Talk:Hillary Clinton/April 2015 move request

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

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Hillary Clinton. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Note: A panel of three editors has volunteered to close this request, in response to a request for a three-admin panel posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are Callanecc, Euryalus, and Mdann52 (an experienced non-admin RM closer).

''The following is transcluded from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. The full request can be found there and comments should only be made there. Thanks!

Request move from:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
 * Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors → Hillary Clinton awards and honors
 * List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
 * Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Political positions of Hillary Clinton

This move would presumably extend to the names of categories and Wikiprojects relating to Hillary. Note that certain titles regarding her are already at the shorter titles (Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements), and will not be affected by this move.

This move is proposed for the following reasons:


 * Recognizability: Many readers have expressed confusion with the title because they are unaware of Hillary's use of "Rodham" -- this is especially true for those from countries outside the U.S., as "Hillary Clinton" is almost always used in the rest of the English-speaking world. As of her campaign launch on April 12 of this year, the prominence of the use of "Hillary Clinton" on her most public self-representations (such as her campaign page and newly-created Facebook page, which has already drawn millions of views), intensifies this situation. There is no need to allow possible reader confusion when an alternative is available that is not confusing to anyone.
 * WP:COMMONNAME presents the guidance that: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural".
 * Plainly and simply, "prevalence" is indicated as being the issue that determines the common recognizability of a name.
 * "Hillary Clinton" is primarily and more commonly presented in a larger number of secondary sources than can be found using "Hillary Rodham Clinton". In particular, people speaking or releasing statements about Hillary, including current and potential political opponents, most frequently refer to the her as "Hillary Clinton." Using search engine testing for instance:
 * site:www.wsj.com/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 75,900 results"
 * site:www.wsj.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 1,340 results"
 * as per: List of newspapers in the United States by circulation
 * site:telegraph.co.uk/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 72,700 results"
 * site:telegraph.co.uk/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 2,930 results"
 * as per: List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation
 * Ngrams raw data favours "Hillary Clinton"
 * Google trends indicates that in the last twelve months (beginning after the close of the last move request on this topic) there has been a spike in Google searches for "Hillary Clinton" over "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Over the past year (and particularly since June 2014), people performing Google searches were at least 28 times as likely to search for "Hillary Clinton"; however, since her announcement of candidacy and the reveal of her campaign website and Facebook page, people are now more than 100 times as likely to search for "Hillary Clinton". By contrast, people are about as likely to search for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as to search for "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton".
 * In view of "prevalence" in sources, "Hillary Clinton" is by far the most her "commonly recognizable name."


 * High level sources:
 * It has previously been argued that "high-level sources" should be given special consideration. Per Verifiability, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". With respect to solely these highest-level sources:
 * Google Scholar returns since 2014 show "about 3,710 results" for "Hillary Clinton" and "about 613 results" for "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * The Social Science Research Network directory of peer-reviewed scholastic journals returns the following:
 * "Hillary Clinton" gets 1,560 results
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets 324 results
 * JSTOR, another archive of peer-reviewed scholastic journals returns the following:
 * "Hillary Clinton" gets 3,667 results
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets 1,324 results
 * JSTOR results are searchable by date range; a search for results from only the past year shows a substantial increase in the proportion of scholarly publications using "Hillary Clinton":
 * "Hillary Clinton" gets 138 results
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets 23 results
 * Since the previous discussion, the predominance of "Hillary Clinton" in these highest-level sources has increased from 73.5% to over 85.5%.
 * A search of records from the United States Government Publishing Office indicates that in the past year there have been 105 U.S. government documents published that reference "Hillary Clinton" while only 30 U.S. government documents published that reference "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * "Hillary Clinton" has been overwhelmingly more common in books since she was First Lady


 * Naturalness "Hillary Clinton" is a name which fits with the WP:NATURALNESS description of a "title ... that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." This is clearly shown in extreme results from a "Hillary Clinton" : "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Google trends search.
 * About 2300 main pages link to the redirect page "Hillary Clinton" which can be judged to overlap significantly with the
 * About 2800 main pages that directly and/or indirectly link to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This number should be noted to be inclusive of pages that include/also include redirects from namespaces such as Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary R. Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will also be inclusive of pages that include widely used templates 1234 which are amongst pages that use redirects such as "Hillary Clinton" and "Clinton"


 * Preciseness/Conciseness: The conditions of Preciseness are fully met with concision with "Hillary Clinton" immediately and precisely identifying her. Nothing more than that is needed. There is no other "Hillary Clinton" from which disambiguation might be needed.


 * Consistency: Presentation of only a first name and last name, even where a middle or maiden name exists, is more common with human names generally, and particularly with human names found throughout Wikipedia. For example, we use Elizabeth Dole (not "Elizabeth Hanford Dole") and Laura Bush (not "Laura Welch Bush"), even though the longer forms can often be found in high-level biographies.


 * Hillary's preference: "Hillary Clinton" is presented in the public arena primary sources and particularly in primary sources related to political campaigning: for example in campaign ads, announcements, on ballots, twitter, facebook and websites.
 * Her twitter account: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton presents: "Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton" - as appearing as page title and on all posts. "Rodham" was not used.
 * Her facebook page https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton makes several mentions of "Hillary Clinton" but makes no mention of Rodham.
 * Her facebook campaign page https://www.facebook.com/Hillary2016 presents: 43 uses of "Hillary Clinton" inclusive of 27 uses of "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" (as at 11/04/2015). "Rodham" was not used.
 * At http://www.hillaryclinton.com, "Hillary Clinton" is the web page title text as shown through any "Hillary Clinton" web search that reaches the main page. The name "Hillary Clinton" similarly appears within the text of many of the site's pages as well as, of course, in the web address itself. The name "Rodham" only seems to appear twice and both times in signatures, once on an English page and once on a Spanish page.
 * http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents: "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...". Notably, the site's own "Bio" page, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/bio/, completely omits the use of "Rodham" despite describing her childhood at length.
 * The facebook page give prominent reference to hillarypac.org which makes 14 references to "hillary clinton" without references to "rodham" being made.


 * WP:NOTSHOWCASE/WP:NOTADVOCATE Wikipedia only responds to real world situations of actuality and does not give any special consideration to any privately expressed view as to how a subject may personally want to have their name presented.


 * Title Stability - On this high visibility article, it may be desirable to have a stable title. The current title has prompted numerous previous proposals to move this page as proposed. While the majority of respondents in those previous proposals have generally favored a move, enough support was not garnered to avoid a "no consensus" finding. The most recent discussion (initiated March 31, 2014), resulting in a substantial majority of 44 editors favoring the move and 20 opposing the move, was closed as "no consensus"; the prior discussion (initiated in June 2013), resulting in a majority of 12 editors favoring the move and 10 opposing the move, was initially closed by a non-administrator as moved, but reversed on review due to the reasoning of the close, not the discussion itself. It is proposed that these discussions show that there is a consistent preference of the community to move the page, and that this preference has continued to grow over time. Furthermore, there have been substantial changes favoring the title "Hillary Clinton" since the last discussion, most notably her launch of a campaign where "Hillary Clinton" is her most prominently used style of conveying her name.


