accomplishments are far less than those of her hubby's (until/unless she becomes president, of course). So maybe that has something to do with it. But I think the more likely example is a commercial one. Look at Google search results for, say, Santa Monica beach and Wikipedia doesn't appear anywhere near the top, since there are different organizations fighting tooth and nail against us and against each other to boost the ranking of their website. Put in Fresno and we're second, because there's less competition to beef up rankings for that city. (Interestingly, though, a search for Hillary Clinton puts her second for me behind the campaign website and news results, and the old HRC search put her first, with no news results. ... which is probably why we moved the article.) Red Slash 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- People searching for "Clinton" should get Bill before Hillary. He was a two-term President of the United States, and in the calculus of these things, being POTUS outweighs almost anything else. Just like people searching for "Bush" should get either GWB or GHWB before they get Jeb. Anyway, I suspect most people searching for this subject will type in "Hillary" in which case they will get her, regardless of the article title. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since Google indexes by web page content, the title has very little to do with Google finding it. If we named this article GavertiyGlub it would not affect where Google lists it in the results for "Hillary Clinton" searches. I just searched for Hillary Clinton and our article was listed second (not counting the paid link at the top to her campaign page, and the news section), however it still linked to the HRC url. It will be interesting to see when that will change to the HC url. Shouldn't take too long. --В²C ☎ 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting point about the page view stats. Perhaps we'll have something to comment on about this at some point at the WP:TOP25. While the most popular articles any week will include recent top news/culture events, there are always articles like United States and World War II and India in the weekly top 50. Recent U.S. presidents have a steady level of popularity, e.g., Ronald Reagan was 494 in the most recent top 5000 report and 452 the prior week, so that's probably its steady level of popularity range. The Hillary name change may be less easy to discern a difference on, compared to something more dramatic like Caitlyn Jenner.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Google trends presents some, I think, interesting comparisons between the Clintons with "Hillary Clinton" being used in ~50% more searches (on a ratio of 9:6) than "Bill Clinton" in the last year. GregKaye 06:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- The trend graph shows that interest in the Clintons and most prominently in Hillary was at a recent peak around the week April 12-18 2015. In a Revision as of 09:41, 19 April 2015 of the West.andrew.g page the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article was ranked at 22 while the "Bill Clinton" article was ranked at 69.
- The Hillary Clinton article receives links from 5000(+a little) Wikipedia pages while the "Bill Clinton" article receives links from ~13600 Wikipedia pages.
- None the less I think that the Googly Bill issue has a lot to do with current levels of reader access to the Hillary page.
- I did a Google trends search on Caitlyn Jenner,Bruce Jenner,Hillary Clinton as the Caitlyn Jenner page has been viewed 739271 times in the last 30 days and is ranked fifth while the current redirect page Bruce Jenner has been viewed 1108421 times in the last 30 days and is ranked third. The Caitlyn Jenner page in comparison only receives ~800 links from other Wikipedia pages and yet is seemingly one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages.
- Bill Clinton has been viewed 215579 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 701 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. (time frame for second sentence not specified).
- Hillary Rodham Clinton has been viewed 154972 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 1996 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
- Hillary Clinton has been viewed 17552 times in the last 30 days.
- I personally think that Hillary is suffering from the fact that an early decision was taken to back Bill's political career. The effect now is that, even when she personally stands for election, she is still electronically regarded, in some ways, as and accessory of Bill's. Hillary currently has higher profile but, unless a news search is undertaken, you would never guess it. Now there is a case of systemic bias for you.
- GregKaye 07:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really a systemic bias. Outside the U.S., Hillary is still a non-entity/non-event, whereas Bill has been globally active and globally in the news -- unceasing in his good works, foundations, and support of other foundations -- and has been a household word around the world, since 1992. Hillary hasn't, and that was shown repeatedly by non-American participants in the move request. It also has nothing to do with supporting Bill's presidency -- that doesn't and didn't register outside the U.S. All of that said, hopefully the article-name change will help, but really American elections are not the global be-all and end-all that Americans think they are, unless there is the possibility of a radical change as there was from G. W. Bush to possibly a black Democrat. Lastly, one problem that Google seems to have is that Wikipedia articles seem to come up higher if the exact parameter (in this case, "hillary clinton") occurs in the first sentence of the article, which it still doesn't in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- And Bill is, I think, internationally renowned for having being a relatively great president. In the current situation this is in some ways an unfortunate situation for Hillary as, despite being sought for, her reference in Wikipedia is not separately listed. I will certainly find it of interest to see when if at all Hillary becomes separately listed. I think that this eventuality may face a challenge related to a potential closed loop. Google listings do not give Hillary's article prominence even, I believe, in U.S. .com searches (coming second to news). As a result of this and being placed as a sub link to Bill in other parts of the world, this may mean that Hillary's article gets less traffic than it might. Getting less traffic would mean that Hillary's article is less likely to be given prominent presentation in Google listings and the circle continues. Given what I take to be an unfortunate situation I think that it might be fair to give Hillary's article something like featured article status on the main page. GregKaye 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really a systemic bias. Outside the U.S., Hillary is still a non-entity/non-event, whereas Bill has been globally active and globally in the news -- unceasing in his good works, foundations, and support of other foundations -- and has been a household word around the world, since 1992. Hillary hasn't, and that was shown repeatedly by non-American participants in the move request. It also has nothing to do with supporting Bill's presidency -- that doesn't and didn't register outside the U.S. All of that said, hopefully the article-name change will help, but really American elections are not the global be-all and end-all that Americans think they are, unless there is the possibility of a radical change as there was from G. W. Bush to possibly a black Democrat. Lastly, one problem that Google seems to have is that Wikipedia articles seem to come up higher if the exact parameter (in this case, "hillary clinton") occurs in the first sentence of the article, which it still doesn't in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
First sentence
The first sentence currently reads:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ ; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
I propose to drop the /ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ as I don't particularly see a difficulty in pronunciation and perhaps that we could present:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
I think that some clarification between middle name and birth family name may be instructive. We are also presenting the name "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" which has been used elsewhere but which may be an unsubstantiated amalgamation between "Hillary Diane Rodham" (birth name) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (name used in role as author and as secretary of state and in signatures).
