Talk:Hillary Clinton

Question about coverage in other countries

It seems as if a lot of the arguments come down to WP:COMMONNAME. From where I am, in the United Kingdom, the use of Rodham by news organisations and the media is extremely rare or almost non-existent. It seems as if it is somewhat more common in the United States (otherwise there would be very little to debate). For those looking for evidence to warrant a change, should they only be considering American sources or those worldwide? 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

? Biographically, she is known as Hillary Rodham Clinton in the United Kingdom, see for example this University of Oxford Encyclopedia - [1]. Wikipedia is also an encyclpodia - not news, and not United Kingdom news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is subject to debate; it is up to the community to decide what weight should be given to what sources. bd2412 T 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This has come up before. There's a couple aspects to this. Firstly, for those of us from outside the US it's a surprise that this name issue represents some sort of ideological difference for Americans. Having taken part in the last move, even now I'm not completely clear of what it's political significance is in the US - but clearly there is one. Secondly, if you're from outside the US, as the IP indicates, it's a case if "Rodham who?" It's just not recocognisable. DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, look at the next entry in that University of Oxford Encyclopedia: "Clinton, William J." I'll make a deal with you, if you can get Bill Clinton moved to William J. Clinton, then we'll go by what the University of Oxford Encyclopedia says. bd2412 T 20:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Your deal is as absurd as the original reaserch that was proffered the last time this move was proposed. The arguments for the move (made again, here) are frankly juvenile arguments. 'Let's make a deal' - Not with such poor knowldge in the arguments on display. Some appear to be arguing, they cannot even be bothered to actually learn about the subject of the article they pretend to write about. Nor can they be bothered to read encyclopedic biograpahy to do so. Such arguments are no basis for any deal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And in America I would say no one knows who "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is. Kate Middleton we know. Ah, but the page is at the first. Commonname? Please. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, not just Rodham, and I do not believe that anyone is confused by the Rodham, in the US, in the UK, anywhere. @DeCausa:, do you seriously want to say that people would know who "Hillary Clinton" is but not recognize "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? As for your other question, I think it's a question of some factions wanting to de-emphasize her as a person who has an independent identity, preferring to identify her only through her husband's name. Tvoz/talk 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The University of Oxford Encyclopedia is not our style guide. I see nothing in it to suggest that its editors care about common names or conciseness. Furthermore, we must assume good faith when editors indicate that they are surprised by the presence of "Rodham" in a name that is commonly reported as "Hillary Clinton". bd2412 T 21:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell who you are responding to but the reason the Oxford encyclopedia was mentioned was because it is scholarly biography, which is also the Wikipedia article's purpose and it is a UK university, confounding the claims of some that the name is unheard of. Your apparant exaultation of style (which is, morover, in no way required by our rules) over substance, is not only irrelevant to the Oxford cite, it is again poor or juvenile argument. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is for the community to decide. bd2412 T 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tvoz: You seem to have missed my point. I think most people outside the US can work out/guess that Hillary Rodham Clinton is Hillary Clinton. I think many Americans are unaware how uncommon usage of Rodham is outside of the US. As far as Kate Middleton is concerned, that article may be in breach of COMMONNAME too. What's your point? DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm afraid I can't accept that people anywhere in the world who can read English have to "work out/guess" that Hillary Rodham Clinton is Hillary Clinton. I'm sure you're sincere in so saying, but I give readers more credit than that. It may be uncommon outside of the US, I don't know, but that is why I raised the issue of Kate Middleton. In fact the words "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" bear no resemblance to the words "Kate Middleton", and there is nothing intuitive about that article name for non-British/Commonwealth readers. But in that case the editors for royalty articles apparently decided to overrule what is more common in the US in favor of their preference, and maybe the royal family's preference - I didn't closely follow the decision making on that one, so can't say for sure what their thinking was. Here we have a clear preference of the subject, tangible evidence that this is her actual name, strong support from high quality, reliable sources and repeated rejection of the attempts to move the article. And let's say you're right, that people outside the US are confused by the Rodham. So, they type in Hillary Clinton and come directly here. Are you claiming that if they do so and see the page is called Hillary Rodham Clinton they will be confused and not sure they are on the right page? Really? Are they also confused by the American spelling? There is no problem at all - this is just some people (I'm not saying you) refusing to leave this alone. The process will be time consuming and is pointless, as it has been over and over again. Nothing has changed - so indeed what is the grievance? Tvoz/talk 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tvoz: I've no idea really. I particicipated in one move discussion, and won't participate in another. I don't care about the name issue on this article that much. What did irritate me about that discussion was that because it was unsurprisingly dominated by US contributors what was really going on was a US political argument dressed up as an argument about COMMONNAME. And then COMMONNAME was largely (but not wholly) interpreted in a US context, rather than a global one. I'm really not sure what Kate Middleton's got to do with it. Two wrongs make a right? We leave articles about British royalty to UK editors? American politicians to Americans? Indian caste articles to Indians? Articles on Balkan ethnic disputes to Balkan editors? That way disaster lies. DeCausa (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, one of those WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Bill is a nickname for William, followed by the first initial of his middle name. We're dealing here with Mrs. Clinton's maiden name, which she has kept and used along with her husband's surname. Apples & oranges. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Which she has kept and used? bd2412 T 22:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she has; note the signature right on the main page of the one you just cites. This is Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better territory; every site you come up with sans Rodham, I'll show you one that includes Rodham, thus we deadlock. If you can't bring anything to the table that breaks that deadlock then there's really no point in filing another RM, as this amply demonstrates that nothing new has changed since the last (last year's real one, not the IP's aborted one the other day) RM. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you could prove that Wyoming has more people in it than Virginia, because for every person that I could name in Virginia, you could name one in Wyoming, until the time for the discussion ran out. Whether that is a reasonable approach is for the community to decide. Also, the recent RM was not initiated by an IP, but by User:GregKaye. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not the same reasoning at all. We know, thanks to the census, how many people are in each state. In this discussion, hard numbers are difficult to come by, and in any case the discussion is about more than numbers. Omnedon (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is also up to the community to decide. bd2412 T 23:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are hardly "hard numbers", and in any case, there are various ways to interpret such numbers in a case like this. They do not tell the whole story in isolation. I say again -- this is not about mere numbers. Omnedon (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That some serious weaksauce analogy there, having nothing to do with what we're talking about. There has, repeatedly, been no consensus found in support of an article rename, because both "sides" as it were have a roughly eual claim to WP:COMMONNAME. If all you're going to introduce to the new discussion is more "I have sources showing Hillary Clinton, then that's evened out by others introducing sources using Hillary Rodham Clinton. Come up with something new, or for the love of god/buddha/FSM don't waste the community's time. 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Tarc (talk)

That too is up to the community to decide. I didn't start the most recent RM discussion, and I won't be starting the next one, so it's other people who are coming up with something new. Of course, it is also up to the community to decide whether the subject's announcement today (and the material flowing from it) is "something new". bd2412 T 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvoz the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is somewhat hampered by the fact that Catherine/Kate does not have an active twitter feed, facebook page, website saying any name one way or the other. I am not here arguing one way or the other but in Kate/Catherine's situation there is a consistent with other articles issue that may be considered. However I think that your argument for change carries considerable weight. GregKaye 14:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I am a Briton, and I know her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester Like you I am a Briton and know her, in part, by her presentation as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Wikipedia policy, which maybe should be changed, presents recognisability as its prime issue and the main issues are how sources present a subject. In this case H(R)C does not even use Rodham in her own related facebook and twitter. In other cases of name use the UK pop singer and talent show panellist known in Wikipedia as Cheryl Cole who, like Hillary, has also presented herself by just her first name. However, in every personal encounter the consistently self presented "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" has consistently rejected the name Cole and has consistently used the name "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" in credits. Regardless of this the name "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" has been consistently rejected by Wikipedia despite, I think, relatively strong argument being presented. I think that if there are ethical arguments related to objection to the use of a presentation such as "Hillary Clinton" then they can and should be fairly presented. There are ethical issues presented on issues such as the presentation of "Islamic State" which go along with a range of WP:UCRN issues. However, I do not see why Wikipedia should side with the, I think, uncertain preferences of "Clinton" and not with the certain preferences of "Cole".

GregKaye 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Per policy it is not about the Wikipedia editor's personal recognition, rather in examination of sources, context matters - and again, per policy, this article's context is encyclopedic biography, not campaign literature, nor twitter, nor news. That the subject of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article prefers the name is not only honoring her human dignity, which yes is ethical and is the basis for WP:BLP policy, it is per biographical sources of encyclopedic biographical import. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I am not sure how you see relevance in the policies that form the basis of your above piped links: WP:NOR, WP:V, Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE (aka: WP:NOR), WP:Sources (aka: WP:V), WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NOT.