 * Revisions to policy page. During the past year, the policy on article titles has evolved, including the "nutshell" which is a consensus summary of the policy.  As this diff shows, the conciseness and naturalness standards are both new in the nutshell, and this change of emphasis supports "Hillary Clinton" instead of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" per the discussion above.  Another new part of that policy page is the following: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness", which implies that omitting or abbreviating middle names and other names for conciseness is usually fine.  Indeed, a further new part of the policy states: "When deciding whether to use middle names....[s]ee also WP:CONCISE above."

Calidum T&#124;C 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion guidelines
Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.

Users either supporting or opposing the move should indicate at least the most pertinent reasons for doing so. This will help the closing admin(s) determine consensus.

Comments that are placed in the wrong section may be moved to the correct section by administrators or other participants. Excessively lengthy or off-topic discussions may be collapsed.

Support

 * 1) Support it's about time we do this. The research provided in this move request is solid and relevant. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Articles should be at the name that comes to mind when the typical reader thinks of the subject. Wikipedia does not stand on the kind of formalities that dictate the style of information outlets with inflexible editorial boards that can not easily adjust to changes in usage by an article subject or by people in general. I have watched the talk page for this article for a long time now, and it is a steadily increasing trend that an editor who has never been involved in this question before will arrive there and note that they are confused to find "Rodham" this title, and propose to move the page to "Hillary Clinton". It is inevitable that eventually this will lead to the page being moved, so we might as well do it now and avoid both future confusion and future extensive discussion of proposals that new editors will continue to bring.  bd2412  T 14:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per WP:COMMONNAME.  As stated above, her own Twitter feed and websites don't use Rodham.  Reliable sources also do not report on her using Rodham. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:COMMONNAME, recognizability, and indeed every factor presented in the move proposal. Also, all the subsidiary articles' titles will work much better with the common name. (In terms of mentioning Hillary Rodham Clinton as formal iteration of her name, can simply mention that bolded in the lede, either in the same sentence with her full birth name, or in the sentence right after that.) Cheers to Calidum (and anyone else who helped) in factoring that excellently worded proposal. ADDED: I think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the perfect example of someone to contrast this situation with. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the simplicity of not having a maiden name. The "Rodham" doesn't add anything in disambiguation, so the shorter version should be used. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support per all of the reasons described in the move request, especially conciseness.  Moreover, people usually use their preferred name when announcing for President, and Hillary Clinton did it using "Hillary Clinton".  If a person has one overall preferred name, and another name that they specifically want for the title of their Wikipedia article, I think WP:COMMONNAME obliges us to go with the more common name.  Additionally, if we go to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and search all the book titles there, we find "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 18 times, and "Hillary Clinton" (or "Hillary and Bill Clinton") 27 times. This confirms my sense that she is primarily referred to as "Hillary Clinton" in the mainstream, by a substantial margin.  I excluded children's books because we write for a general audience (cf. Simple English Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per WP:COMMONNAME & because there's no other bio-article of a Hillary Clinton, therefore 'Rodham' isn't required to clarify wich Hillary Clinton we're mentioning. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Personally, I've never, ever heard her being addressed as Hilary Rodham Clinton. Now, sure, I'm British, but as far as I've noticed, Hilary Clinton is the COMMONNAME, pure and simple. BD2412's comment about "an editor who has never been involved in this question before" - well, that was me not that long ago. And given that her official website (at least, I'm hoping hillaryclinton.com is that) explicitly states "Hillary Clinton is running for president. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Let’s go." - not Hilary Rodham Clinton. Yes, people have the right to go by their maiden names if they so desire. Yes, she achieved things whilst still using her maiden name as her only surname. But when people take the name of their husbands, then that's often what we begin to refer to them as - want an example? Cheryl Cole, even though the height of her career was arguably attained when she was called Tweedy still - and note she's still known by the Cole name, even if her surname doesn't reflect that any more. Why is that? COMMONNAME, again. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is used in reliable sources - but that doesn't make it the primary name, does it? No, no it doesn't, and I think anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry picking at best.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per COMMONNAME and a blind, objective reading of reliable sources as represented in Ngram Viewer. As evident there, HC has always led HRC and the gap has only grown wider with time. The data ends with 2008 (with HC leading by 2.8 to 1 (73%) and the gap still widening),  but there is no reason to believe that (1) the trend has reversed since, and (2) the trend has reversed enough to put HRC ahead. To satisfy the COMMONNAME policy, we needn't look any further. As I understand it, arguments are supposed to be policy-based, and I don't see much policy in opposing arguments; certainly nothing as clear-cut as COMMONNAME. Any selectiveness in choice of sources is necessarily subjective, and there would be no way for a closer to choose one selection without imposing his or her own personal opinions. If Ngram Viewer showed the trend reversing by 2008, I might be more open to other criteria, but it does not. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per the above because "Hillary Clinton" is more commonly used, despite the fact that "Rodham" is used by some reliable sources. I've rarely ever heard Hillary's maiden name in the media, though, where the vast majority of mentions take place. And, the official website is https://www.hillaryclinton.com/, so yeah, I think people are going to call her "Hillary Clinton" more often than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Epic Genius (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per COMMONNAME and reliable sources, and her own, informal, usage of her own name in her official campaign channels. However: we can, and should, use "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" in the intro sentence, because that's her full, formal name, and add "also known as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- which are two, slightly different versions of her name, both of which she uses in public life. -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support - It is clear that HC is the WP:COMMONNAME. That being the case, there'd have to be some really good reason to maintain HRC. I don't see one. NickCT (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per COMMONNAME. Sources mostly speak of Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mbcap (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME.  I don't see any special reason why this topic should be treated differently from every other topic.  In fact, I'm surprised that it's taken this long to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support. As the above proposal clearly lays out, multiple Wikipedia policies are overwhelmingly on the side of this move, most importantly among them WP:COMMONNAME. It is time for this move to finally happen. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per above, WP:COMMONNAME and the fact she's known as Hillary Clinton - Do we call Barack Obama "Barack Hussein Obama II" or Gordon Brown "James Gordon Brown" .... No!, Therefore IMHO there's no reason why this shouldn't be moved to the correct name either. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support again. She is commonly known both in her own country and throughout the world simply as Hillary Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very interesting how many of the opposers use arguments such as "it's her official name", "it's her preferred name" and "it would be sexist to only call her by her husband's name". I fail to see how any of these arguments have any validity under WP:COMMONNAME. They seem to boil down to "we should make an exception to our long-held policy for this one woman". Very odd indeed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Hillary Clinton Comparison.PNG'''(Come Talk to Me!) 23:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ]]
 * 1) Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. On my unbiased research I found that she is referred to 3-10 times more often as Hillary Clinton, than Hillary Rodham Clinton. That easily overrules arguments about what name is used in personal sources, what matters is what name she is known by, what name she currently uses in her campaign and most importantly what name is used in the majority of news sources. [My image to the right clearly displays what I am referring to and why it should be moved.] EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC) [Amended 23:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)]