GregKaye 15:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support dropping the thing following her name (comes near to incompreheensible and clutters up the lead). How about dropping the 'Diane' (not every page uses a middle name, or do they, is that some kind of policy too?) and leaving the first mention as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. These changes would look clean, share another form of her name which itself is nearly a common name, and fix some of the current controversy. Randy Kryn 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- All BLPs do that, even those where the article title is a nickname, e.g. Slash (musician) is introduced as Saul Hudson. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The recent RfC closed with the decision to change the title from HRC to HC. Was the RfC about changing the title of the article? Or did it discuss renaming the person herself as well. I thought it was just about the article title, and the thrust of the main argument in favour of the move was based on WP:AT.
Presently, a number of editors are edit-warring on this BLP to force controversial changes into it, in violation of WP:BLP, which is policy, and WP:BRD, which is sound advice. Please don't try to bully your POV into this BLP if others disagree with your bold change. It is best to engage in civil discussion on the talk page.
One of the edit-warriers, User:Calidum, said in one of his edit summaries, "Template says to use common name, which we just established is Hillary Clinton. stop wikilawyering." Calidum, would you please point me to the documentation you're referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Fully protected one day to allow for discussion. Note that edit summaries don't count as discussion. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Neil. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Image is sourced to [2]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- So what? State.gov captions the images of Colin Powell as Colin Luther Powell[3], but that's not how we caption his image on his WP page. So that's no basis to use "Rodham" in the caption for her photo. You're really reaching. --В²C ☎ 17:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, it's a very good basis - it is true to the source . . . and do you still not understand that Rodham is not her middle name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- This, as far as I can see, is pointless. The previous version was clean and sharp presenting "
Clinton in 2009
". Now, after the title and infobox both present "Hillary Clinton
" and the lead presents "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
", your caption is inexplicably edited to a third presentation as "Hillary Rodham Clinton
". There seems to be no rhyme or reason for this and in my revert I commented on the WP:POINTy edit. It doesn't help the article. A full explanation of name usage is appropriately provided in the relevant section on biographical history which is well presented. Before this point we can't inexplicably just jump around with name usage. Content needs to be sensibly presented. I cannot believe that you do not realise that we all here understand here that Rodman is not Hillary's middle name and you should strike your "do you still not understand .." slur. GregKaye 17:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)- It's her name, Greg. The one she has expressly chosen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're incorrect Greg. Your aesthetic argument is ridiculous as the infobox style guide says you may use various names in the infobox including what it calls "full name" and it's absurd to claim "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not the subject's name - it is also very well known -- in fact you had better know it [4] - and readers are not morons, as you seem to suggest - they know everyone, like themselves, has various appellations. The name is also sourced by the image it captions - and we are to reflect the source -- especially in a BLP. (Finally, you need to retract your "slur", "slur" as the question, not a slur, was asked because the person being questioned had just referenced someone's middle name, "Luther") Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker in the context of you addressing an editor who you know to have been very connected to this topic your question (with no question mark) was, within this context, very far from WP:CIVIL. Please, Please desist fro WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. If you have a point to make then make it. GregKaye 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing BATTLEGROUND, nor un-CIVIL about it. It would be good, if you would stop making baseless claims because that's uncivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker in the context of you addressing an editor who you know to have been very connected to this topic your question (with no question mark) was, within this context, very far from WP:CIVIL. Please, Please desist fro WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. If you have a point to make then make it. GregKaye 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- This argument was rejected in the context of deciding the title. I see no reason why it should be accepted in the context of deciding what name to put on the info box. In every article I can recall (there may be exceptions), the info box name matches the title, except for disambiguation, if any. Unless there is good reason for the infobox name to not match the title, they should match. --В²C ☎ 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Name to put in the infobox? That's not even what we are discussing. There is, however, a sourced picture we use in the infobox and all information must be directly sourced in a BLP -- we are talking about a sourced caption for that image, just as lower down in the infobox we have also have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - WP:Article Title has absolutely has no relevance here, and that discussion certainly did not cover image captions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it is an absurd and baseless interpretation of BLP policy to require matching the caption of a photo to the caption used by the source. --В²C ☎ 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- But of course BLP is at least relevant policy, whereas AT, the policy you rely on is not relevant at all. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is what is sourced for the image and whether you want to discuss it in terms of WP:V; WP:NOR; WP:NPOV or WP:BLP they all say follow the source directly. Alanscottwalker (talk)
- BLP is relevant, but not with respect to this particular question. Notably absent from your argument is anything any policy says supporting your view that the image caption should match the caption at the source. In the mean time, almost every BLP article on WP captions the photo of the BLP subject with the BLP article title without regard to what the caption at the source of the image says. For example, the portrait we use of Joe Biden is captioned at the source as "V011013DL-0556"[5]. Are we required to use that caption in our article? Absurd. I call WP:COMMON sense. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your the one with no policy, the policies I have quoted all say follow the source directly. And your irrelevant other stuff exists arguemnt shows you have no reason, nor common sense either - the image we are taking about is sourced to Hillary Rodham Clinton, not some numbers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking. I'm done with this inane discussion. --В²C ☎ 06:21, 13 June 2015
- Good. Then leave the article alone, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking. I'm done with this inane discussion. --В²C ☎ 06:21, 13 June 2015
- Your the one with no policy, the policies I have quoted all say follow the source directly. And your irrelevant other stuff exists arguemnt shows you have no reason, nor common sense either - the image we are taking about is sourced to Hillary Rodham Clinton, not some numbers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- BLP is relevant, but not with respect to this particular question. Notably absent from your argument is anything any policy says supporting your view that the image caption should match the caption at the source. In the mean time, almost every BLP article on WP captions the photo of the BLP subject with the BLP article title without regard to what the caption at the source of the image says. For example, the portrait we use of Joe Biden is captioned at the source as "V011013DL-0556"[5]. Are we required to use that caption in our article? Absurd. I call WP:COMMON sense. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- But of course BLP is at least relevant policy, whereas AT, the policy you rely on is not relevant at all. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is what is sourced for the image and whether you want to discuss it in terms of WP:V; WP:NOR; WP:NPOV or WP:BLP they all say follow the source directly. Alanscottwalker (talk)