I am not saying that policy shouldn't cover the issues raised but that it doesn't. It certainly may be beneficial for a policy/guidance content to be developed related to the "human dignity" issue mentioned. Such a policy might evenly and fairly apply to a number of any number of people inclusive of Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, Yusef Islam and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I personally think that Wikipedia is surprisingly lacking ethics related content. Other sources have specialists related to ethics and their conclusions are intended to carry across all related situations. If anyone has further thoughts on related matters I think they may be well raised in locations such as: WT:AT or WT:BLP. GregKaye 11:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That you don't see relevance in basic policy on how Wikipedia covers encyclopedic subjects and analyzes sources, as well as human dignity mentioned in BLP is rather bizarre and lacking common sense: WP:Article titles incorporates the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and is never, in any sense, meant to be read in isolation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Please, in what way do you think that I don't see the relevance in basic policy? How am I lacking in common sense? I believe I raised fair points. I might not have thought that they would be attacked as "bizarre" by someone purporting to promote the concept of human dignity but, since I inadvertently stumbled on this talk page, I have come to expect all kinds of behaviour.

Let's try again. How do you think the contents of "no original research", "verifiability", "identifying reliable sources" and "what Wikipedia is not" relate to the choice of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" over "Hillary Clinton"? I agree that no Wikipedia guideline should be considered in isolation and that sources, secondary and primary, should be analysed. GregKaye 13:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:, that is a bit of a non sequitur and ad hominem attack. If there were no sources at all that used "Hillary Clinton" then an effort to use it would face issues of original research, verifiability, and sourceability. No reasonable person denies that "Hillary Clinton" is verifiably used in a substantial number of reliable sources, so it is unhelpful to suggest that an editor commenting to that effect is "rather bizarre and lacking common sense". I will be the first to concede that there are legitimate points on both sides of the issue, but when we get to the point of inherently suggesting that "Hillary Clinton" is not verifiable or not used in reliable sources, I have to question the objectivity behind the implication. bd2412 T 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, BD2412. In no sense is my labeling an argument concerning a lack of recognition a personal attack. And no, no one ever argued what you claim about Hillary Clinton. GregKaye, now having agreed that the policies need to be read together please, re-read, and reflect on: "Per policy it is not about the Wikipedia editor's personal recognition, rather in examination of sources, context matters - and again, per policy, this article's context is encyclopedic biography, not campaign literature, nor twitter, nor news. That the subject of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article prefers the name is not only honoring her human dignity, which yes is ethical and is the basis for WP:BLP policy, it is per biographical sources of encyclopedic biographical import" (Perhaps you are still unfamiliar with the caliber of sources that have been discussed in the past discussions (but I thought you had said you studied the past discussions - I should not have assumed, perhaps, that you were familiar with the sourcing discussed, but now re-read them and about them, and why they are valued to an encyclopedic biography) - and I just cannot credit the claim that ethics and human dignity can't be considered - it's just not the case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

By your reasoning, the subject is constantly attacking her own human dignity, since she prefers the name so much that she uses it far less prominently than the more concise variation. That is the context that this argument imposes. With respect to the caliber of sources, I have been looking at sources that Wikipedia universally considers to be the highest-level sources, peer-reviewed academic journal publications. I will let you know the results of that survey shortly. bd2412 T 14:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not in the least. She has expressed a preference for her name in this context - so it is in this context that the disrespect of others (not herself) would be shown (different contexts also require different voice and different manner - that is what writing an encyclopedic article includes) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone having vaguely "expressed a preference" is a particularly weak basis for making an encyclopedic determination. I have "a preference" for a light blue background on my screen rather than a dark blue background. That doesn't make it an attack on human dignity if I use a dark blue background (or if someone uses a dark blue background on a page referring to me). A "preference" for one option between two equally aesthetically palatable option is not a statement about which option is more suitable for a particular use; it is a statement of whimsy. bd2412 T 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an absurd analogy, or an argument demonstrating a singular lack of understanding regarding the common decency of social interaction. She was directly asked and she directly replied, "Hillary Rodham Clinton." In ordinary, humanly decent and respectful functioning discourse, the conversation generally goes that way: "'Q: What shall I call you? A:'Call me _____." Response: Very well, thanks.'" Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you privy to that conversation? What, exactly was asked? Who, exactly, gave the reply? Was the context of Wikipedia article title policy explained to them, or were they asked in the sense that one might ask how their dinner invitation should read? Answers, please. bd2412 T 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was made privy to that request as is anyone who read the last move request. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you can answer my questions. What, precisely, was asked? Who gave the answer? Did the person who was asked understand Wikipedia title policies? Please answer. bd2412 T 18:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You may read it all for yourself - that is answering your question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept that that's the best answer you can give. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very good to know where the last conversations on the move went (and the posts made, therein) - so re-treading does not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you are as well aware as I am that these questions are not answered in that discussion. At least, I hope that you're aware of that. bd2412 T 00:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The representations are linked in the move discussion. As for what you are aware of, I don't think I do know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The representation is that Jimbo heard back from "her people". Who would that be? Her chief of staff? A satellite office secretary? A janitor who happened to pick up the phone? Does the sudden predominant use of "Hillary Clinton" on her just-embarked wave of publicity indicate that her preference has changed again since then? bd2412 T 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, whether it is linked from Jimbo and the reference to her preference in the last RM, or from 1993 when she stated specifically that she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton, that is the sourced name she prefers. That along with the change from AT for article titles giving weight to BLP preferences, should make any move impossible. So unless you have a source specifically stating that HRC prefers HC, your 'questions' are just pure speculation and have no bearing on the article title. Dave Dial (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Of course, the community may decide differently. bd2412 T 01:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your frequent references to "the community" are a bit bothersome. I mean, you're right -- but you seem not to acknowledge that we are the community. Yes, others may participate in further discussion, but that doesn't mean that the many editors who have contributed so far are somehow separate. Omnedon (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to exclude anyone - we are all part of the community, and sometimes (frequently, in fact) the determination of "the community" goes in a different direction than the direction supported by individual members. I have been on both sides of that experience (my recent unsuccessful effort to move Pink (singer) to the subject's own consistently used P!nk would be a prime example). I don't consider myself any less a part of the community for it. bd2412 T 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K:, an additional thought. If BLP concerns should make it "impossible" to rename this page, that is definitely an issue that should be raised in the Village Pump discussion of whether a new move request should be permitted at all. bd2412 T 13:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

USER:Jimbo made the representation. No reason to assume he does not know what he was talking about. You can look at his talk page archives or you can go ask him about it, but it's usual to assume his good faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have every faith that Jimbo heard from some person, as he said. Neither you nor I have no information about whether that exchange included any information about the purpose for which this preference was being ascertained. bd2412 T 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo represents that he asked of her representatives about this and the response was Hillary Rodham Clinton (not just "some person", there is no basis to disbelieve him as you suggest you do). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I regret if I have not made my point of contention clear to you, but it is primarily about the specificity of purpose. If someone wants to surprise you by painting your house, and asks you what your favorite color is, their asking without specifying the purpose might lead to you getting a house painted in your favorite color, but not one that you would choose for that purpose. If they specified the reason for which the question was being asked, you might well say that your favorite color is 'X', but you'd rather have your house painted with color 'Y', and before you do that you need to check with the homeowner's association to determine what the rules are for color schemes. bd2412 T 02:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

House paint, what? Jimbo, the founder of Wikipedia, asks her during a move discussion of this article of which she is the subject about the name of the subject and the response he got is, "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why there are now five different discussions, between this page and the 'village pump,' on this one incredibly unnecessary issue? There can be no consensus if there is no single discussion, so on that technical reason alone, why? And why SO MUCH DISCUSSION??? I remind everyone that the point of this whole enterprise, Wikipedia, is to create encyclopedic content, not to lengthen talk pages. I'm keeping my contributions to these discussions brief because I think that every edit to a talk page takes away time that should have been used for writing actual content, finding and digesting reliable sources, etc. Whichever side of this brainless debate is correct -- if either -- the debate has consumed so many words and thoughts, and so much time, that any outcome is a net loss to the project, whether right, wrong, or indifferent. Congratulations everyone. Now please stop. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is bad, you should have seen the discussion of which title to use between "Yogurt" and "Yoghurt". bd2412 T 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I find your comment above "GregKaye, now having agreed that the policies need to be read together" to be incredibly demeaning. When have I not agreed that policies should be read together? When? I request that you and other editors drop any combative stance and that, if you want to mention anything from policy, that you do it directly preferably with specific reference to specific sections of text or direct quotation.

On the concept of reading policies (inclusive of guidelines and related conventions) together you are definitely right. I had previously withdrawn a text from the developing RM that said: "[[WP:UCRN]] clearly states, "{{tq|Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural}}". In this text, the only issue presented is that a ''commonly recognisable name'' should be used and no preference is expressed in regard to any perceived hierarchy of sources. The prevalence of news output within the media must be taken into significant account in any estimation of [[WP:Recognizability]]."

However, I think that your argument carries and that such text has valid inclusion. GregKaye 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That you agree that policies should be read together, and you find me noting that as demeaning is beyond me. As for your proposed text - it is clearly objectionable (you are not reading it in the context of all policy, in particular sourcing policy - which is emphasized in all three core content policies and is incorporated in article titling policy) - reliable sources in Wikipedia are always evaluated in context - we don't use, for example, unreliable sources, and we deprecate sources not fit to the subject matter - in this case encyclopedic biography. Quality of sources in context is always to be considered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Please be specific. Which proposed text? Which content/wording within the proposed text do you consider to be objectionable? Why? I genuinely want to know if there is anything wrong.