 * 2) Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. She uses this name professionally in many different arenas of life. Reliable primary and secondary sources consistently prefer the more concise name. (Even if George W. Bush's dad wasn't famous, I would still support George W. Bush as the location of the article, because he wasn't typically referred to just as "George Bush". His dad was, though, so if W had never reached the notability of his dad, I'd support moving George H. W. Bush to the base title. WP:CONCISE can't be used to override WP:COMMONNAME, but here the two actually work together.)  Red  Slash  20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I came here thinking I could come down on either side. I'm convinced by the support side. On the one hand, the fact that Ms Clinton uses HRC in her recent book needs to be taken into account. We should take into account the subject's preference. On the other hand, it does not seem to be a strong preference because there is a wealth of campaign material in which she simply uses "Hillary Clinton". And outweighing, by a long way, any preference on the part of Ms Clinton is the clear evidence that the preponderance of reliable sources use "Hillary Clinton". Certainly the news outlets all do. And having had a search though JSTOR, Questia and Google Book, I'm not convinced by the argument that more scholarly sources use HRC: I see no evidence of a preference among scholars. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - I have been in favor of this for some time now. BMK (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. She is known as Hillary Clinton. It follows the same pattern as other well known political figures and should be followed here. Casprings (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support outside the mini-universe called "America" she is 100% referred to as "Hillary Clinton", and, as it happens, many people within that universe call her Hillary Clinton too.  This is as simple a requested move as I have ever seen.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - per the WP:COMMONNAME. HC is known by this name mostly and the scholarly sources also use the name. 45.34.15.160 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC) — 45.34.15.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 8) Support - after thinking this through, I find myself leaning towards support as the common name as shown in reliable sources such as CNN, Miami Herald, The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, and CBS News. Additionally, her official website is "hillaryclinton.com". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:MIDDLES. She is more commonly known without the "Rodham" and probably always has been, and I don't believe there are any other Hillary Clintons such that disambiguation is required. And even if there were, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Her husband's article is not William Jefferson Clinton and in fact that is one of the first examples given in the relevant guideline. This really is a very easy and clear cut case; I am quite surprised that it has caused so much drama here, and I expect to see it at Lamest edit wars some time in the future. Ivanvector (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) *Rodham isn't her middle name. Justen (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was; MIDDLES happens to be the correct guideline shortcut for maiden names as well. Ivanvector (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I have yet to hear anyone say they will vote for against Hillary Rodham Clinton, they say Hillary Clinton because that is the name most commonly used.The arguments against the rename focus on the name used by scholarly sources and herself as an author. These, however, are often different to the common name used, as there are many instances of someone with the same name appearing on the scene decades or centuries later, and so these sources "look to the future" to avoid possible confusion. Relying on them would force us to change thousands of other entries. We have WP:COMMONNAME for a reason. If some people want to delete that Guideline, let them try that directly rather than on an article by article basis. Flatterworld (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The only thing that surprises me more than how often we discuss this is the fact that, holy crap guys, we're like the only ones who still consistently use her middle name. Like, in common usage. Come on. Born2cycle's much-maligned "yogurt rule" absolutely applies here: this will continue to be a perennial issue until the move is made. At that point, there may be some residual conflicts, but it will eventually become a non-issue. I hope that doesn't sound like a threat—that's just the only way I ever see this playing out. (P.S. Ping me if you want to discuss this; it's going to be too hot for me to add to my watchlist.) --BDD (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rodham isn't her middle name... -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is completely irrelevant. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Rreagan007 is correct, though I would certainly call a maiden name retained between a given name and a surname a middle name. If her legal name is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, I'd say she has two middle names. Still, don't get hung up on semantics. WP:MIDDLES, in particular, has also been applied to cases where even given names and surnames are not well known or as commonly used (e.g., Madonna (entertainer)). --BDD (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and current use. If anyone wants to peek at all the first ladies at whitehouse.gov every last one of them is listed by maiden name and married name (Barbara Pierce Bush) and many by middle name, maiden name and married name (Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower. If she is running for President as Hillary Clinton, then let's keep it simple.   Montanabw (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. In English it's most common to refer to Westerners, at least, as "Firstname Lastname" without any middle name(s). That's the style Wikipedia should be following in general unless there's a reason not to do it. When this article was created, there was a real perceived reason to use Mrs. Clinton's middle name: her strong preference, at that time, which was followed by sources. Now both the sources and Mrs. Clinton's own usage have shifted, so the argument for using "Rodham" is weak, and we should use the typical format. Moreover, the comparison to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very apt - thinking about the actual coverage both women have received for a minute will tell you where the numbers lie just as well as the numbers do. There is some value in seeking to retain a stable article title that has withstood multiple move requests, but not as much as there is in matching current sources. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — 209.211.131.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Actually, this IP has made tons of edits to other subjects.
 * Hm weird, I swear it only had a handful of edits like the other one . Must have been a bad cut n paste on my part. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:COMMONNAME: it's the name by which she is known in British media - I'd never heard of the "Rodham" name until seeing it here in WP arguments. And the statistics shown above are pretty convincing too. And the norm on WP is "one-given-name surname" unless there's a strong reason to do otherwise. Pam  D  07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, in particular for the world-wide audience that is interested in this article. While I was aware of her maiden name, I basically never saw or heard of it in common discussion here in Germany. To move beyond the anecdotal, I checked Google Ngram. For the German corpus (which goes to 2009), it shows a fairly consistent 8-1 preference of the version without her maiden name. The French corpus has 7-1, Spanish is 11-1, Italian is 14-1. Those are the major world languages which use a latin alphabet and are covered. While this is the English language Wikipedia, and we give special consideration to English sources, we should also take into account the expectations of our non-native language users. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange that you claim that people in Germany don't know HRC as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", yet the German language Wikipedia's article is titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and has been since 2003(12 years)> Dave Dial (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and surprising to me (although I'd be happier if you don't put words into my mouth). The naming convention on the German Wikipedia is de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen. It has a strong preference for the "officially registered" name, probably based on the fact that Germany has a much stricter system of registration of names and personal data than the US. It doesn't change the fact that "Rodham" is rarely used in Germany, and apparently even less in other countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the specific naming conventions are on the German Wikipedia or what discussions have been held there but it seems a lot of the other language Wikipedias often tend to follow the lead of the English language article name, especially for subjects outside the relevant language. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Primarily per WP:COMMONNAME, but also per the well argued case laid out by User:Calidum.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