- I'm sorry, but it is an absurd and baseless interpretation of BLP policy to require matching the caption of a photo to the caption used by the source. --В²C ☎ 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Name to put in the infobox? That's not even what we are discussing. There is, however, a sourced picture we use in the infobox and all information must be directly sourced in a BLP -- we are talking about a sourced caption for that image, just as lower down in the infobox we have also have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - WP:Article Title has absolutely has no relevance here, and that discussion certainly did not cover image captions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're incorrect Greg. Your aesthetic argument is ridiculous as the infobox style guide says you may use various names in the infobox including what it calls "full name" and it's absurd to claim "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not the subject's name - it is also very well known -- in fact you had better know it [4] - and readers are not morons, as you seem to suggest - they know everyone, like themselves, has various appellations. The name is also sourced by the image it captions - and we are to reflect the source -- especially in a BLP. (Finally, you need to retract your "slur", "slur" as the question, not a slur, was asked because the person being questioned had just referenced someone's middle name, "Luther") Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's her name, Greg. The one she has expressly chosen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- This, as far as I can see, is pointless. The previous version was clean and sharp presenting "
- Of course, it's a very good basis - it is true to the source . . . and do you still not understand that Rodham is not her middle name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. I've just looked at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters which says the "name" parameter should be the common name (defaults to article title when left blank). So I'm OK with that part of your change, В²C. Please don't try to force a change of image captions without checking with your collaborators here first. --Anthonyhcole (talk · (UTC) contribs · email) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that! I don't see why the decision process for the image caption should be any different than it is for the infobox name and the article title. Do we really need to formalize that too? --В²C ☎ 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- On the image caption, in the past there's either been no caption or "Clinton in 2009". The former is okay if you think the image is self-explanatory. The latter is appropriate if you think the image should be dated. The formulation that was used is the most succinct and avoids textual clutter in an area where you don't want it and is thus preferable to any form that uses more of her name. So the whole name debate really shouldn't come into play here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the anti-Rodham folks some want to eradicate as many mentions of "Rodham" as part of Hillary Clinton's full name as they can, seeking them out and poking at them.This is a photo identification. Photo captions allow for more information. There are plenty of infobox captions which give a lot more information than contained in their topics' title. There is nothing wrong with it. Why the passion on this, in removing a woman's maiden name from as many places as it can be found. This is an infobox caption, let it be. Randy Kryn 1:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)- Please Randy Kryn would you characterise the entire Hillary Clinton campaign team as being "anti-Rodham" folks. Please consider potential use of polarising language. Who are you referring to as "anti-Rodham folks"? Give names and specify or please drop use of such terminologies. GregKaye 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks GregKaye for pointing that out, when I reread the line you refer to it sounded much harsher than how I meant it. At the time it seemed to me that trying to remove her family name in the caption and template was overkill, and I said it poorly. Randy Kryn 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please Randy Kryn would you characterise the entire Hillary Clinton campaign team as being "anti-Rodham" folks. Please consider potential use of polarising language. Who are you referring to as "anti-Rodham folks"? Give names and specify or please drop use of such terminologies. GregKaye 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- There was absolutely nothing in that protracted move discussion or decision that suggested that Rodham should be removed from anywhere other than the title of this article. These attempts here and elsewhere to scrub it from any mention other than as an historic point of her so-called "maiden" name, is not justified. Tvoz/talk 02:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the title RfC was about the title, and the result of that title debate is not an imprimatur to change the woman's name anywhere else in the article. As with all changes not mandated by policy or already supported by clear consensus, get consensus for controversial changes, don't bully. As for the infobox image caption in this article, I defer to Wasted Time R. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- On the image caption, in the past there's either been no caption or "Clinton in 2009". The former is okay if you think the image is self-explanatory. The latter is appropriate if you think the image should be dated. The formulation that was used is the most succinct and avoids textual clutter in an area where you don't want it and is thus preferable to any form that uses more of her name. So the whole name debate really shouldn't come into play here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think that it is important that we present name usage and that this can best be done within an explanatory context. Tvoz the current case is an unexplained addition to the article. I am unsure how to present the wording but perhaps in the lead we could present:
- Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and was a leading candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination to the 2008 presidential election and has announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
- And then present the name Hillary Rodham Clinton somehow in association with:
- She is a former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and author.
- ("and author" added)
- GregKaye 03:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest not falling for the endless cycle of wikilayering by [[User:Born2cycle and his 'crew'. There was no consensus for his changes, they should be reverted to the version that was prior to his changes. Period. And is he and his 'move request' crew continue to disrupt this article, the people who are sick of this bullshit should file an ArbCom case. There is more than enough evidence and plenty of diffs to show that Born2cycle and his merry band of disruptors have put an incredible time-sink into this project that are absolutely useless. Just take this page the Sarah Jane Brown page to start. He should be banned from all move requests for 18 months and any gender based BLP indefinitely. Same with his crew. Enough is enough. There has been too much time wasted on this bullshit. There was no consensus to SCRUB the article from mentioning 'Rodham'. Either move on, or editors should file a case. No more trying to reason with the freaking unreasonable. Dave Dial (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- Oh, stop with the drama already. The changes I made to this article are consistent with the kinds of changes that are typically made after any title change. See Caitlyn Jenner for a recent example. The reverts of the changes I made, and protestations here on this talk page, exemplify the kind of WP:Status quo stonewalling that causes so many people to get involved over such a long period to make trivial changes that are consistent with our polices and conventions. --В²C ☎ 06:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot present disjointed, incoherent content: An potentially appropriate and explanatory caption for the picture might be "
Hillary Rodham Clinton<br />whilst serving as [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] in 2009
".