At present I do not find your generalisations helpful. I think that I understandably found your "now having agreed" comment in regard to policies (and guidelines) to be demeaning.

Any content can be added to debate within an RM as is common practice. GregKaye 13:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The claim that we cannot consider quality of sourcing fit for purpose (as you refer to it hierarchy) is objectionable because it goes against all our sourcing policies - nor does it make any sense in writing an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker The text at WP:UCRN presents: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." Which links to content within: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please note that there isn't anything to be verified here. Who the subject is in no way in doubt. This is a person who is potentially set and, IMO, hopefully will become the most powerful person in the western world. No citation need be given. Nothing needs to be verified. All we are doing is trying to ascertain Commonly Recognizable Name. This is something that is "determined by ... prevalence in reliable English-language sources".

The list of "Other reliable sources" at WP:SOURCES begins with "University-level textbooks". However, in relation to UCRN I don't see relevance in ascribing any greatly special weight to University-level textbooks for the simple reason that people do not commonly refer to University-level textbooks as they develop their common familiarity on issues such as political affairs. Obviously respect needs to and will be given to scholarly sources but it is "commonly recognizable name" we are talking about here. GregKaye 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think that a historic use of name should also be considered as perhaps the Rodham reference was used more in the past. Again I think that a strong case can also be presented on the basis of ethics and saying that HRC is the genuine name and, though making no comparison, similar arguments have been presented in regard to Mohammed Emwazi. GregKaye 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Article title policy expressly links to policy on hierarchy of sources, which links to guideline on identifying the hierarchy of sources - even if Article title policy did not, the three core content policies, which all address hierarchy of sources, apply universally to all articles, as does for this article, BLP - deciding on proper sourcing, fit to purpose is not something anyone can escape in writing the encyclopedia, nor should they want to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (as an aside, you pinged on listing reliable sources, and I find it odd that you don't list the biography sources that people relied on the last time around, or the Oxford one above - why avoid them?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker You say, "Article title policy expressly links to policy on hierarchy of sources". With explanatory text surrounding the link?

You mention "three core content policies, which all address hierarchy of sources". How do you think they apply to the UCRN situation? With what wording?

When you saw my listing of sources you will have also seem my methodology for the development of its a non partisan content. Would greatly appreciate it if you would clearly present what has been done. Please don't just criticise something at a distance without, for instance, supplying a link or quote. Such reference would enable other editors to come to their own conclusions with regard to the work that has been done. GregKaye 22:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your questions. The AT policy references to policy on the hierarchy of sources, which links to the guideline on the hierarchy of sources, and for all content editors need to weight sources - that's what is involved in writing the encyclopedia. I also do not know what you mean by non-partisan, or clearly presenting, clearly presenting, what? - I am not presenting. Do you need another link to the prior move request - which has the biography sources referenced in the close of that request? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:, would you agree that on Wikipedia, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources? bd2412 T 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For all sources context matters. For example for encyclopedic biography, encyclopedic biography weighs heavily. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I can find the policy page that says "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources", but I can't find one that says "encyclopedic biography weighs heavily (in making title determinations)". Perhaps you can point me to a policy that says those words, or something roughly like that? bd2412 T 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can't seem to find any biographies that do not frequently refer to the subject as "Hillary Clinton" as a common name in running text throughout. Can you point out some? Cheers! bd2412 T 23:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And those biographies are titled with her actual name, including Rodham. And all of her books use her name including Rodham as author . And she herself has not abandoned her own name in any way - she uses her name every day, when she signs anything. It is her signature, because it is her name. That she is often referred to in the shorter form is of course true, no one ever said otherwise. And she is often referred to just as Hillary. In her ads even. But we are writing a formal biography of her whole life, not a snapshot of this week on the campaign trail, and she never abandoned Rodham - she has always been Hillary Rodham, and she added the Clinton not at the time of her marriage, but at a time when it was the politically smart (for Bill's career) thing to do. And that settled in as her name, HRC (as one of the biographies is titled). No one has made any argument as to why you think it is such an affront to have her full name as the title of this biography, as is her preference as well, or why you feel it so important that you brought it up again having lost before, and have wasted an enormous amount of space and time here and elsewhere around the project arguing for your position, as if it actually matters - and there isn't even an RM in place. GregKaye claimed that people in other countries are confused. What is your problem with it BD? Just a love affair with one aspect of naming policy that in no way is mandatory? I think you have lost perspective. Tvoz/talk 00:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Several aspects, actually. Commonality, maximum recognizability, superfluous deviation from conciseness, general anthroponymic consistency, and naturalness, in a conversational sense. bd2412 T 01:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia always uses different sources for different subjects? Hillary Rodham Clinton is a common name for this subject. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Hillary Clinton a common name for this subject? bd2412 T 23:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As the article is already at an appropriate title, that inquiry is unneeded and unfortunately of no benefit to the educational mission of the encyclopedia, nor the editorial community, nor the subject. I can't stop editors from arguing again that a woman's name does not matter, but for the greater good of the project (which should when reasonable include our living subjects) - and which should always value education not ignorance - would that it not happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Hillary Clinton

She is primarily known as simply Hillary Clinton. That's also the name she uses on her own website and in her presidential campaign. Why should we put the 'Rodham' part in the title? Michelle Obama is also not 'Michelle Robinson Obama'.--Wester (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you apparently erred in your first sentence, meaning to say She is primarily known as simply Hillary Clinton indicates that the two options are quite easily interchangeable in many people's minds. That has been where this debate has always led; a split in HS vs. HRC, and no consensus to move away from the present title. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you try having a ten-minute conversation with any normal person about this subject, and refer to her only as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for the duration of that discussion, you will quickly discover that she is, in fact, primarily known as "Hillary Clinton". Also, there has been a massive shift in the context of this discussion just in the past few days, with the campaign announcement and the clear indications that the subject is primarily "Hillary Clinton" for purposes of this most visible endeavor. Whatever applied on Saturday went out the window on Sunday. bd2412 T 13:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

She is known by both, as amply demonstrated in past Move Requests. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be the first to concede that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the question. bd2412 T 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

bd2412: A massive shift? Um, no. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a closer look at those articles. For instance Washington Post. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton is mentioned a few time you can not say that it's the primary name. [2]. It's quite clear that Hillary Clinton is the more common name. In act, each of those articles which suppose to use 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' primarily uses Hillary Clinton.--Wester (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a short form can save space. Her name, however, is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As an example, look at all these letters to the editor that The New York Times received today on the matter of her candidacy. All of them use "Hillary Rodham Clinton". No massive shift occured. Her name, as used by people generally, is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It may well be convenient to shorten the name on occasion, but that's unacceptable for an encyclopaedic biography. There is no justification for stripping this woman of her name. She is not her husband's chattel. She has chosen to keep her family name, and so it remains. She expressed a preference to Mr Wales as such. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" appearing in the text, but note how the title of the page to which you point uses "Hillary Clinton"; it also appears in one of those letters, by the way. Reasonable people are entitled to disagree on this point, and where there are disagreements as to the weight of the sources and the application of policies, we have a process to weigh those propositions. bd2412 T 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe in reason. Regardless, yes, "Hillary Clinton" is useful as a short form to save space. We have no such concerns. We are not writing a headline. We are titling a biography. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If we were really interested in saving space, we could condense your reply there to the first sentence. bd2412 T 17:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that an appropriate way for a Minister of the Crown to speak? I fear not. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it unseemly for me to quote you back to yourself? bd2412 T 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

My words are my own. Condensation is not a right that you possess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you have said: "I don't believe in reason". That's a pretty bold thing to say, don't you think? bd2412 T 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "bold" at all. It is the essential mantra of all mankind, for all of time. There is nothing reasonable about this world, man, the heavens, or this encylopaedia. This is something one must accept, if one has not done. Do not expect reason where there is none. Regardless, this woman's name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. You do not possess the right of condensation. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

bd2412: Hmm, I wasn't expecting anyone to seriously claim headlinese as a sound basis for determining the preferred form for an encyclopedic biography. Hey-ho. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned or linked before (first time in years I've visited this article), but NPR has an interesting piece about the Rodham issue. My personal view (not that it really counts for anything) is that "Hillary Clinton" is the common name in use now, so the article name should probably reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Scjessey for finding this. With this and a couple of other sources that have been brought forward here or that I found, I have expanded the current Note in the article to include the name usage from 1983 forward (it's now Note 1), since it's clear that it's a subject of media attention and not just a topic here. I have phrased it as neutrally as I could; expansion of this Note is in no way intended to support either side of the argument here, but just to explain the history of name use as given by mainstream sources, and my intention is that the Note's text can stay as it now is regardless of whether this article gets moved or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Before a new discussion of moving this article is carried out...yet again. Perhaps it is best to check if there were any standing recommendations or restrictions placed on doing so from the outcome of the last, very extensive and protracted debate.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it should just be Hilary Clinton as artilce name, not the longer name. That's how she's generally called. Common name etc. A no brainer really. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A legitimate use of a SOAPBOX PLATFORM that Rodham does not use?