 * 2) support I agree, as the main objective of wilipedia is to provide unbridled access to quality information and more occasionally users are genuinely perpexeled when they hear a new term or name which they usually aren`t attuned to and this also most cerstains confuses the reader hence it is most appropriate that we alter the title to simple Hiilary clinton and the arguments presented above are more then ample to justify this valid and authentic standCreator Xavier (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support both per WP:COMMONNAME and PamD's comments above. Prioryman (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and recognisability. Wikipedia has repeatedly rejected the preference of a subject in other cases - e.g "Cat Stevens" not "Yusuf Islam" or "Lily Allen" not "Lily Rose Cooper" during a period when the singer was using her married name professionally (she has since reverted her professional name to Allen). There is no reason why this subject should be treated as an exceptional case and not have the article at the most familiar name. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The COMMONNAME arguments simply win out for me. Here in Australia, I have quite literally never seen the full name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used - the first I heard of it was when looking at Wikipedia - and probably very few people, other than widely-read people or those with a special interest in American politics, would associate the name "Rodham" with this individual. (So essentially per PamD.) I also agree with all the very well reasoned points put forward by others. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per WP:COMMONNAME, in my experience she is almost always referred to as Hillary Clinton in American and well as international English media. Winner 42 Talk to me!  12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Most common search term. The longer name will continue to redirect. The full name appears in the biography. What is so hard to understand about this?!?!? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as well as previous comments in this section attesting that ""Hillary Clinton" is the commonly used term word-wide, and the well-formulated case put forth in the nomination statement.--JayJasper (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and everything in the outstanding nom.  Assessing someone's personal preference is not our job.  Our job is to assess the most common usage for referring to a particular subject in reliable sources.  The proposed title is clearly indicated when we do this.  --В²C ☎ 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) *I wish also to reply to 's point about it being the "height of chutzpah" for supporters of change here to claim disruption. Time and time again obstinate opposition to title change has been shown to be disruptive when a controversial title like this one is finally changed and the controversy is resolved accordingly.  This phenomenon is described in detail at The Yogurt Principle.  --В²C ☎ 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) *I also offer the argument that the shorter title is favored per the Concision razor argument in situations where consensus cannot otherwise be determined. --В²C ☎ 22:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — No one in the media calls her Hilary Rodham Clinton. Like nobody says Barack Hussein Obama. I just don't think her middle name shouldn't be featured in the article unlike Neil Patrick Harris who is well known by that. (Film Guy on Wiki (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Support Per WP:COMMONAME, Hillary Clinton is by far the most common way that people refer to her, so we should default to that. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:COMMONAME.  The only question is whether enough people who don't normally give a shit about these things (meaning the vast majority of humankind) show up to participate.  Those in the United States, I would plead you to consider that internationally, this is even more of a no-brainer.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per WP:COMMONNAME from google results to sources provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. If Wikipedia was to survey people today, the vast majority would not know that Hillary Clinton has Rodham in her name. If you listen to any televised media, absolutely zero use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to address her. If you search on the web, an overwhleming majority pertains to "Hillary Clinton" as opposed to "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  Teammm  $talk email$ 01:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A few years ago on might have been able to make the case that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" met WP:COMMONNAME, but it is not even close now. I searched her campaign site for "Rodham" and could not find it. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Both names are sufficiently precise and neither is offensive, but the move is favored by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALNESS, especially given EoRdE6's evidence above. kennethaw88 • talk 02:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Nothing has changed since my last RM. Hence the support :D. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * oh, now, I'd think that one through a bit..... At the last RM she was simply a private citizen recently retired from the cabinet, who some thought might or might not run for President someday. And she had no Facebook page and was keeping a much lower profile. Contra today, a declared presidential candidate much more in the news with a newly launched "Hillary Clinton" campaign website, newly launched "Hillary Clinton" bio, newly launched "Hillary Clinton" Facebook page, and many other outfeeds of information pressing "Hillary Clinton" as her name. Much has changed. Pandeist (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. As an educated resident of Europe with moderate interest in politics who, to quote Milowent, "doesn't normally give a shit about these things", I've hardly ever seen that "Rodham" as part of her name, so the current title fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for me. Yes, I know the background, and we probably don't have to move this article, but the title violates the principle of least astonishment, so such move requests will likely be repeated. So why not move it now? No such user (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support on the basis of Calidum's reasoning, the vast majority of which is firmly grounded in established policy. There are a few good arguments for why we might wish to maintain the current title, but most are based on an assortment of non-policy reasoning or policies that have nothing to do with article titles, such as stability, self-identity, subject preference, recentism (if one can indeed consider 2008 recent), correctness, waste of wiki-time, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and other stuff. Oppose #15 omits the words "... without a discussion that leads to consensus..." from WP:TITLECHANGES, thus negating the argument. While WP:SPNC attempts to clarify WP:BLP and WP:COMMONNAME, it vacillates, and doesn't actually support retaining the existing title any more than it supports changing it. - MrX 17:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, mainly per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I am Italian and I have never heard Italian media referring of her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Also, WP:NATURALNESS easily applies. Cavarrone 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject (my emphasis). If Italian-language sources refer to the subject as HC rather than HRC, the Italian Wikipedia should go with HC. But we must consider English-language sources here. -- Sonic Y (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. This is one where the COMMONNAME has actually changed over time.  Back when she was First Lady, an overwhelming majority of sources referred to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  That, however began to shift when she became a senator (and ran for President the first time), and it shifted yet again when she became Secretary of State. With her latest run for the Presidency, however, the sources are overwhelmingly referring to her as just "Hillary Clinton" (without the Rodham). So... while we don't ignore the old sources... we do give more weight to the more recent sources.  Which is why I would not have supported this even a year ago... but now I do. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No brainer really per WP:COMMONNAME. Number   5  7  21:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, for reasons described in this proposal, and previous proposals. Basically, the evidence just keeps on building and building, so this is not going to be an issue that ever ceases to be out of balance in favor of moving the page. There are a few points I would like to make about this.
 * First, even if there were an even split between support and opposition--or even slightly more in opposition, the page still should be moved because there are a larger number of policy-based arguments supporting moving the page. All of the principles of article titles are important, and all of those at WP:AT support moving this page.
 * Some people have supported this move because they had not even heard of a version other than Hillary Clinton. That should seal it, really, because why would we choose a title which only some people will recognize right away over one which everyone unquestionably will recognize right away? That makes no sense on Wikipedia. The "random person reading the article" is the reason we have an article in the first place. It's the reason why Wikipedia exists. This is not some political blog aimed at wonks, and we are not a publicity house for political figures. We should reflect what people are likely to look for, and if people looking for the topic are about a hundred times as likely to look for "Hillary Clinton" than any other version of the name, then that is exactly why we have policies like WP:TITLE and WP:OFFICIAL. I think it is important that this is reflected at other-language Wikipedias (and I said this last year), and most use only Hillary Clinton or the phonetic version of it.
 * These languages cover most of the world. A person coming from any of these language bases to English Wikipedia would expect the name to reflect the way the world usually knows it. Please feel free to collapse the list if you can figure out a way without messing up the numbering. I couldn't do it. Plenty of sources that meet WP:RS show that "Hillary Clinton" is a highly accurate way to refer to the subject. Since we can all agree that this can be verified as a name often used to refer to the subject, the tiebreaker has to be the set of rules at WP:TITLE, which actually favors more recognizability, along with greater conciseness and greater consistency, all of which favor "Hillary Clinton." I haven't seen anyone seriously disputing that WP:CONCISE applies here, or that "Hillary Clinton" is more concise. I was going to nominate the list of books article for moving. This is most compelling with much longer titles that happen to include the longer name, like Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton, because long titles can look like crap on mobile devices, which is something we should always find ways to get away from. Thanks!   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I'm only mildly in favor of the change but most common searches come up Hillary Clinton, and most news sources I use tend to use it also. It's common and it's natural. With a redirect and the fact her full name appears in the biography, I think this would be a worthwhile change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The media coverage overwhelmingly refers to her as just "Hillary Clinton" and it's the name she's running for the presidency with. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the John Fitzgerald Kennedy to the JFK of "Hillary Clinton". JJARichardson (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. There is absolutely no reason to locate it at Hillary Rodham Clinton, and this move should have been made when she ran in 2008. ONR (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Based primarily on WP:COMMONNAME. She sometimes uses Rodham, usually in more formal settings, but it's more common without. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support the move, it's a far more WP:COMMONNAME.  Kharkiv07 Talk  15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support clearly WP:COMMONNAME. Shame that people make a battle of it.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 14:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as WP:COMMONNAME with this Ngram and a nod to MOS:IDENTITY that sources take prevalence over preference.