- Dave Dial Please desist from and strike your WP:BATTLEGROUND content and your three offensive references to "
crew
". Similar and other comments could equally be made of other crews but are out of place here. If you have a relevant p and g based point to make then please make it directly. Taking a stand on policy issues is undertaken for the sake of building encyclopedic content. Accusations of Wikilawyering may similarly work in a variety of directions. This is not a free for all. We need to develop p and g based content. - I say "
potentially appropriate
" because, even during her time as secretary of state, she was most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". Unless we are to go down the route of WP:ADVOCATE, we have to present representational, coherent and encyclopedic stuff. GregKaye 06:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)- But that's what it already says. The text below her image right now says: "Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2009", next line, "67th United States Secretary of State" . Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The title says "
Hillary Clinton
"
- The text then presents full name, so as to follow the common trend of many biography type articles, as "
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
" - Then, and after an info box heading that again presents "
Hillary Clinton
", the next content has been changed, with no clear explanation, from presenting "Clinton
" to presenting "Hillary Rodham Clinton
". We need to present clearly understandable and coherent content. GregKaye 06:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)- It was changed to reflect the source, which was clearly explained. Indeed, it is perfectly coherent - any reader can see the names Hillary and Clinton are in Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton just as any reader can see the names Hillary and Clinton are in Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moreover Hillary and Rodham and Clinton are all in Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was one of the strongest supporters for retitling the page. However, I do not believe that this requires any change at all to the content of the article as it stood prior to the page move. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I also supported changing the title but didn't think doing so required changing the content. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I join the chorus. Support article name change, don't support removing Rodham from the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree but think that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" references need explanation. GregKaye 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:GregKaye, take a look at note 1, not to mention the several discussions in the article text. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is well-explained and always has been. Tvoz/talk 21:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
TY Tvoz, for some reason I didn't get your ping. Re the picture caption what do you think would be better:
- Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] as Secretary of State in 2009
- Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] in 2009
- Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] as Secretary of State
- Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State in 2009
- Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State
- or something else?
- I was also wondering whether the note ref would be best added somewhere like after the HDRC name in the first sentence. GregKaye 13:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- HRC as SoS in 2009. We don't need the footnote in the caption - this is not some kind of obscure reference that begs for explanation, and by adding the ref we would be implying that it is odd or unusual that her actual name is being used. This is not what the RM concluded, and it's enough already. Even people in favor of moving the article TITLE didn't insist that all mentions of Rodham be removed or explained. No one is confused. I'm glad to see they haven't tried to alter her signature too. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Political positions
The "political positions" section is a very high level summary of Political positions of Hillary Clinton. That approach seems okay to me, but the section has recently been tagged in an effort to obtain a more comprehensive summary. I think the current summary is compliant with policy, but perhaps it would help to replace the hatnote (which is a link to main) with a Seealso.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The value of "Political positions of X" articles is that they can explain positions and policy proposals in some depth and capture details and nuance and deal with complexity and evolution over time. Attempting to summarize entries from those in a small space tends to reduce such positions to quasi-meaningless sound bites ("X wants to secure the borders first before discussing immigration reform", "Y believes early education is vital to the nation's future", etc). Therefore to me the summary section in a politician BLP can benefit if it is approached from a different angle. There are a lot of metrics out there for measuring politicians on various absolute or relative ideological scales and that seems like a good way of handling the summary. There is nothing that says that a summary section has to mimic the same approach that a detail article takes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Opening sentence
The opening sentence currently reads:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Hillary Diane Rodham; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician.
Options potentially may include something along the lines of:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Rodham; born October 26, 1947, also known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) is an American politician.
Please note that there is no source to indicate that, while Name change#United States may be by usage, there has ever been a legally filed change from "Hillary Diane Rodham".
GregKaye 06:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- As reminded above, note 1 is dedicated to name usage and a [nb 1] link could potentially also be added to any of the name references above. I find it quite strange that there's been notable and continued name warring both on this and the article page yet, when suggestion is made regarding the fine details on how to present this much argued over information, no one comments. GregKaye 13:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Surname
"Rodham" isn't a middle name, it's part of her surname. I propose we replace instances of "Clinton did x and y" with "Rodham Clinton did x and y". It would look like this diff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not part of her surname either. Neither she nor anyone else uses it like that. It's "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, "Clinton" (or "Secretary Clinton" or "Senator Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton") on subsequent references. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wrong. "Rodham" is her maiden name, not part of her surname. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rodham was her surname. It was for a long time. Then at some point she adopted her husbands surname. A person can have different surnames at different times, and even at the same time, but there is no evidence that she ever used Rodham as a surname after adopting her husband's surname. The article covers the transition in a note. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- "ever used Rodham as a surname after adopting her husband's surname." You mean Rodham alone? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are some married women who do consider their married surname is "<maiden surname> <husband's surname>". If Mrs Clinton had done this, she would have made it very clear that she wants to be known as Mrs "Rodham Clinton", not just Mrs "Clinton". But she has never made any such statement. Effectively, "Rodham" has morphed into a middle name. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, she did say that actually in 1993. It's in the article. But I don't think this proposal is going anywhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would dearly like to move on from anything remotely having to do with the subject's name. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh come on, man. Put your back into it. Don't desert me now. I can taste victory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Google News hits for
- "Secretary Clinton": About 9,590 results
- "Secretary Rodham Clinton": 1 result
- "Senator Clinton": About 1,790 results
- "Senator Rodham Clinton": No results found for "Senator Rodham Clinton"
- Cheers! bd2412 T 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your reputation for party-pooping is deserved, then. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Anthony, I saw that you tried to insert "Rodham Clinton" into the article as if it was her surname. It was immediately, and correctly, reverted. She does not use a compound surname like this and never has. When she was single, and during the early years of her marriage, her surname was "Rodham". She then switched to using "Cliinton" as her surname. She retained her maiden name as a middle name, as many women do, and she likes to use all three names, as some people, men and women, choose to do. But her name is either "Clinton, Hillary" or "Clinton, Hillary Rodham". It is not, and never has been, "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your reputation for party-pooping is deserved, then. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Featured article