I have been genuinely trying my best to get my head around the issues involved in the current question and, yes there definitely are issues. As far as I can see, WP:UCRN is clear in saying that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural" and WP:NATURALNESS has some fairly strong applications as well.

We also have content from Jimbo Wales giving an, I think, abridged reference to communication that he has personally had with the (Rodham) Clinton camp.

In close of the last RM TParis wrote "... the argument that Clinton prefers HRC was not entirely accepted due to the fact that there is not a Wikipedia policy saying that naming conventions should bow to the subject’s preference. (It is noted however that there is no policy saying we should completely ignore a subject’s preference either, and we should be wary of systemic bias, as the personal decision of whether or not to accept a husband’s surname is a choice most male Wikipedia editors will not have to make.) Our policies on neutrality and verifiability require that we use third party reliable sources when determining article titles. Neutrality was not a factor here, and the matter of verifiability is well met."

Really the only Wikipedia policy (which possibly is the only Wikipedia "policy") which might apply is the all trumping IAR, if there are valid reasons for it to apply.

As RGloucester commented in the #Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I need my own identity, too." thread: "It isn't her fault that the American political system is a matter of branding and marketing, or that some people use her preference for "Rodham" against her, or that headlines shorten her name for space concerns. Her preference is clear." However RGloucester then says: "There is no valid reason for not respecting her preference,..."

There is a clear policy against this stance which is found at WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTSOAPBOX or whatever we want to call it.

However, questions that I think might rightly be asked could include, in no particular order:

1. why should we present a name that she does not present herself?
2. why doesn't she present the name Rodham herself?
3. what would be the tangible effect if she did? (If there are any responses on this, please no complete pie in the sky WP:CRYSTALballing)

Another relevant section of policy is WP:TITLECHANGES which presents a text: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I am personally unsure whether this is always wise. I have previously had contact with one news agency and know that it has specialist staff whose function, as far as I was lead to understand, solely relates to within organisation ethics issues.

For me the bottom line is that it is important in Wikipedia that we apply the same set of "rules" to all regardless of any of our favourites. As far as I can see, a direct application of commonly (repeat) commonly recognizable name and such content as naturalness is clear. However, if there are other genuinely relevant issues that apply, fair enough.

It may also be of, at least, interest if Jimbo Wales could share, if it has not already been done, share a fuller account of communication with the (Rodham) Clinton camp. GregKaye 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment: there is no point in referring to the "(Rodham) Clinton camp". She has never used "Rodham Clinton" as a compound last name, and neither has anyone else. Her name is either: "Clinton, Hillary" or "Clinton, Hillary Rodham". It is not, and never has been "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". Communication was with the Clinton camp, period. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying a woman who wants to retain her family name soap-boxing and advocacy? Where do you live, the 1930's? What about the fact that naming policy specifically states that a subject of an article's preference should be considered and given weight, based on BLP policy? You kind of skim right past that, while stretching over backwards to cite soapboxing, eh? Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with talking about "preference" is that Mrs Clinton repeatedly and consistently does not use Rodham when describing herself. Editors should not act as if they have an obligation to keep it when it clearly is not essential for her and seems to fail WP:COMMONNAME. At least where I come from, it is quite unusual for a wife to keep her maiden name: there is not really much point, other than for (very unusual) occasions where the maiden name is especially important (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II) or those women who wish to make a point of keeping their own name. Clinton has suggested elsewhere that, at least initially (until she was happy to drop it herself), she did the latter. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I am from the United Kingdom, the country of titles and honours and where Clinton would, in social functions, be called 'Mrs William Clinton'. Things in the USA are rather different. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as a data point, if you look at sources that have discussed her name, she has used 'Rodham' as part of her public name almost the entire time she has been alive. The only major exceptions are 1982 when Bill was running to recapture the governor's seat in Arksansas, 2007–2008 when she was running for president, and apparently in 2015 when she is running for president again. Compare that to all her years as an attorney at Rose Law, 12 years as Arkansas First Lady, 8 years in the White House, 8 years in the Senate, and 4 years as Secretary of State. Now I realize that running for president is very high profile, but still that has to be balanced off against everything else. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to be too picayune, but there are ads from her 2006 Senate race where she uses "Hillary Clinton" both in print and in the voiceover; and it is how she was introduced and represented on the nameplate on her podium, in the 2006 New York Senate candidate's debate. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's the 2000 Senate debate between her and Lazio, and the C-SPAN narrator, Tim Russert introducing them, and the graphic when she first speaks, all use "Hillary Rodham Clinton". But to the general point, I would tend to weigh what someone uses in most of their life more than what they use in political campaigns, which are inherently subject to many distorting effects as it is. You may feel differently – I well remember your epic research (and I mean that sincerely) into ballot names in one of the previous RM's. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes - 2000 is a data point, as are the rest. However, I believe that the public consumes all of the data points and from them creates what might be called the conversational norm. It may be the case that this is, as some have argued, merely a political branding effort, but if so it is a successful one that has established a common usage in everyday discourse. In light of recent events, perhaps that norm will condense further in the future, and the subject will be known as "H>". I was actually thinking of starting a Hillary logo page to parallel the Obama logo, but it's too soon for that. bd2412 T 03:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that "a common usage in everyday discourse" is not really relevant. Wikipedia is not interested in everyday discourse, but in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is a reference work. "Hillary", and even "H", may become synonymous with HRC in public online discourse, that is something for google to pick up on, but Wikipedia, not really so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea that she may become known as "H>" was not really serious. I agree that common usage in everyday discourse is not our test. However, it does tend to become reflected in everyday reliable sources (news reports, seeping up into academic literature over time). bd2412 T 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial Re: "So you are saying a woman who wants to retain her family name soap-boxing and advocacy? Where do you live, the 1930's? What about the fact that naming policy specifically states that a subject of an article's preference should be considered and given weight, based on BLP policy? You kind of skim right past that, while stretching over backwards to cite soapboxing, eh?"

1. No, what I am saying that, in the context in which a woman makes virtually no campaigning presentation of herself as by a name that she says she prefers, for us to to use the argument of preference for the use of the preferred designation is a perhaps morally commendable form of advocacy if a full picture of the situation warrants this approach.

2. No. Please refrain from WP:PA. I did not ask for your abuse and have tried to apply a guidelines based rationale to comments such as those of RGloucester.

3. The policy/guidance content at "[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Self-published_name_changes|naming policy]]" says: "When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply." There is no new name.

The current situation is not the same as when: "Minutes after announcement of the new name the biography of Jorge Bergoglio is renamed to Pope Francis: unavoidable that on the short term the former cardinal will be known by his papal name."

The current situation is not the same as per the rename "Example: Fazer (rapper) → Richard Rawson after the artist gave up his stage name." I see no evidence that "Hillary Clinton" is giving up this designation.

4. Thank you for pointing to policy and guidelines. Yes I am citing WP:SOAPBOX as an important, though in this case, potentially questionable guideline. I tried to open a debate so as to give opportunity for a guidelines based debate on a potentially "legitimate" form of advocacy based on WP:IAR. For my trouble I have received yet further attack and snark. If there is a specific reference to policy/guidelies that you wish to cite, perhaps from WP:BLP, please do. GregKaye 06:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. presents Hillary Rodham Clinton (United States senator, first lady, and secretary of state) in their encyclopedia. Despite this being yet another thing for free there is no need to thank me. IMPO I think that it is possible that they made this choice of designation with reference to similar ethics based reasoning as I have presented. GregKaye 07:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) lol, this is, in my view, an amazingly contrary page. Despite all content above, the only thanks I receive (appreciated) comes immediately after a "no need to thank me" comment. GregKaye 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia Article Titling policy explicitly tells you that debating titles is often unproductive and there are many other more worthwhile things to do than propose title changes. Also, it's good to see you go to an encyclopedic biography for a change [3], since that caliber of sourcing matters, as demonstrated in the last close move, so thanks for that. (BTW, your claim that a woman's name is in any sense soapboxing is readily seen as offensive - this article is about the woman - not about the latest news feed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To put it another way, there is no justification to WP:SHOWCASE a particular presentation of a name just due to the person's preference in situations in which this goes against other policies. GregKaye 10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is showcasing a name that is not well attested to in the sources, moreover anyone familiar with the subject will certainly know the name she prefers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker In that case I am pleased that we agree about showcasing. The subject's preference for the name she prefers is not an issue for Wikipedia. We respond purely in accordance to content that has been presented. GregKaye 12:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The name she prefers is biographically of import - so to contend it's not an issue for writers of her encyclopedic biography (Wikipedia) is false and nonsensical (also, that those who are familiar with the subject, know Hillary Rodham Clinton - means that it is an appropriate title). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Where, except for IAR, is this specified?? GregKaye 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia, and we are writing encyclopedic biography (which is about the life of a particular woman) that's our sole purpose here. (if you cannot find that in policy then I'm sorry, I cannot help you). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly Greg, if you can read the previous MR and the rational by the trimulative of admin closers and believe that only IAR was followed, I don't believe anyone can help you here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial At no point have I said that I believed that only IAR was followed. Please reread what I wrote. I was genuinely and I think generously suggesting that IAR or a developed ethics based content in other policies might be a way forward for the encyclopedi. GregKaye 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: --Hillary's 'new name' was in 1993, and then more recently the last RM. It's the sourced preference of her name. Which she uses to sign EVERY document and her own work(novels, etc.). So unless you have a source that states HRC prefers HC, from her, then the guideline applies retroactively. You, and some others, are pretending that because her campaign sometimes uses the shorter version, we should move the page to that name. That may be a reason to name the article, if one were starting one today, but it is NOT a reason to move the article. Per