 * 1) Support as commonsense per WP:COMMONNAME and this Ngram Moriori (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) *I would just like to point out that these Ngram results are totally false. And if anyone read the last move request, the 3 admin panel knew that the results were flawed. From the results being posted here from Ngram "Hillary Clinton" results. The first result is a hit piece called "Big Sister is Watching You: Hillary Clinton and the White House Feminists who Now Control America--and Tell the President what to Do", and the introduction states"This highly documented expose of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her gal pals has been banned and censored everywhere." The next result is:"Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time"The third result is:"Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady: First Lady (Updated Edition)"So I hope the closers take this into consideration and invalidate these !votes based on false data. The actual results should look like this Ngram. Others have argued that these results are flawed too, but if you search the results(supplied at the bottom of every Ngram result), you can see that the books presented are far more in line with the desired data input. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, see section below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you made that weird error with the date range again -- if you look at the full date range you see that "Hillary Clinton" clearly pulls ahead. Why are you unable to do a date range right? Pandeist (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also wrong, though not quite as wrong. See  below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I can't remember a more idiotic discussion around here - this should have been done ages ago per WP:COMMONNAME and also freakin' common sense. I cannot remember the last time I heard or read "Rodham" in the media, so it's apparently just Wikipedia that is "special" in that "special" sense. I am sitting here reading the oppose !votes while trying not to throw things at my monitor. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per common name. The fact that she apparently signs her name with Rodham is not particularly helpful. Many people use a formal name for signing but are commonly known by a shorter name or a nickname. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALNESS, not to mention the comprehensive research done by the nominator. —zziccardi (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, she's almost always referred to as "Hillary Clinton". -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. That an RfC was needed for this prior to the discussion's opening is ridiculous. That this discussion needs to happen multiple times is even more absurd. That people are grasping at straws trying to find a handful of sources in support of their arguments in the face of overwhelming sources which do not is equally as absurd.  James  ( T •  C ) • 7:15 PM • 08:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, which are clearly the model to follow. whitehouse.gov uses Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower and Dolley Payne Todd Madison, so clearly isn't our model. We can't go by someone's signature as plenty of people use an illegible scrawl, or just initials. The sources she herself controls could be a model, but they are mixed - yes, [some do use Rodham, but others don't. So we're back to what most sources use, and which are most concise while not being ambiguous, both of which are without the Rodham. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support it's what people know her as. When people say her name it's "Hillary Clinton" not "Hillary Rodham Clinton". WP:COMMONSENSE. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I never hear of her called anything but Hillary Clinton. That is the case for most people in the world. The first time I ever looked up the page I saw the title and thought somehow I had gone to the wrong page, and left. That would be WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME, plus all the other reasons that have been said before. Torquemama007 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Google News results for "Hillary Clinton" vs. "Hillary Rodham Clinton": 9,230,000 vs. 112,000. Sonĝanto (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Nobody calls her 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Nobody. Move the goddamn page and have it over with, once and for all. Sick of this redundant debate. Crazy Eddy (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - obviously it should be moved. Obviously it should have been moved last time this debate was held.  The argument is ridiculous.  Hillary Clinton is the far more common name by any measure.  HRC is the formal name used in places that use her formal name (like a signature).  It's no different from how we call her husband Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton.  On Wikipedia, we name articles about people using the common name, not using the formal name.  John F. Kennedy, not John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  Ted Kennedy, not Edward Kennedy.  Mitt Romney, not Willard Mitt Romney. --B (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Because of WP:COMMONNAME Also: common sense. Nations United (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as per WP:UCRN as relating to the entirety of the English speaking world in relation to both location and demographic. There is no great clarity as to any extent that the HRC name may be of genuine importance to the subject and, beyond her personal signature, the HRC name is extremely conspicuous by its absence from literature associated to her political ambitions. I think that any view that editors here may have in regard to a desire that the subject is perceived to have in regard to the HRC name being presented may, to some extent, be in their WP:OR imaginations.  I just don't see any significant degree of evidence to support this notion.
 * To make a comparison we can also consider the case of the petulant, tantrum prone, toilet attendant punching, legally designated perpetrator of "drunken violence" with "no remorse whatsoever" and idolised darling of the British nation, Cheryl Fernandez-Versini ... no maybe that's not the best example. We can also consider the case of Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting (Big Bang Theory girl) or Yusef Islam.  All these people make more consistent use of their chosen designations and yet Wikipedia has made no special representation in these cases.  While I do not think that Conciseness is a valid reason for making a choice between names I know of no other case in Wikipedia where a longer name has been chosen due in accordance with the subject's preference.  In the case of Jihadi John the article has not been moved to Mohammed Emwazi despite there being clear ethical implications of him being associated to the relatively recently dead and BLP applicable "John Lennon".  In all of these cases an ethical motivation can clearly be seen for a move of the article and yet, in Hillary Diane Rodham's case, I don't see any great evidence that she has any great level of care about this matter one way or the other.  Wikipedia is not in the business of forcing language in directions that it has not gone unless, of course, there is some good reason and IAR applies.  Despite asking in a number of forums, no supportive arguments along these lines have been provided.  Common name, as far as I can see, provides such a high level of support in regard to prevalence of use in sources for this move that, as far as I can see (and this is after looking extensively), no objections are valid.
 * I was the original nom of the under prepared retracted RM now archived at: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 21 GregKaye 10:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Although the article subject is officially known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Wikipedia articles are titled according to WP:COMMONNAME; which states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." By that instruction, this article should unequivocally be titled Hillary Clinton.--John Cline (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per commonname and common sense. Contrary to what some of the opposers say, this isn't a stupid waste of time that's being fueled by sexism. The reality is that most people know her as 'Hillary Clinton' and that is what we should reflect. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Maybe I'd need to be American to understand why this is at all controversial. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Move to simply.. Hilary Clinton. I don't remember this title ever including her middle name. We should have consistent naming throughout the site. Tinton5 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But it has been at this title for years... Omnedon (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus it's not her middle name. That would be 'Diane'. Randy Kryn 2:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What her middle name is (or is not) is irrelevant to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support—"Rodham" has been out of common usage for several years now, so this move is way overdue.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just reconfirming my support here. Whatever numerical data is being discussed below, my support of the move proposal is not swayed, nor was it initially based on that data. Most news sources I encounter have dropped her maiden name from referring to her many years ago, and there are more books with "Hillary Clinton" in the title than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" based on worldcat.org results.