Featured articles are supposed, among other things, to be stable. Right now, this one is anything but. I think, with all the disagreement that's going on here, this needs to be kept in mind. We would not want it to be a former featured article. Omnedon (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Infobox header
The header of the infobox should read "Hillary Rodham Clinton", as it always has done. There has been no consensus to remove the "Rodham" from the infobox, regardless of the article. Are people going to erase "Rodham" from history? This is a nonsense, and totally out of line with reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it should; maybe it shouldn't. But there are thousands of readers of this article every day, so the status quo should remain until there is consensus to change it. Perhaps another RfC is needed.- MrX 21:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree per this comment [6]. We use the common name, which was just determined to be "Hillary Clinton." Let's move on folks and stop pretending the move request wasn't succesful. And by the way, opening a second thread when there was consensus for this exact change above at #Infobox_and_image_captions is forum shopping. Calidum T|C 04:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- No one is pretending any such thing. This is not about the article title. Omnedon (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are there examples where in a featured article for a person the infobox name doesn't match the article title? If not, then yes, people are using this as an end-run around that request. Calidum T|C 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- The article title has no relevance whatsoever. Her name does not change merely because the article title changes. Her common name in reliable sources is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Even if the article title is to be "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton" cannot be eliminated from the article. It is the name most often used for her in reliable sources, such as The New York Times. If the article were to make no mention of said name, it would be confusing and misleading to the reader. This is a form of WP:SOAP advocacy on the part of some users that want to change reality. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, Calidum -- this discussion does not affect the article title, and thus is not an "end-run around that request". It is a separate issue. Omnedon (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- And there are absolutely articles that don't follow this - it's in no way some kind of fundamental or any other kind of policy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and just about every other member of the British royal family. There are more examples, but I don't have the time or inclination to waste on this. Give it up - her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that will be even clearer to anyone who claims to have been confused when they landed here, after the election if she wins. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, Calidum -- this discussion does not affect the article title, and thus is not an "end-run around that request". It is a separate issue. Omnedon (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- The article title has no relevance whatsoever. Her name does not change merely because the article title changes. Her common name in reliable sources is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Even if the article title is to be "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton" cannot be eliminated from the article. It is the name most often used for her in reliable sources, such as The New York Times. If the article were to make no mention of said name, it would be confusing and misleading to the reader. This is a form of WP:SOAP advocacy on the part of some users that want to change reality. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are there examples where in a featured article for a person the infobox name doesn't match the article title? If not, then yes, people are using this as an end-run around that request. Calidum T|C 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- No one is pretending any such thing. This is not about the article title. Omnedon (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This was never discussed in the move request, and certainly was never agreed to. Her full name should be at the top of the infobox, just as her signature is as shown. Nor did we discuss the categories or the templates - this wholesale attempt to scrub "Rodham" is unjustified and way out of line with major, quality sources who always include Rodham up front. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox person#Parameters says to use the article title in Infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does? I don't see that in your link. Can you provide the wording and/or the guideline? Dave Dial (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does say to use the "common name." The lengthy RM discussion decided that "Hillary Clinton" is the subject's common name, so that should be the infobox header, especially since it matches the article title. Having separate titles for the infobox and article only causes confusion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back here sooner, DD2K, but Chasewc91 said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- [ec] What confusion? Do you really think people are so dumb that seeing Hillary Rodham Clinton will confuse them? Think they are on the wrong page? Worry that it's a mistake? For heaven's sake, give our readers more credit than that. And, as Dave Dial might say, is not our purpose here to educate? Rodham is not an ancient reference that she used 50 years ago - it's her name, her signature, and it is amply explained throughout the article. There may be a guideline that advises what to do in infoboxes, but in no way is this some kind of firm requirement, and you can see that is is ignored when editors decide to ignore it - like most things around here. Rodham is not just her birthname, or her middle name, obscure and only of interest to biographers (oh yeah, I thought that's what we are) - it is the name as she uses it, and if anything it's more confusing to leave it off than to include it prominently for when people encounter it elsewhere, as they will if they read most reliable sources, and come here for enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 23:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the 'confusion' claim is ridiculous. Does anybody think Chester A. Arthur was the 21st President of the U.S. but that the "Chester Alan Arthur" of the infobox header is somebody else? Does anybody get to the George S. Patton article and see the infobox header "George Smith Patton, Jr." and then wander off thinking they haven't found the famous general yet? Or go to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress article and see the "B-29 Superfortress" infobox header and become perplexed about who made the plane? And regarding this last example, note that pretty much all military aircraft articles have different article titles and infobox headers – it's spelled out in the instructions in WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) and Template:Infobox aircraft begin. There's no reason this article can't be different between the two also. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality doesn't tell anyone what keeping the header as something that is no longer Clinton's common name does to benefit the reader. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- It educates them, as I said. "No longer" her common name as decided by a group of Wikipedia editors doesn't make it no longer her name. The article is renamed for now, mistakenly in my opinion, but now some editors are trying to change reality citing confusion. Let it go already. (And don't go to any British royalty articles either, because you may be confused by the infobox headers that don't match the article titles.) Tvoz/talk 02:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- No one is disputing that her full name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. But if we as a community have decided to title her article simply as her most common name "Hillary Clinton," there is no reason for the infobox not to share this article title. The "education" point is nonsensical as the very first words of the article are her full name. Why are you so opposed to consistency? –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- It educates them, as I said. "No longer" her common name as decided by a group of Wikipedia editors doesn't make it no longer her name. The article is renamed for now, mistakenly in my opinion, but now some editors are trying to change reality citing confusion. Let it go already. (And don't go to any British royalty articles either, because you may be confused by the infobox headers that don't match the article titles.) Tvoz/talk 02:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality doesn't tell anyone what keeping the header as something that is no longer Clinton's common name does to benefit the reader. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the 'confusion' claim is ridiculous. Does anybody think Chester A. Arthur was the 21st President of the U.S. but that the "Chester Alan Arthur" of the infobox header is somebody else? Does anybody get to the George S. Patton article and see the infobox header "George Smith Patton, Jr." and then wander off thinking they haven't found the famous general yet? Or go to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress article and see the "B-29 Superfortress" infobox header and become perplexed about who made the plane? And regarding this last example, note that pretty much all military aircraft articles have different article titles and infobox headers – it's spelled out in the instructions in WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) and Template:Infobox aircraft begin. There's no reason this article can't be different between the two also. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- [ec] What confusion? Do you really think people are so dumb that seeing Hillary Rodham Clinton will confuse them? Think they are on the wrong page? Worry that it's a mistake? For heaven's sake, give our readers more credit than that. And, as Dave Dial might say, is not our purpose here to educate? Rodham is not an ancient reference that she used 50 years ago - it's her name, her signature, and it is amply explained throughout the article. There may be a guideline that advises what to do in infoboxes, but in no way is this some kind of firm requirement, and you can see that is is ignored when editors decide to ignore it - like most things around here. Rodham is not just her birthname, or her middle name, obscure and only of interest to biographers (oh yeah, I thought that's what we are) - it is the name as she uses it, and if anything it's more confusing to leave it off than to include it prominently for when people encounter it elsewhere, as they will if they read most reliable sources, and come here for enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 23:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back here sooner, DD2K, but Chasewc91 said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does say to use the "common name." The lengthy RM discussion decided that "Hillary Clinton" is the subject's common name, so that should be the infobox header, especially since it matches the article title. Having separate titles for the infobox and article only causes confusion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in that link are there instructions that the infobox must contain the article Title or even the 'common name'. It's just giving suggestions. There was no consensus to change the infobox, and in fact there were several move supporters who(when voting) claimed that nothing but the Title would be changed and the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the infobox would be left untouched. So once again, for people who wish to change the infobox image caption, and name, please gain consensus first. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Infobox header should match title, like for every other BLP on WP. There is no reason to make an exception in this case. The fact that the infobox used to say HRC simply reflects what the title was then. Do we really need an RFC for this? --В²C ☎ 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Chester A. Arthur. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. George S. Patton. Charles, Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Mary Todd Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hussein of Jordan. Benjamin Netanyahu. Many more, so "every other BLP on WP" is not true at all. And please spare me the definition of BLP being for living people - because that then begs the question how do they call themselves, these living people, and you probably don't want to go there on this particular article. Plain and simple, this is no pillar of Wikipedia, not firm policy, not followed everywhere at all, not a requirement. There is no reason to change this one. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no hard and fast rule that requires the infobox header to match the page title. Page titles are governed by WP:AT, which includes principles like conciseness and recognizability. No such strictures apply to infobox headers. It's fine as it is. bd2412 T 17:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412, there is no hard and fast rule because, as far as I know, nobody has ever challenged the common sense convention to simply reflect the title in the infobox. The desire by a few here to go against this convention for no apparent reason is the type of nonsense that causes us to have to create rules where none were ever needed before. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your language here is emblematic of a bigger problem: the inability of some editors (most notably you) to accept that reasonable people can disagree on subjects such as this. It is not "nonsense" to leave the infobox title as it is. Omnedon (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, the bigger problem is the clinging to positions that are not based on policies or conventions. It's one thing to have a disagreement where we have no guidance, but that's not the case here. Convention is quite clear on this point. --В²C ☎ 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no hard and fast rule that requires the infobox header to match the page title. Page titles are governed by WP:AT, which includes principles like conciseness and recognizability. No such strictures apply to infobox headers. It's fine as it is. bd2412 T 17:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any good reason why the infobox header shouldn't match the title of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- So as not to confuse the reader, of course. Given that the vast majority of RS use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", eliminating mention of that name in the article will cause readers to wonder whether this article is about the person that they've read about in The New York Times or the Brittanica. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, because "Hillary Clinton" is not a recognizable name at all. We just went through a lengthy discussion that determined her common name does not include Rodham. It's not like that fact is glossed over entirely. The first sentence of the article starts with "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" and there is a long footnote referenced multiple times in the article that addresses her name changes throughout her career. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see it as more confusing to have the page at "HC" and the infobox header say "HRC" than if they were uniform. To think that people will come upon this article and not be sure if it's about the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" they're looking for is ludicrous. You can't possibly believe what you typed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- So as not to confuse the reader, of course. Given that the vast majority of RS use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", eliminating mention of that name in the article will cause readers to wonder whether this article is about the person that they've read about in The New York Times or the Brittanica. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's really irrelevant. The "confusion" being mentioned here has to do with the inconsistency of having "Hillary Clinton" as the article title and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the infobox header. I'm pretty sure our readers are intelligent enough to figure out that HRC and HC are the same person. But I'm also pretty sure that the article in its present state will make our readers wonder why the title is one thing and the bold name on the side of the page is another. And there is no good reason to keep the infobox title as HRC. If there is, please enlighten me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is the most common form of her name, as found in reliable source and in common usage. Leaving it out is both a lie of omission and a confusion for the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your opinion that HRC "is the most common for of her name" is not supported by consensus. But thanks for confirming that you're just re-arguing the RM. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which somehow involves yoghurt, I suppose. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. But now that you bring it up, even at Yogurt, after the title was changed, there was no objection to the corresponding change on the infobox[7]. --В²C ☎ 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are some editors serious, are we going to have a full discussion on this? Seems disruptive, as even some of the prominent editors arguing for the HC name change say that the infobox including the full title is fine. It's clear that there will not be a consensus to move the title on this one, so why put Wikipedia through it? Then again, why not. One of those things I guess. Randy Kryn 00:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's SOP to change the infobox heading when a title changes to reflect the title change. The objection to following this convention here is truly bizarre. Nobody has explained why this article should be an exception. Instead, the same arguments are put forth that were rejected by consensus regarding the title. Unbelievable. --В²C ☎ 01:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Are some editors serious, are we going to have a full discussion on this? Seems disruptive, as even some of the prominent editors arguing for the HC name change say that the infobox including the full title is fine. It's clear that there will not be a consensus to move the title on this one, so why put Wikipedia through it? Then again, why not. One of those things I guess. Randy Kryn 00:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. But now that you bring it up, even at Yogurt, after the title was changed, there was no objection to the corresponding change on the infobox[7]. --В²C ☎ 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which somehow involves yoghurt, I suppose. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your opinion that HRC "is the most common for of her name" is not supported by consensus. But thanks for confirming that you're just re-arguing the RM. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is the most common form of her name, as found in reliable source and in common usage. Leaving it out is both a lie of omission and a confusion for the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's really irrelevant. The "confusion" being mentioned here has to do with the inconsistency of having "Hillary Clinton" as the article title and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the infobox header. I'm pretty sure our readers are intelligent enough to figure out that HRC and HC are the same person. But I'm also pretty sure that the article in its present state will make our readers wonder why the title is one thing and the bold name on the side of the page is another. And there is no good reason to keep the infobox title as HRC. If there is, please enlighten me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Please, allow the infobox heading to match the article title. Any middle or maiden names are listed in the article intro. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I !voted to move the article, but we don't need to remove "Rodham" from the infobox. It's still part of her name, and it is not a "middle or maiden" name. Jonathunder (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Diane" is part of her name too. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton," if you want to get technical, is her full name. Rodham is a maiden name, but Clinton has opted to make it a part of her full name. Middle names and occasionally maiden names are part of people's names. But we just had a lengthy discussion that determined "Hillary Clinton" is the subject's most common, recognizable name, and the title of the article has been changed as a result. The infobox heading should follow suit. No one is going to be confused about not seeing HRC in the infobox header when HRC is in the first sentence of the article. What people are going to be confused about is why the heading is one thing and the title is another. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have not participated one iota in any of the reverts, and will support whatever infobox name/title will make the RM warriors unwatch this page and move on. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
So, I found one exception, sort of. The infobox at Sarah Jane Brown says Sarah Brown. But that's because Jane is only there in the title for the purpose of disambiguation; it's not part of her common name. In contrast, the infobox headings on John Stuart Mill, Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan match the respective titles, as is the case in every other BLP I can find. Except this one. I continue to contend that the clear convention is to use the title in the infobox, minus any disambiguation, and using HRC here when the title is HC is unprecedented and unsupported by policy or convention. --В²C ☎ 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I guess you missed my posts and WTR's above, seeing as you found "one exception". I'll re-post one for you. There are other examples as well.Tvoz/talk 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Chester A. Arthur. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. George S. Patton. Charles, Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Mary Todd Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hussein of Jordan. Benjamin Netanyahu. Many more, so "every other BLP on WP" is not true at all. And please spare me the definition of BLP being for living people - because that then begs the question how do they call themselves, these living people, and you probably don't want to go there on this particular article. Plain and simple, this is no pillar of Wikipedia, not firm policy, not followed everywhere at all, not a requirement. There is no reason to change this one. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would add to that every single disambiguated personal name where an infobox is involved. For example, John Smith (Labour Party leader). bd2412 T 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I acknowledged the disambiguation situations ("minus any disambiguation"). But still, despite certain exceptions (especially among royalty, apparently), the convention is to reflect the title in the info box. After most RMs the info box is updated as well. The existence of exceptions (oversights?) does not contradict this point. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest that most people are known almost exclusively by a single formulation of their name. We need to consider whether there is really a norm for people who have multiple commonly used formulations. bd2412 T 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that's a good point. Another way to put it is if a topic has two very common names, maybe use one for the title and the other for the info box heading. But I don't think that's common practice, not for articles in general, and not for BLPs in particular, though there are exceptions, as noted. --В²C ☎ 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what BLP has to do with this at all. It is not a false, unsourced, or offensive usage. bd2412 T 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to the acronym literally, not to the policy, in case you or anyone else felt the convention was different for articles about people, or living people, than for articles in general. This article is a BLP.
Anyway, changing the infobox heading from what it is now is obviously controversial, and per the lock requires a consensus to change it. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to the acronym literally, not to the policy, in case you or anyone else felt the convention was different for articles about people, or living people, than for articles in general. This article is a BLP.
- I don't see what BLP has to do with this at all. It is not a false, unsourced, or offensive usage. bd2412 T 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that's a good point. Another way to put it is if a topic has two very common names, maybe use one for the title and the other for the info box heading. But I don't think that's common practice, not for articles in general, and not for BLPs in particular, though there are exceptions, as noted. --В²C ☎ 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest that most people are known almost exclusively by a single formulation of their name. We need to consider whether there is really a norm for people who have multiple commonly used formulations. bd2412 T 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I acknowledged the disambiguation situations ("minus any disambiguation"). But still, despite certain exceptions (especially among royalty, apparently), the convention is to reflect the title in the info box. After most RMs the info box is updated as well. The existence of exceptions (oversights?) does not contradict this point. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would add to that every single disambiguated personal name where an infobox is involved. For example, John Smith (Labour Party leader). bd2412 T 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Chester A. Arthur. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. George S. Patton. Charles, Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Mary Todd Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hussein of Jordan. Benjamin Netanyahu. Many more, so "every other BLP on WP" is not true at all. And please spare me the definition of BLP being for living people - because that then begs the question how do they call themselves, these living people, and you probably don't want to go there on this particular article. Plain and simple, this is no pillar of Wikipedia, not firm policy, not followed everywhere at all, not a requirement. There is no reason to change this one. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Full protected due to edit warring
This article has been full protected for two weeks due to edit warring over the infobox. The above thread at ANI was cause for this admin action. Do not alter the article unless there is a very clear consensus to do so.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Preparing a new RM: Move to "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the clear evidence supporting the use of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I believe it is time to start preparing a new requested move. I will start compiling data here. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Unfuckingbelieveable. Hate to say I told you so to everyone, but "You've got that backwards. Within 5 minutes of being renamed, some new editor will come along, feel it's at the wrong title, and we'll be back here again with another 54 pages of "this tiny little difference means I win and you lose!" crap we have now. --Jayron32 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)". It was a bit longer than 5 minutes, but not much. --Jayron32 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no choice, dear fellow. I did not want to resort to this low behaviour. However, there seems to be no choice in the matter. Certain editors have taken to the war path, ignoring Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense. They attempt to eradicate the word "Rodham", as if said word were vulgar. The vast preponderance of evidence supports "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and always has done. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems that the closers of the discussion could not see beyond the masses of "votes" without adequate rationales based in policy and guidelines. This was a great damage to the encylopaedia, and must be remedied. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jayron, please remain civil. Omnedon (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would think that if the determination of the closers is in question, the proper course of action would be to file a move review, not to initiate a new process that assumes that the previous close was correct. In any case, please make sure to inform all past participants of any new discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, there is a choice. You can accept the consensus that was reached after a really long and in depth discussion decided upon by three uninvolved admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I smell WP:Point. This seems to be a response to the infobox war, to make the point that escalation will be the price for that war. I am not the least bit involved with the intobox war, but I don't think a requested move is an appropriate response. If it isn't put on ice, then I will propose moving the name of the encyclopedia from "Wikipedia" to "Warpedia". Take that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- You fellows never "accepted" consensus after numerous previous RMs, so you can hardly expect others to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to accept. Time after time the result of each effort was No consensus to move. That is not the same as consensus to not move. But the last RM resulted in a consensus to move. And thanks for confirming the WP:POINTiness of your post. You should recognize that consensus always favored HC as the title; the admins just did not recognize this (one non-admin closer did, but he was reversed in an RM review, by an admin). All the arguments about attempts to change the title from HRC to HC as being trivial and disruptive did not actually apply then (because consensus favored the move to HC), but ironically do apply now (because consensus favors leaving this article at HC). That's the point of the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, by the way. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- You fellows never "accepted" consensus after numerous previous RMs, so you can hardly expect others to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no choice, dear fellow. I did not want to resort to this low behaviour. However, there seems to be no choice in the matter. Certain editors have taken to the war path, ignoring Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense. They attempt to eradicate the word "Rodham", as if said word were vulgar. The vast preponderance of evidence supports "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and always has done. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems that the closers of the discussion could not see beyond the masses of "votes" without adequate rationales based in policy and guidelines. This was a great damage to the encylopaedia, and must be remedied. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I argued for the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I would/will again. But enough is enough. We should have no more discussions on this topic until January 2017, at which point there should definitely be a reconsideration, especially if she becomes President. In the meantime, please don't stoop to the level of the people who refused to accept the previous result and spent a month plotting how to challenge that three-admin-panel unanimous decision - and who have been gloating all over Wikipedia because they finally got their way, at least temporarily. This was also a three-closer panel, the panel made their decision; take the high road and accept it for now. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Tedious WP:POINT. And "the closers of the discussion could not see beyond the masses of "votes" without adequate rationales based in policy and guidelines." = move review not a not a new RM. DeCausa (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose a new RM, as we should wait atleast a year. At some point, one has to accept that things didn't go their way & gracefully move on. GoodDay (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I see only two possibilities that would warrant taking the community through a new WP:RM: [1] an IRL change, and/or [2] a change to WP policy (of course: in both cases a significant change that would be relevant in favour of a name change). Rehashing available existing evidence (whether proponents of the inclusion of the maiden name chose to use it at the last WP:RM or not) is not a sufficient reason for a new RM, and it is way too early for a WP:CCC.
- Here's a suggestion: work towards stability of the article content first (through reasonable discussion), so that the article doesn't need to be protected every few days or weeks: that at least sets the climate that imho is indispensable for a new RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - consensus has already been decided on this one. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but not one has any right to "oppose" the opening of an RM. There is no moratorium, and as such, an RM can and will be opened. The only correct title is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and that will be the title of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- FYI, I've brought this to ANI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#battleground behavior and general uncivility by RGloucester if you have any feelings on the matter. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Consensus was to have it
renamedmoved and Mr Gloucester will have to accept that like it or not. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus was to have it "NOT RENAMED" in years previous. Did that stop anyone from filing this RM? I'm very confused as to why that behaviour was tolerated by you, Mr Davey? I would respect a moratorium if there was one, but there isn't. It was proposed above and largely rejected. If you care to enact such a moratorium, I suggest you comment in the associated thread above. Furthermore, you may refer to me only as "Your Grace", "His Grace", or as the "Duke of Gloucester". I'm no mere common "mister". RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- DO NOT WANT - Just stop, please. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Given the distaste for the idea of a new requested move expressed even by those who favour that title, I will withdraw the declaration of preparations for a proposal. I intend to return in six months time. I am much obliged to all those who have responded. RGloucester — ☎ 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Waiting six months seems like a better idea than doing it two weeks after closure. We'll see how the consensus holds up then. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's the right thing to do. This has been a frustrating situation, and I can see where you're coming from. And I must note, especially to the various people who say that there was consensus to move, that there was no such consensus. The panel decided to move, but consensus clearly did not exist. But the article is where it is, and people can find it. Both HC and HRC are often used. The bigger problem, in my mind, is the complete mess that was this most recent RM. Omnedon (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Recommend you wait atleast a full year :) GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, RGloucester, I have no issue with you proposing it any time you want (I'm against moratoriums on principle - see my FAQ), if you have strong policy-based reasons for the move. Merely presenting "clear evidence supporting the use of [HRC]" won't cut it, by the way. There has never been an issue about that. What is needed to support a move based on WP:COMMONNAME is evidence that the proposed title is used more commonly than the current title, like what was presented time after time in the numerous proposals to move HRC to HC. It's always a subjective call, but HC always had CONCISE to tip the scales in its favor. HRC has nothing like that. But I could be wrong. If you or anyone else does manage to present a strong policy-based case for moving from HC to HRC, I, for one, would love to see it. However, community consensus is not with me on this, and seems to frown on new RMs soon after another one, especially if consensus was found in the previous one (note: in each of the HRC->HC cases, but the last one, the result was "no consensus", suggesting more discussion was needed to develop consensus; that is not the case now that consensus, for HC, has been found). --В²C ☎ 20:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Infobox heading survey
Please state whether you think the Infobox heading should say Hillary Clinton (HC) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and specify the reason why. Facts to consider:
- While the title was Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Infobox heading matched it accordingly.
- The recent RM achieved a consensus to change the title, though did not specifically address the Infobox heading (that's why we're having this survey).
- The infobox heading matches the title on most but not all articles - there are exceptions (see discussions above).
- Template:Infobox_person#Parameters notes that the name field in the Infobox defaults to the article name if left blank, and should be the "Common name of person".
Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name). If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here.
--В²C ☎ 21:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Survey
Please specify HC or HRC, and specify the reason why.