"if an article title has been for a long time...it should not be changed"

and other policies/guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Immediately followed by: "Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title". There have been tens of thousands of RM discussions on Wikipedia, some of them resulting in changes to very longstanding titles, based on a wide variety of reasons - including a sudden and dramatic change in the status of a subject, or of their most prominent self-representations to the public. bd2412 T 14:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg: You beg the question when you ask, "why doesn't she present the name Rodham herself?"; she does present the name herself, and in many places. For example, check out her recent autobiography, authored as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". ╠╣uw [talk] 11:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some claim that the British or Americans or whomever are clueless about women's names (although, it is difficult to credit that assertion - or actually believe that some think that unknowledge is a serious reason for changing this well sourced title), see, for example, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices. - Marriage Names [4]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing I'm more than happy for situations to beg questions. In this thread I have been polite enough to give notification to editors of the fair application of a WP:NOTADVOCATE argument in this case. Sure there are a variety of things that the subject does and all of these can be taken into account. The two main WP:CRITERIA in WP:AT are recognizability and naturalness. At present, as far as I can see, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" falls far short on both of these contents.

In the last RM there was a failure of editors to point out that the notadvocate policy/guideline precludes relevance of a preference of the subject in regard to Wikipedia title choice. Of course we can comment on outputs in the name of "Hillary Rodman Clinton" in just the same way as we can comment on the outputs in the name of "Hillary Clinton".

Alanscottwalker If you think that you have a better clue with regard to presentation of names in this case then it seems to me that you are advocating the IAR argument here. If you think you have a policy/guidelines based argument for this then you are at liberty to present it. Please consider not just attacking and insulting people with words like clueless. I think you are at risk of simply antagonising people. GregKaye 21:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, there is no attack - some editors are claiming that we should take cluelessness concerning women's names and cluelessness concerning the subject of this article, as a reason for changing the title - and no, weighting sources in context, and dignity of the subject, as well as relying on common decency, are all policy supported reasoning - not IAR - certainly in the face of claims that a woman's name is unnatural. Moreover, anyone who is familiar with the subject, cannot possibly claim that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unrecognizable. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cluelessness? Would that assessment extend to everyone who has supported moving the page? bd2412 T 22:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What? It's not assessing anyone -- it's assessing an argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. So there's no reason to think that the people who have supported moving the page in the past were not "clued in", as it were, with respect to women's names and the subject of this article. bd2412 T 23:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So, you're telling me how you see it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean the dozens and dozens of people who have supported moving the article in the past. Perhaps they completely understood the anthroponomy issues and the subject. bd2412 T 23:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why you propose discussing dozens and dozens of people in a present conversation with not even a fraction of that many is beyond me. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Point taken. bd2412 T 00:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus

As I have said, I am all in favor of discussion. It's important. It's how we resolve issues. But having said that, surely it must be clear, from the mass of discussion that has already taken place here, that there is no consensus to move this article. Perhaps another move request will be put up, but surely the current state of this page must be a clear indication of how that will go. Must we do it yet again? We all surely have more useful things to do here. Omnedon (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES echoes that point: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Certainly if there were any clear indications that a new debate now would be substantially different from the last one, then I'd be a little less concerned. Unfortunately, given that so much of the preliminary squabbling has been about retreading the same basic arguments that we've gone through repeatedly before, that seems extremely unlikely. *Sigh* ╠╣uw [talk] 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I also have been making this point repeatedly - this is a gross waste of time and resources already, and it is clear that we're not going to reach consensus to move this time any more than any time in the past, since it is the same tired arguments, and the same focus on minute points that miss the bigger picture, that this is her name, her preference, and how her life biography should be named. This is why we had a three person panel the last time and they were unanimous. Nothing has changed. Tvoz/talk 00:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That this long pre-discussion discussion discussion (PD3) is itself reaching epic standards, with yes, apparently, no consensus in sight, can we send out for pizza? Randy Kryn 1:08 16 April, 2015 (UTC)

The April 9 proposal was withdrawn (for not meeting the conditions of the existing moratorium), and summarily closed within hours. In light of that, it is somewhat odd that any discussion of the matter is taking place on this page at all (beyond, of course, the tendency of previously uninvolved editors to wander by every few days and suggest that this page should be moved). For the record, however, I like my pizza with meatballs, mushrooms and black olives. bd2412 T 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the meatballs to be squashed and spread, and insist that the olives are guaranteed pitted. It is no fun if the meatball falls off, and unexpected olive stones are most unwelcome. Otherwise happy to go with other's preferred catering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I just like the meatballs sliced. Squashing makes them a bit uneven. Also, extra cheese. bd2412 T 03:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Slicing is preferable to squashing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 wrote: "The April 9 proposal was withdrawn (for not meeting the conditions of the existing moratorium), and summarily closed within hours. In light of that, it is somewhat odd that any discussion of the matter is taking place on this page at all ....". The April 9 proposal was only closed because it was less than 5,000 characters. It is obvious from this page that someone could compose a 5,000-character RM proposal at present, so it's not odd that the matter is being discussed here. In my opinion what is odd is that no one has composed and posted a 5,000-character RM proposal to settle the matter. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The withdrawn proposal was ill-prepared for a question so heavily discussed previously. Discussion on the next RM proposal is taking place at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, it wasn't that it was "ill-prepared for a question so heavily discussed previously", it was speedy-closed only because it was less than 5,000 characters. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Lacking civility

I am also in favor of discussion but ask that it can please be conducted with a focus on the issues. "It's (also) important ... how we resolve issues."

So far there has been talk of "gaming the system", action that "will not be helpful to the process", unsubstantiated criticisms of an editors "attitude", unsubstantiated insinuations of "bad-faith and partisan politics", directives given "Move on and find something worthwhile to do", insinuations of "a power fantasy" and "this systemic bias", editors loudly and rhetorically decrying content "tl;dr", insinuation that an editor had not previously "agreed that the policies need to be read together", unreferenced slurs of editors being "clueless", insinuations of "Snark" (Snide remark), slur suggestion of an editor living in "the 1930" and insinuation of content being "ill-prepared".

Now I don't know the extent to which editors are enjoying all this fun and games but it maybe wise to consider the type of response it is likely to engender.

The close of the recent RM stated "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately..." and there is no doubt as to the option to take this route. However, making unsubstantiated claims "that there is no consensus to move this article" while doing little else but antagonising editors with IMO offensive behaviours that seem to me to carry all the worst hallmarks of dirty tricks, is not going to carry favour.

There would always have been the option to politely present a position and to cordially give indication as to why editors may think that a course of action may be unproductive. Please can editors keep this in mind in the event of similar future situations.

Please can editors stick to the point and to the relevant argument. Please can editors not selectively pick their references of name usage. Can editors actually quote policy-guideline or give specific reference and not just indicate as if to say, "there is something in that text but I'm not specifying what". Please can editor make direct reference to the policies that they are referring to without making use of piped links.

If editors see the value of discussion then let's discuss in straight forward ways.

GregKaye 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I deny any of the above implications if they aimed at me. Also, although not used by me, "systemic bias", comes from the close of the last move request, so it's perfectly understandable that it would be used - that is straight forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have presented contents that have been included on this page and have asked editors to stick to the actual points of debate. I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to. Wikipedia has clear policy/guideline in locations such as WP:AT and editors are at liberty to fairly present cases for the application of various stipulations. Editors should be able to do this without unsubstantiated slurs being made. Discussion should be straightforward and to the point. The additional chaff serves no positive purpose. GregKaye 12:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the penultimate close - if you don't know what systemic bias is being referred to - if you feel that impatience happens when interlocutors don't do the research they have been repeatedly referred to (beginning at the FAQ at the top of this page) - that's likely just going to happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, here is what you said above: "Please let the request be withdrawn so that I can add another 2429 characters of whatever value to the existing 2571 character content for later use." This would clearly have been gaming the system -- artificially padding the RM out with "characters of whatever value", rather than dealing with the underlying reason for the requirement. I suggested that should be avoided. And I stand by my comment that immediately re-opening in such a manner would not have been helpful. It is allowed -- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Look at the wall of text above -- and the promised RM hasn't even been opened. There are many editors and many arguments on both sides, and many views that are strongly held. There is no consensus, just as in the past. An RM at this point is a waste of everyone's time. Omnedon (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker what is a "penultimate close"?