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Easy. WP:COMMONAME, Hillary Clinton is by far the most common way that people refer to her, that should be the title of the article. Rockypedia (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Let's clear things up here. There are, logically, three kinds of sources addressing this dichotomy: those mentioning only "Hillary Clinton," those mentioning only "Hillary Rodham Clinton," and those mixing the two together. A fair and rational view can count only the first two as at odds. In Google news hits examined as a whole, "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodham Clinton" is over eight million while "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -"Hillary Clinton" is, what? 50,000? Literally less than one percent of the number of pure "Hillary Clinton" hits!! With Yahoo News, baseline "Hillary Clinton"? 16,053; "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? 9,367 (still about 40% less); "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodham Clinton"? 13,190. And "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodham Clinton"? Drops to 6,505, less than half pure "Hillary Clinton"'s total. Not magic? Simply applied logic. Even looking at only-pre-2000 Google Scholar hits, "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodham Clinton" still gets 2,470 to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -"Hillary Clinton"'s 1,960, so pure "Hillary Clinton" was always the winner. And yet where some find it unrecognizable, this wedging in of a term unknown to much of the world, they are demeaned as "ignorant" -- literally, an opposer calls these masses of mankind "the ignorant listening only to news media," as if not worthy of reading a non-confounding Wikipedia article title. Other opposers are "shocked" that there are people in the world who've heard of the person but not her maiden name, or frame such people as unfamiliar with her. I find that more telling of the few who are shocked by that than the rest of the world. Most of the world has heard of Hillary Clinton; most of the world knows that, and only that, as her name. Search engines are not flawed in so reflecting, but reflective of reality, and hundreds of millions who will recognize "Hillary Clinton" but won't for "Rodham" are not ignorant and not undeserving. To those who would rodhamize them, whose Article of Faith is summarizable as " spare the Rodham, spoil the title, " I aim to spare both the rod and the ham. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and the thorough and excellent case laid out above by User:Calidum. Tiller54 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Rodham is unnecessary disambiguation. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * 1) Support. If—if—this woman ends up running the U.S., she will be known as President Clinton, not President Rodham Clinton. It only makes sense that her page is what she goes by. 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skm989898 (talk • contribs)
 * Skm989898, many Presidents names commonly include a middle name or middle initial (e.g., John Quincy Adams, Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush) and yet those middle portions of those names were never used when referring to the person as President (e.g., President Truman). So why should it matter that HRC/HC would be called "President Clinton"? SMP0328. (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A handful of editors opposed to the move have argued she would called be President Rodham Clinton if elected. Calidum T&#124;C 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. Please show me where any of the "oppose" !voters claimed she would be called "President Rodham Clinton" rather than "President Clinton"; I am unable to find any such suggestion from the people who prefer to use all three names. I have occasionally seen this usage cited in discussion - as if "Rodham Clinton" was proposed to be her last name - but only from supporters of the move, people who pooh-pooh the inclusion of "Rodham". To make it very clear, a "Rodham Clinton" format for her last name has never been used anywhere, by anybody. It has never been her preference or the preference of the three-names proponents. On the contrary, it represents a ridiculous misunderstanding of her name. To make it very clear: Her last name is Clinton. Her last name is not some kind of compound or hyphenated name. The discussion here is whether her name should be "Clinton, Hillary" or "Clinton, Hillary Rodham". There has never been any suggestion that her name is "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". A glance at the DEFAULTSORT for this article should have made that clear. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Absolutely, Actually, if she chose to revert to her original name of "Hillary Rodham" and govern as President Rodham, that would also suit me just fine. But for the moment, her WP:COMMONNAME remains "Hillary Clinton", hence my support for this move now. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I !voted for the current title last time, but after reading much of what is written above, I am persuaded there has been a change per common name guidelines. Jonathunder (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the common name principles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's what she's using for her campaign, so it's what most of the world will search for. Changed my mind.  valereee (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when she filed her papers with the Federal Election Commission, she filed as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Dave Dial (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Dave, yes, but just because she uses a formal name occasionally doesn't mean that's her common name.  Believe me, I sympathize fully with her conflict here.  She'd prefer Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Heck, she would have probably preferred Hillary Rodham, period.  I'm from the same generation of feminists, and I kept my 'maiden' name, too.  She uses Hillary Rodham Clinton herself whenever she gets an opportunity, and I do understand why she does it.  But her campaign name is Hillary Clinton -- her website is HilaryClinton.com, her campaign materials all say Hillary Clinton.valereee (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated, campaign ads and such are not reliable sources. Nor are they a policy reason to move and rename an article. We might as well make another requested move for Dwight D. Eisenhower to Ike, because his campaign staff decided that 'I Like Ike' was a good political campaign. Dave Dial (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So your argument seems to be that a lot of folks will probably type 'Ike' into the search box when they're looking for Eisenhower? :)   valereee (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's how I hear her identified in the press every day, not to mention in her own campaign. That stats above prove the point. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Joefromrandb (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only !vote that has not been explained, so it should be discounted unless a reason is given. Is there a reason, Joe?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be discounted, along with the eighty-some others. After the farce that took place last time, I'm not about to bother. This isn't going to happen; the powers that be have decided that, consensus be damned. I still want to note, for the record, that I support this proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ha! I feel your pain mate. Have a little faith in the system. The system has a little faith in you. NickCT (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving your rationale Joe, I agree that the previous huge move request contained compelling arguments that support the present request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: While I certainly like the sound of Hillary Rodham Clinton more (it sounds powerful) that really does not (and should not) have any substance in this discussion. Far more often than not, she is called "Hillary Clinton". (WP:CommonName) Somebody who currently refers to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" probably won't have trouble recognizing her as "Hillary Clinton" but I don't feel the opposite is true--it's much harder to drop a name than add one. Also per everything above... PrairieKid (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:COMMONNAME.  Hi DrNick ! 21:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per commonname. It's how I see her referred to, almost without variation. Just look at her website, for example. Orser67 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and for consistency. It's George W. Bush not George Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan not Ronald Wilson Reagan, Betty Ford not Elizabeth Ann Bloomer Ford, Tony Blair not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Christopher Plummer not Arthur Christopher Orme Plummer, James Joyce not James Augustine Aloysius Joyce, etc etc. It doesn't matter what is their 'official name', or even what name they prefer. We use the name that they are usually referred to as. Darx9url (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those are even remotely comparable. Mr Reagan did not write columns or books under the name "Ronald Wilson Reagan". This woman, however, has always written under "Hillary Rodham Clinton", as with in this Foreign Policy article she wrote, along with all the other books listed elsewhere on the page. Reliable sources mirror this usage. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's do an article count -- looks to me like "Hillary Clinton" wins. "Hillary Clinton" vs "Hillary Rodham Clinton"   Darx9url (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Google hits cannot determine what is more common or not more common, as has been explained numerous times throughout the discussion. That has nothing to do, however, with the fallacious nature of your earlier comparisons. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, per wp:commonname —  Cliftonian   (talk)  04:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:COMMONNAME Its all been said above. Greenwood23 (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton Neutral on the other three Recognizability? It is absurd to suggest that Rodham makes the name less recognizable, except to the ignorant listening only to news media. Every scholarly source covering the entire biography makes prominent mention of Rodham, in titling, or introductory first mention.Regarding "List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is all across the list.</li><li>COMMONNAME. The proponents are grossly conflating this so-called shortcut with vernacular, in a big step away from scholarship and respect for scholarly sources. At WT:AT (especially Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_49, there has been clear agreement that this COMMONNAME shortcut is unfortunate, but it remains probably becuase it is too late. Regardless, the policy points to usage in reliable sources.  It points to WP:V, where scholarly, secondary sources are preferred, sources that do not include running media commentary. Looking at mere usage in a crude collection of online usage is to collected polluted data, because the data contains repeated usage.  In any coverage of any subject in any reasonable depths, repeated reference drops to abbreviated short forms.  A book on cats does not repeat "Siamese Cat" one thousand times, but introduces the cat with the proper name, and thereafter refers to the Siamese, without "cat".  Simillarly, biographies will introduce Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the subject defining name, but afterwards, to avoid ugly repetition, will use the first name, last name, or initials. Similarly, in the article, after first introduction, the subject defining name is shortened. Looking at the proponents reference to reliable sources, they confuse search engine data returns that trawl reliable sources, with reliable sources. Google scholar aims to search reliable scholarly sources, but the google search result itself is not a reliable source. Similarly with google ngram, it collects data from books that include good sources, but it collects bad data too, as well as the above mentioned problem of counting repeated mentions equally. Attempts to be clever in cleaning the data immediately crosses the WP:NOR line. WP:NOR policy is important for good reason. Anyone who knows about raw data processing knows that filtering and processing introduces considerable arbitrary input in the decisions made on how to filter and process. Instead, in reference to reliable sources, we should look at the specific reliable sources that are used, and these overwhelmingly, in titling or introduction, include Rodham</li><li>Naturalness. Using the name that appears on most biographies is undeniably natural. Editor convenience, in refering to the subject in a narrow context, but wanting to link to the full biography, is a poor reason to alter the biography. The piping of links is trivial, and produces a better product for the reader. Any inline reference to the whole person, inclusing of her full lifetime, naturally will include Rodham, because Rodham is an important part of her identity.</li><li>Concision. Concision is not brevity, but a balance of important information against brevity. The question is whether "Rodham" is important. It is, because Hillary Rodham was notable pre-Clinton, becuase it is included in every book she has authored, and because she is on record as wanting Rodham included in here usual name. Note that the title is not long.</li><li>Preference. Her preference is stated, certainly in respect a complete biography. Her preference with respect to a current political campaign is different.</li><li>Usage. The supporters make frequent use of the ward "usage". "Usage" should not be a major factor in questions of titling. The question addressed here is not how the subject should be named in routine usage throughout the article, but how good sources, which should be scholarly sources that cover subject entirely (not just the last campaign), and especially reputable biographies that aspire to tell a complete story, how these sources title the subject, or if titling is not applicable, how they formally introduce her.</li></ul>--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) No, no, a thousand times no per the thousand times this has been suggested, well, eight or nine. She uses it on all her books and papers (many of which were published before her marriage), on her official papers, and loves her family name so much that's she's always used it as her official name. Since I'm male I don't fully know and appreciate the well acknowledged choice of women to keep their entire name as they prefer it, which seems to conform with policy here. Just to be clear, 'Rodham' is not her middle name, it's her family name and one she used as a stand-alone name in her accomplishments before marriage. Again, a fully acknowledged woman's right not to have it considered a middle name, but a part of her name (during last year's discussion Jimbo Wales asked her what she'd prefer on her Wikipedia page, and she got word to him that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' was her personal choice). Randy Kryn 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely sympathize with the argument that she should be called by her preferred choice, but she decided to run for President as Hilary Clinton instead of as Hilary Rodham Clinton. valereee (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:COMMONNAME, her choice about what to be called actually doesn't matter. It's recognizability and what people call her that matters. Darx9url (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose  Will expand later but for now incorporate by reference the last 3 admin panel close and opposes that resulted in the name remaining at Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is both encyclopedically suited to the subject, as shown by looking at reliable encyclopedic sources for biography, and the subject's preference, as well a "appropriate" under Wikipedia policy. I will note that it is incorrect as claimed above the sources do not report her name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I said above I would comment further but the extended opposes above and below do so much to show the folly of this proposal that I commend them all (42 at this time, especially Smokey Joe's analyses of factors and sources and WastedTimeR's, Huw and Rglouster).  I will add that the support relying as it does on their own and others "confusion" disqualifies the proposal and the supports - Title (AT) begins its determination by being "familiar" with the subject. No one who claims that Hillary Rodham Clinton is confusing or unnatural or that a woman joining names is inconsistent, is familiar with this subject. Especially when all you have to do is read one of the many multiple reliable source encyclopedic biographies on the subject to know who Hillary Rodham Clinton is - that won't make one an expert but it may begin to qualify someone to familiarly opine on content (AT is content) for her encyclopedic biography. Unlike many of our subjects she has multiple RS encyclopedic biography to go to (sure, Britannica  but also the plethora of others gathered by the opposes -- especially Huw and WastedTimeR -- btw, you can also read about Bill Clinton at Britannica under the title "Bill Clinton" ) Similarly if you don't understand that a woman's name is socially controversial, and that this woman's name has been so throughout her biographical life, read the sources in the Wikipedia article and read an encyclopedia article about the controversy surrounding women's names, again that won't make you an expert but it should familiarize you with the subject area -- this is not about an "official name", it is about a woman's biographical self.
 * At most, the proposal takes a stab at showing there is a split of sources (so many millions here and there) but then it refuses to do what Wikipedia does when faced with a purported split in sources, the sources must always be analyzed in the context of the article and given due weight (in giving due weight policy defers to sources like encyclopedias, especially when there are tons and tons of primary and secondary sources - see also Rglouster for policy on using encyclopedias) - and that's what AT requests when it incorporates and refers to using "reliable sources" - AT is moreover a subsidiary of the three core policies which all demand in depth examination and weighting of sources, applying to every edit. Per policy, we are writing encyclopedic biography, not political profile, not news, not campaign literature, not twitter, nor facebook.  Biography prevalently tells us her name is biographically of import. Moreover, here we are writing a WP:BLP, where we must insist on the proper "use of high quality sources."  You can't begin to identify and use what's high quality, when all that is relied on is 'so many millions', - by the proposals own reckoning millions upon millions know Hillary Rodham Clinton - so what matters is quality and weight - we look at quality and weight to avoid the bias of editors, or the bias of the unknowledgeable (it is eminently proper to defer to the professional encyclopedic biographer, when you are not one). Moreover, yes it's the subject's choice  but that choice is backed up by multiple high quality sources.  We communicate with the subjects of BLP's all the time and do not turn them away when they have multiple high quality reliable sources to back them up, not unless you want to introduce editor's bias or un-knowledge. Thus, common sense in the form of common decency (refer to someone per their request) is also at work here, and it stands in opposition to the proposal. In the end, we are to take seriously that we writing an encyclopedia (whatever it is it is not a "brainless" excercize), and here we are writing encyclopedic biography which is about the whole life of this particular woman -- it is meant to educate not to confirm people in their un-knowledge -- that's our sole purpose here - not rearranging deck chairs, not exalting form over substance - or treating as algorithmic rules, things that expressly are not rules.