Omnedon, and you said "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process." I am fully satisfied that the original content of the RM was well researched and presented and had a far, far greater relevance to the topic to a great deal of the rhetoric and baseless accusation that has proceeded in the page since. In any RM that I have written I have presented I have consistently presented I believe relatively lucid presentation. There is nothing that will be unhelpful to process in the submission of an RM.

as much as anything I am asking people to stick to the point. Allegations of things such as "bad-faith and partisan politics" do not help. GregKaye 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed say that and I stand by it. My comments were with regard to procedure, not personalities. And I would say again, but for different reasons: this RM is not helpful. Perhaps at the time you were not familiar with the history of RMs on this article; but you are now. Omnedon (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not, however, say anything about "bad-faith and partisan politics". That was someone else. Omnedon (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Penultimate - the one before your abandoned request - the one we also refer to as the three-admin-close - the one listed at the top of this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I even went as far as to suggest A legitimate use of a SOAPBOX PLATFORM that Rodham does not use? within Wikipedia as a potentially legitimate response to guideline/policy content in context of situations such as systemic bias. I got attacked for for my trouble. I have also suggested that we develop some genuine ethics based guidelines. I am unsure why you are defending a content that you did not personally present. GregKaye 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear who are responding to but you appeared to be mistaken about where the phrase systemic bias is used in the long history of this and it therefore cannot be considered incivil to use it. 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)=

Dear unsigned writer, thank you for your criticism as related to what you take as appearance. Systemic bias, as most certainly pervades society, exists to large extent outside Wikipedia. Please do not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We present ourselves to here to present content on existent situations. I am fine about the idea of our developing our own systemic biases so as to respond in ethical ways to any external systemic biases that are perceived to exist.

Currently the text at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics is very clear: "The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known." If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it. Please do not slur editors who are just trying to stick to direct interpretations of existent WP:PG on some perception of bias when you have done nothing to legitimise these views openly and directly within policy. GregKaye 05:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why my name did not go along with my signature date but once again you fail to read what you quote in context - and that you now have to resort to **** demonstrates bias. The section you quote is on patronymic-metronymic culture - that has nothing to do with the present situation - which is the biography of a woman not in patronymic-metronymic culture. Moreover, that "best known" links to AT - just goes back to the same need to review the hierarchy of sources for encyclopedic biography. Systemic bias as used in the last move close was about bias against women - not patromymic-metronymic culture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker In this entire thread you have given very little context if any and very little reference if any to your many accusations and other contents that I have taken as amongst other things demeaning. Now you say "once again you fail to read what you quote in context"

I referenced a text as at: by which the person is best known that dealt with three topics and I will patiently go through it bit by bit so you don't miss things.

Topics as presented in the title were: 1, "Multiple ... surnames", "and changed surnames" and "– patronymics and matronymics".

The topics presented in the text were: that "Some Western cultures use a "double last name" format", "or add patronymics or matronymics." and as indicated in a separate sentence "Also, people sometimes change their surnames, particularly on marriage".

The topics presented in the examples to the best of my understanding covered:

A name referencing both parents:

• Josep Puig i Cadafalch – Puig is the last name of his father, Cadafalch of his mother; i means "and" (see Iberian naming customs).

A subject that has used a matronymic.

• Antoni Gaudí – not Antoni Gaudí i Cornet; this architect is better known without the matronymic.

A subject that has used a patronymic.

• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky – Ilyich is a patronymic based on the first name of the father (see Eastern Slavic naming customs#Patronymic). Only for a very few Russians is the patronimic customary in English, notwithstanding widespread use of patronymics in the native language.

another person referencing both parent's names.

• Tatyana Sukhotina-Tolstaya – on marriage she combined the feminized versions of her husband's and father's surnames. Note: the patronymic (Lvovna) is not used in the page title in this case.

three people who's Wikipedia titles either are or aren't affected by naming processes during marriage

• Virginia Woolf – born Virginia Stephen, she took the married surname Woolf. The article title contains "Woolf" because that is the name by which she is best known.
• Vita Sackville-West – her birth name, not her married name Vita Nicolson, which is rarely used.
• Courteney Cox – on marriage she became Courteney Cox-Arquette, but she is still best known by the surname Cox, so the article title reflects that.

Alan, I said plainly, "If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it." and then, added to all your other unwelcome and, from my perspective, antagonistic accusations, you now accuse me of bias. If you want to try to justify this, fine. Please consider though, both for the sake of this thread and for others you may be involved in elsewhere, how tactical, wise or whatever do you think it is to plough straight on with behaviours that you know other people find antagonistic.

I started this thread with a long and I hope thoughtful content on civility. The basic point was please stick to the arguments but time and again accusations against editors have occurred again and again. You again, for all that I can see, make empty accusation of bias. Again I ask, "Do you ever give it a rest?" Please think on this. Many editors here have been bemoaning a supposed waste of time and similar. How do you think I feel when time and time again I have had to field this type of, as I see it, antagonistic nonsense from certain editors who time and again seem to be incapable of assuming good faith? PLEASE I ask you to stop but I am honestly unsure if you are capable of doing so.

Ping also, Omnedon, Wasted Time R, DD2K, Tvoz as I don't know what else to say or do. GregKaye 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to talk about civility. So, if that is what you want to talk about, you're at the wrong page. If you think my arguments "empty" -so be it. I directly addressed your points in my prior comment that matronimic-patronimic culture was irrelevant, and that "best" means seeking out the best. I don't know how you feel, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand - that you have several times complained about how you feel you are treated, and that that's a reason you want to contribute to a content edit to an article, shows personal bias - that you resort to **** punctuates that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (Also, if you wish to give me your advice on tactics or wisdom, please go to my talk page - and don't clutter this page, which is for content edits to this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

Alanscottwalker One thing that I fully agree with is that, that the specific parts of the referenced text that refer to matronimic-patronimic issues are irrelevant. I have never said otherwise. You are not arguing a valid point.

I am very happy for you to present any genuine argument that you have and hope that, in doing this, you can argue against another argument rather than arguing against an editor.

You have offered no justification for your any of your own unsubstantiated comments that I have quoted above.

I stand by the core content of my, I think substantiated comment in relation to such contents as found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it." Fair enough I could have refrained from the original and edited back wording) but the, I think, generous and option presenting content stands. The point made was a fair one and, I think, a generous one to present. As I have also, I think, generously commented, you may have valid arguments according to IAR.

However, if you are not going to work with policy then please do not expect WP:PG or as you call them "our rules" to be applied in any but direct ways. I am also, I think generously, pointing out that there are avenues that you can take to develop policy, if you see fit, so as to be more conducive to the subject's situation. Is there anything that you actually disagree with here or are you just making argument for the sake of it? GregKaye 09:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

All my arguments have been genuine. All my comments are substantiated. That's all I have to say on that. That your claims and reasons are wrong, I think we have discussed enough at this point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker There are many of comments that have been in no way substantiated. Now you offensively say, without justification that my claims and reasons (reasons for goodness sake) are wrong. I have been asking you to stop making these unsubstantiated accusations for some time. Even here you continue yet nothing is substantiated. There is no apology. You have nothing to say. I this is your version of diplomacy, good luck to you. GregKaye 19:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong on all points. I have substantiated at length - that you find disagreement personally offensive, is the further sign of your poor argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker In your edit of 10:23, 13 April 2015 you cited WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT while failing to give any indication as to how this related to choosing Hillary Rodham Clinton over Hillary Clinton. When you were challenged on this you said, "That you don't see relevance in basic policy on how Wikipedia covers encyclopedic subjects and analyzes sources, as well as human dignity mentioned in BLP is rather bizarre and lacking common sense" to which another editor replied "that is a bit of a non sequitur and ad hominem attack."

You then immediately said, "now having agreed that the policies need to be read together" leaving a clear implication that I had somehow not previously agreed to that WP:PG should be read together.

You then, I think, argumentatively said, "I just cannot credit the claim that ethics and human dignity can't be considered - it's just not the case" when all I did was state the clear WP:PG content at WP:TITLECHANGES while also encouraging, "If anyone has further thoughts on related matters I think they may be well raised in locations such as: WT:AT or WT:BLP." Another editor replied, "By your reasoning, the subject is constantly attacking her own human dignity, since she prefers the name so much that she uses it far less prominently than the more concise variation."

In one edit you say "No one is showcasing a name.." but in your next edit you say, "The name she prefers is biographically of import".

You make the offensive remark "some editors are claiming that we should take cluelessness concerning women's names and cluelessness concerning the subject of this article, as a reason for changing the title" in a context where she solely campaigns as "Hillary Clinton". Who? Please also see WP:WEASEL

Through it all you make repeated reference to "dignity" and "decency". To what extent do you think that "Hillary Clinton" defiles her own human dignity and decency when she repeatedly and publicly uses this name?

Lastly you now make the strong claim, "you are wrong on all points". On what point am I wrong? GregKaye 07:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you want to re-run a discussion of many days/week? No. That's of no benefit to the educational mission of the encyclopedia, nor this article. All your points have been addressed previously. Taking things out of context is a signal failure of your arguments. That you are wrong is just something you will have to live with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker The only extent that I "want to re-run a discussion of many days" is to point out tbat, as far as I can see, that points raised regarding comments of yours, as quoted, have not been addressed previously. What I request, as I would do with any other editor, is that in future edits you directly and clearly substantiate contributions that you make. GregKaye 09:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, you don't see what you don't want to see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: states: "I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to". Then you have not taken the time to read the last RM and the close, nor the policies which outline the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Ask yourself this, why move the page? Why spend countless hours debating a move that has been proposed many times before? For what reason? To remove a woman's family name? One that she has stated herself important to her, and one which she signs every document with? For what possible reason would anyone want to spend hours of their time to move a page, when the common name's are about equal? Both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton get you to the same article. Why spend so much time trying to remove the family name of this person? You are not going to have a debate about this subject in a civil manner if you refuse to see the obvious systemic bias in this, and ask other editors to tie both hands behind their backs before any RM is proposed. It's an insult to anyone that has been through this bullshit before. Dave Dial (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Dave Dial 100%. This is exactly the point. Tvoz/talk 01:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvoz Neither you nor Dave Dial (who, for some reason, you have also just dialled) have quoted the text that I originally responded. This had said, "It strikes me as being a power fantasy, nothing more. I'm tired of this systemic bias all over the place." Neither have you placed this addition in sequence following my personal response to Dave Dials helpful content below. I hope that within Wikipedia we go directly according to the WP:PG on NPOV. From my reading the insinuation from a Wikipedia editor was of "a power fantasy, nothing more and of systemic bias all over the place.. within Wikipedia. That was my interpretation and, in this context, I think that I fairly said, "I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to." Please remember that we are dealing with a subject who is consistently presenting herself politically as "Hillary Clinton" and that there is also a strong argument that we should, within contexts such as these, make a neutral application of clearly presented WP:PG such as UCRN. GregKaye 09:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon A major but extremely basic flaw in the previous RM was that it was not spelt out that WP:UCRN is demonstrated by predominance of use. Reference to the most scholarly sources may indicate most valid options for identifying subject presentations but, for instance, a biography which may have had its contents influenced by personal contacts with the subject and which, compared to outputs by the likes of the CNN or the Times of India, has relatively little impact on an actual level of common recognisability in the English speaking world. Remarkably the neither did the previous RM make a strong case for the ATs second criteria Naturalness. Naturalness "Hillary Clinton" is a name which fits with the WP:NATURALNESS description of a "title ... that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." This is clearly shown in extreme results from a "Hillary Clinton" : "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Google trends search. However you could easily have recommended a more in depth presentation of a case rather than to make insinuations of gaming.

Greg, this is your opinion, among a large number of opinions already registered here. Having seen how previous RMs have played out, I was not about to recommend that you try again on something I viewed as a waste of time. And you did propose gaming the system. Things have moved on since then, and so should we. Let's do something productive, shall we? Like improve articles, the foundation of Wikipedia? This discussion is going nowhere. Omnedon (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial I appreciate that you are directly and reasonably presenting a case. Such an example might have been adopted by other editors. When it comes to common name as defined by prevalence perspectives of commonly recognizable names are far from being about equal. Wikipedia has strongly stated a case for neutrality and it responds to situations in actuality. We try to avoid biases in all possible ways. Wikipedia has a clear policy on WP:SOAPBOX and, when I was I think considerate enough to give notification of this content, even pointing out various arguments that might be presented on either side, I was again criticised and attacked. No editor should expect another editor to tie their hands behind their backs. However I do not think that it is, to quote the phrase, "helpful to the process" when contributors attack the editor rather than addressing arguments. GregKaye 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There was clearly no such basic flaw, there is nothing in the policy you quote that makes for hard "rules". That you are spending your time, arguing for hard and fast "rules" to substitute for knowledge of the subject in an encyclopedia - and to perform an act of systemic bias - is in the words of policy "unproductive". Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we disagree about the flaw though I agree with you on not having hard and fast rules. I believe that the only time I talk about "rules" is when I am quoting other editors such as yourself as of 22:24, 12 April 2015.

I am arguing that Wikipedia policy and guidelines be consistently applied which may, in this case, permit a legitimate and straightforward case on the basis of IAR to be made. GregKaye 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If the close did not break the rule than calling it a basic flaw is tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you ever give it a rest? I expressed my view of an "extremely basic flaw in the previous RM". It is just one of the things that I would not necessarily have missed. I made no specification of the close and that was the last thing on my mind. Please stop this constant stream of accusation. It isn't well received. GregKaye 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What? The previous RM was closed as not moved - you said it had a basic flaw related to breaking some rule you want to exalt over the educational purpose of the article - but no such rule was broken. As for giving it a rest (what again?) - you engage in a procedure that policy tells you is often unproductive - and then you complain - I made no accusation - I said your claim was tendentious - that's called addressing the argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The move request being filed when the "will-she-run" media hype was at its peak...with the actual announcement coming 3 days later...was either deliberately timed or the Mother of all Unfortunately Timed Coincidences. If that observations ruffles a few feathers, then, well, tough cookies. Editing political articles and bios should be done with awareness of what is going on in the real world. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't go into details but this coincidence barely scratches the surface. The timing, from a !Vote perspective, does not really help the move proposal. My guess is that a well drafted proposal would probably face less agro if it occurred at a less politically active time. GregKaye 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Political activity is likely to grow, not diminish, for quite some time. It's probably better to discuss this in the next few weeks than to wait longer. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• "I am arguing that Wikipedia policy and guidelines be consistently applied which may, in this case, permit a legitimate and straightforward case on the basis of IAR to be made." And we call that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. You are not using basic common sense, understanding all of the previous history of the move request for this article and ignoring the previous consensus and restrictions placed on the article from that previous consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller We have policy and guidelines. We take it all into account. How is that Wikilawyering??? I do not think that it does, hopefully the most powerful person person in the world credit to have disregarded policy and guideline if there are legitimate and comprehendedable routes by which things could be handled.

• These comments on civility are nothing new. On six occasions above I have commented on contents requesting editors to strike. Either I was wrong in every case or editors are not responding to request for civility. "There would always have been the option to politely present a position and to cordially give indication as to why editors may think that a course of action may be unproductive. Please can editors keep this in mind in the event of similar future situations."

In the face of what I have regarded to be significant antagonism I have had no qualms in contributing to I think a fairly strong case for move as at: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. Other editors can respond as they like. GregKaye 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

clinton global initiative foreign money

should this not be relavent in light of the fact that she sits on the board and campaigns for president? was it a conflict of interest or at least ethics being secretary of state at that time? The private server adds to this question. Start a heading for all of the above [02:05, April 17, 2015‎ 173.28.186.112]

It's already mentioned in the article:

"and she and her daughter joined her husband as named members of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.[361] There she focused on early childhood development efforts, including an initiative called Too Small to Fail and a $600 million initiative to encourage the enrollment of girls in secondary schools worldwide, led by former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.[361][362] She also led the No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project, a partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to gather and study data on the progress of women and girls around the world since the Beijing conference in 1995;[363] its March 2015 report said that while "There has never been a better time in history to be born a woman ... this data shows just how far we still have to go."[364] The Foundation began accepting new donations from foreign governments, which it had stopped doing while she was secretary.[nb 15]"

nb 15: "There were several cases where foreign governments had continued making donations to the Foundation at the same level they had before Clinton became secretary, which was permissible under the agreement forged before she took office, and also one instance of a new donation, $500,000 from Algeria for earthquake relief in Haiti, that was outside the bounds of the continuation provision and should have received a special State Department ethics review but did not.[365]"

And she doesn't sit on the board any more, as she resigned her seat when she announced her run for the presidency the other day. I do need to update the article for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there more recent sources for the legal name question?

I am uncomfortable with the only source for the proposition that the subject "has never legally changed her name" being the 1993 article. When I was researching the 2008 primary ballots, I found that most states specifically require candidates to use their "legal name" on the ballot, and to sign an oath affirming that the name provided is in fact their legal name. Since we know that the subject appeared as "Hillary Clinton" on all such ballots, on at least a few she needed to affirm this as her legal name. Note that I do not consider this to be a question affecting the common name of the subject one way or the other, but I do want to be careful that our statements are correct. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that ...most states specifically require candidates to use their "legal name" on the ballot... is even remotely true. State and national political parties have traditionally had a fair bit of discretion in how their candidates are listed on ballots. That is why no one likely had to choose between "Willard Mitt Romney" and Barack Hussein Obama II" on a ballot in 2012. I'm sure they have to register and swear an oath that the name they're filing is their full and legal name, but that's apples and oranges entirely. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to do the research yourself. I personally looked at the election laws of dozens of states, and found numerous examples requiring that a legal name be used; they do not necessarily require a "full" legal name, and often spell out permissible nickname variations (including the use of a shortened version of the name). Whether you believe it or not does not alter its status as an easily verifiable fact. bd2412 T 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, here is the current Indiana elections code provision:

IC 3-5-7-4

Candidate's legal name
Sec. 4. (a) For purposes of placement of a candidate's name on the ballot, a candidate's legal name is determined under this section.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a candidate's legal name is considered to be the name shown on the candidate's birth certificate.
(c) If a candidate:
(1) uses a name after marriage as described in subsection (d); or
(2) takes a name through a judicial proceeding that is different from the name shown on the candidate's birth certificate; the most recent name used after marriage or taken in the judicial proceeding is considered to be the candidate's legal name.
(d) A name a candidate uses after marriage is considered the candidate's legal name if the name satisfies any of the following:
(1) The name is the name appearing on the candidate's birth certificate.
(2) The name is the name used by the candidate as an applicant for the marriage license.
(3) The name is any combination of the names the candidate and the candidate's spouse used as applicants for their marriage license.

As added by P.L.202-1999, SEC.1.

Similarly, the Florida Elections department circulates a memorandum stating:

The candidate oath form that must be filed during the qualifying period requires you to designate your "name as you wish it to appear on ballot." Case law and Division of Elections Opinions 86­-06 and 09-05 permit a nickname to be printed on the ballot along with one's surname when the nickname is one by which the person is generally known or one that the person has used as part of his or her legal name.

Here is Nevada's law on the subject:

NRS 293.2565

Use of given names, surnames and nicknames on ballot; use of additional criteria to distinguish between candidates having same given names and surnames.
1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, in any election regulated by this chapter, the name of a candidate printed on a ballot may be the given name and surname of the candidate or a contraction or familiar form of his or her given name followed by his or her surname. A nickname of not more than 10 letters may be incorporated into the name of a candidate. The nickname must be in quotation marks and appear immediately before the surname of the candidate. A nickname must not indicate any political, economic, social or religious view or affiliation and must not be the name of any person, living or dead, whose reputation is known on a statewide, nationwide or worldwide basis, or in any other manner deceive a voter regarding the person or principles for which he or she is voting.
2.  In any election regulated by this chapter, if two or more candidates have the same given name and surname and:
(a) None of the candidates is an incumbent, the middle names or middle initials, if any, of the candidates must be included in the names of the candidates; or
(b) One of the candidates is an incumbent, the name of the incumbent must be listed first and the word “Incumbent” must appear next to the name of the candidate who is the incumbent.

(Added to NRS by 2003, 1714; A 2011, 2086)

You aren't reading your own source correctly. If she used "Rodham" as part of her name when getting married, then as far as Florida ballot law in concerned, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her legal name as defined under section d, parts 2 and/or 3. Again, I will point out how a Florida ballot actually appears; note "Mitt", not "Willard". We can see quite clearly where you're trying to go with this, but it isn't going to fly. Names as they appear on ballots are malleable due to a several situations; what name appears therein is not "proof" of a person's legal name. So in summation, you are mistaken here, but the mistakenness is largely academic as we would not be accepting editor's interpretation of primary sources into the RM debate anyways. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't read what I've said correctly. I am not saying that "Rodham" is not part of her name, but that "Clinton" is part of her name. bd2412 T 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, we all know that "Clinton" is a part of her name. You know that a person doesn't have to ever really do anything official to change a name, right? As soon as they start using it in an official capacity, e.g. signing documents, having contracts (marriage, mortgage, etc...) with a name, it becomes for all intents & purposes a "legal name". Tarc (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on the state - my wife had to file documents to change her name when we married. In any case, the article currently states that she "has never legally changed her name", which seems to suggest that her legal name is still "Hillary Rodham". That is the point that I addressed in the original post, which your last response overlooks. bd2412 T 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gathered that Tarc is right in that one can simply start using a different name. At the same time, one can also "legally" change one's name through the system, and in some situations that may be necessary for various reasons. And, as you say, it may vary by state. Omnedon (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What should the article say, then? bd2412 T 03:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I grasp, the sources from NYT the AR Gazette and Politico all seem to agree that when she married Bill, she retained her maiden name and did not take the Clinton name, in order to try and strengthen her own political chances in Arkansas, which apparently didn't work. The question we have is at what point (if any) did Hillary Rodham become HRC, for the purposes of putting her legal name on the ballot. None of the sources satisfactorily answer this, though it seems to be around the beginning of the Clinton Admin she began going by HRC. As far as this article, I'm fine with it as-is as long as we don't use the phrase "never legally changed her name," because we don't have any sources after the marriage that prove that. That's my 2 cents, if that makes any sense... <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

At present the article begins with the text:

• Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is a former United States Secretary of State, serving under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator from New York, serving from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001..

However in an Ngrams search on names no results are found for "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton".

Various writers have presented "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" but it I suspect that this is just a complementation of a legally registered name as "Hillary Diane Rodham" and a professional name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

GregKaye 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Potentially the second oldest new president?

Am I correct that if Clinton were elected, she would be the second oldest new president to ever be elected. Ronald Reagan was a few months older on his first inauguration day but was there any one else who was ever elected as a new president and who was older? Does any one know if there was a lot of discussion about Reagan's age at the time? I have a feeling there was. It would be interesting to see if attitudes have shifted about age since Reagan was elected...Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

70 is the new 40, either that or as Al Gore once said, "59 is the new 58". Randy Kryn 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unimportant trivia, really. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If she becomes the nominee, she will be the fourth oldest first-time nominee (after Reagan, McCain, and Dole). bd2412 T 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So User:BD2412, I am correct that she would be the second oldest new president ever, right? Is that getting any attention I wonder? Did it get attention when Reagan ran? Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi: - You're right. Interesting fact. Find a reference for it and add it to the article. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickCT - Well, I was really trying to find out about the Reagan position like I mentioned. To contrast the two campaigns in that regard would be interesting. I was asking about it rather than making statements about it, in case people here know about "ageism" in the Reagan campaign and so we could see how it pans out in comparison with the Clinton 2 campaign. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that ageism in the McCain and Dole campaigns would be just as relevant, since we are only talking about the campaign stage. I would throw out a few caveats, though. Reagan was elected 35 years ago, when average life expectancy in the U.S. was several years shorter; also, women continue to have a life expectancy about five years longer than men. Taken together, a white woman in the United States in 2015 would be expected to outlive a white male in the United States in 1980 by about a decade. bd2412 T 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure who is for or against adding this information. Though interesting I am personally undecided whether or not it is encyclopedic and I think it may be necessary to have consensus on addition unless its notability is proven beyond dispute. GregKaye 07:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's utilizing WP:CRYSTAL, talking about something that hasn't happened yet (and may not happen at all) and is not, therefore, encyclopedic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense, the notion that "it" hasn't happened yet and won't actually happen until the day she is sworn in as president in 2016. It's a factual inevitability, one which stems from her personal actions. If John McCain was running and was campaigning on a platform of raining nuclear missiles down upon Iran, that would certainly be an encyclopedic entry that would not need to wait until the day the missiles were actually launched.

As far as it being 'ageism' we only need look to what occurred in the final years of Reagan's presidency, with him almost certainly in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, nuclear football in hand. It's not just whether they'll stay alive through their terms it's the mental decline which accompanies old age. This is a legitimate question of concern for any presidential candidate, as the electorate will find it absolutely impossible to assess the mental condition of their president once they are elected, barring frank displays of symptomatology. QuintBy (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That you could say about any candidate, since there are health conditions that can strike at any age. If we cross the bridge of "gets elected president" then it makes sense to talk about being the second-oldest president. If we cross the bridge of "gets nominated", maybe it makes sense to talk about being the fourth-oldest first-term nominee (and, I believe, seventh-oldest nominee for any term). At the moment, she is not even in the top ten oldest candidates. Mike Gravel was 78 when he ran in 2008. Ralph Nader was in his 70s for both of his campaigns, and Ron Paul also ran several times while in his 70s. Of course, if Jeb Bush ends up being the Republican nominee, the age issue would apply equally, because then both candidates would be in their 60s. bd2412 T 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if Clinton is elected, it would still be uninteresting trivia; being in second place is rarely notable. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

With Bernie Sanders entering the race, Clinton is no longer even the oldest 2016 Democratic candidate. bd2412 T 21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It could however become a very serious issue in the primaries and general election, if she gets that far. Personally, I think it makes sense to include it only if it becomes a major point raised by one or more of her opponents in the election. And it almost certainly will be. But until that happens, the article can probably do without the information. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2015

• Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
• Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
• Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors → Hillary Clinton awards and honors
• List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
• Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Political positions of Hillary Clinton

– For the reasons set forth at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, it is proposed that "Hillary Clinton" is her common name, and is more recognizable (particularly to the large population of Wikipedia readers outside the United States, but for many American readers as well), more natural, more concise, and more consistent with titles for human names. Please note:

Discussion of this proposal is taking place at
Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request#Requested move.

Calidum T|C 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to believe this move request came only two days ago. It already feels like an eternity. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Last year this clown car has enough gas to run for 3 weeks, so tuck in and make some popcorn. Tarc (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)