 * (Finally, although this does not affect the determination that this a good and proper title, I think it needs to be said for the good of the project - Over such a thing as this, don't so easily disregard the thinking of content creators like WastedTimeR (who brought this article to FA), et al. - they have thought and read long and hard about this subject and article in every aspect, what they have done is valid, it's valuable, and it should be valued, unfortunately this proposal does not appear to do so. I don't know WastedTimeR and I don't think we have ever spoken, and I hope I have not embarrassed them but gratitude is in order.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per whitehouse.gov, Hard Choices (2014), and past consensus that WP:COMMONNAME prefers the common name in scholarly, academic sources to online sources. Brittanica also uses "Rodham Clinton" and Clinton is noted for her achievements pre-marriage. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) *Inclusion in scholarly sources has little to do with common recognisability. The p/g states "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 any case I have presented reference to biographical materials below and, even here, references are split between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  GregKaye 20:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for many reasons. First, though it has already been pointed out, some of the reasons given above are not valid.  For example, the claim that HC is her preference, which has often been shown not to be the case.  To take just one example, her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover.  Hit counts are also invalid and misleading in a case like this, since (to give just one reason) it is quite common for articles to mention her as HRC once at the beginning, and then use a shorter version throughout the article.  As for the argument that using two names is “more common with human names generally”, that’s irrelevant.  It may indeed be more common for people to go by just their first and last names, but that is a preference, not a rule, and it is quite common for people to go by more than two names (or less, for that matter) when they choose to do so -- case in point, Philip Seymour Hoffman. Some editors also claim that HRC is not used in reliable sources. To quote another editor, “You may wish to mention that to reliable sources since they don't seem to have gotten the message...” Omnedon (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose There are two arguments against the nomination:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton uses that as her name. A primary source perhaps, but to exclude reality on that basis would be ridiculous. This is someone's name after all. In the case of Chelsea Manning, WP was vehement in taking their choice of name over all argument from officialdom.
 * Secondly, any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects, just as we do it for so many other BLPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME was the basis for the Chelsea Manning article being moved. If anything, the Chelsea Manning case supports the move request here, as it was moved to the current common name rather than keeping it at the past common name. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear that the common name should be used as the article title. Just because other articles may violate this policy is not a good argument for this article to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose the mass move since I can't justify supporting all of them.  If they had been broken into multiple requests I'd likely have gone: Oppose; Support; Support; Support; Support -- —   19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment was originally posted to Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Epic Genius (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Andy Dingley.  What's the problem for the HC folks to just use a redirect?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This has been longstanding usage.  I'd also point out that her recent private email address is "hdr22" (Hillary Diane Rodham).  Her longstanding use and self reference is to retain "Rodham".  That electioneering has sometimes changed usage to "Hillary!" or "Hillary Clinton" doesn't change the longstanding use of "hilary rodham clinton" ("hrc")  especially retaining "rodham" in personal correspondence.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Specific oppose  to List of books by or about Hillary Clinton The pen name of Hillary Diane Rodham is Hillary Rodham Clinton and a number of books are written about her with, at least, title name as Hillary Rodham Clinton. GregKaye 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)  Struck in light of content in discussion below.  I will remain generally neutral.  GregKaye 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose
 * 2) * A shame that a handful of editors who should have found better things to spend their wiki-time on have instead chosen to waste the community's, but, here we are. The hurdle that they have to climb here though is to show what has changed since the last genuine RM (not the aborted one from a few weeks ago), and so far there is really nothing.  The last RM, closed by a trusted panel of 3 neutral administrators found that despite the pro-rename faction having more than a 2-to-1 numerical advantage in the final tally, that there was no consensus to move.  While proving the wiki-adage that our deletion/rename/etc.. processes are not votes, it also showed how weak the pro-move argument was, that it was countered by half the voices.  All they have, and all they have ever had, is "I found it lots of times in Google", where as the leave-it-as-it-is argument has relied on higher-quality scholarly and professional sources (as WP:RS prefers...books, journals, and the like...all of which use the subject's full name more often than the shortened one.  The subject's own preference is not a firm indicator of what the Wikipedia must do, as nowhere in our guidelines do we specifically give weight to the subject's wishes, but nowhere in said guidelines does it say subject preference is to be ignored either.
 * 3) * One aspect of this nomination that is amusing, bordering on the disingenuous, is the notion (in the section labeled "title stability") that repeated failed attempts to achieve consensus to move is disruptive, and that if they could just get the article moved to "HC", then *poof* the disruption goes away! How wonderful, right?  Here's another radical notion as to how to stop the disruption; stop $^&* nominating it for an RM year after year after year.  It is the height of chutzpah to declare the lack of consensus to be disruptive, by the very people that are inciting the disruption.
 * 4) * Finally, what we have to address here is that, really, we're at the point where RM after Rm after RM is just the epitome of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This is not a real-life topic war, no one in the Real World(tm) is fighting HC vs. HRC.  This is internal Wiki-squabbling, like Manual of Style fights, diacritics, infoboxes and all that.  Look at the recent talk page history of one of the primary RM movers and shakers.  Middling, unimportant wrangling, one after another after another, to the point where an admin is suggesting a step back for some perspective lest the topic-banhammer is needed.  This is what we're dealing with here, a concerted effort to enforce a personal preference in syntax, nothing else.
 * 5) * Reject this RM, and impose a minimum 2-year moratorium on another, for the sake of the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose apparently this is going to be battled endlessly.  The bare facts are that she writes under Hillary Rodham Clinton, announced herself to the world during her husband's campaign as HRC, and of course the press often uses the shorter name--it's called headlinese.  With all due respect, were she undergoing a sex change, I wouldn't oppose a new chosen first name.  But this public waffling is simplay a tension between HRC's genuine personal beliefs and the momentary advice of her handlers.  We're an encyclopedia, not an organ of the press or her campaign strategists.  The redirect exists, no one is confused who reads the article.  Not even people born after 2001. (Who reads just the title of an article?) This endless tendention need a stake put through its heart. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. A search for either HRC or HC will find this article. Each is as recognisable. Hillary's people told Jimmy she prefers HRC. On a matter such as this, where neither name diminishes the reader experience, we should respect the preference of the subject over a style guide. It is a matter of respecting the human dignity of our BLP subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  00:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose None of those voting support are arguing that Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't her name just that it isn't the one they most commonly associate with her, there isn't even the hypothetical case that someone looking for the article will be unable to find it as this is easily and invisibly catered for by redirects.--KTo288 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose as HRC is what she chooses to be called when not abbreviating for brevity or convenience. under WP:COMMONNAME we have John F. Kennedy rather than Jack Kennedy, so it cuts both ways. Also HRC is more scholarly. Like others, I'd probably have voted support for all derivative articles to just have HC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) *Like many others, you have lost me. So educate me, please. What does what she chooses to be called have to do with any Wikipedia policy? Ngram Viewer shows John F. Kennedy far more common (COMMONNAME) than Jack Kennedy, so what's your point there? What connection does scholarly have to policy? Nothing personal, I'm just using you for a general response to a lot that's in both sections, Support and Oppose. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per reasons already stated by  and . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- (Expanded reasoning here)per our Article Title changing policy(and conciseness]]), our Naming Convention policy and COMMONNAME policy
 * 13) *COMMONNAME -- It is known that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the articles common name, especially considering the time period where she became publicly known(1972-2000). In order for recent trends to be used for a common name, a name change needs to happen. HRC has not changed her name, and has specifically stated she prefers to be addressed as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * 14) *Scholar(HRC, HC) and ngram results favor Hillary Rodham Clinton. The attempt to state that Hillary Clinton is trending more than Hillary Rodham Clinton is flawed and irrelevant, since there has been no name change and recentism is not a policy based argument.
 * 15) *Article title policy specifically states that:"for biographical articles... neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." Also, our Naming Convention policy specifically states we should give weight to an article subjects preference on BLP grounds. HRC has stated on several occasions that she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * 16) *As for article stability, our Article Title changing policy specifically states:"Changing one controversial title to another ... is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." There has been no name change, nothing to give credence to any title change, for moving this article. The ongoing threats from people who believe the article should be named "Hillary Clinton" is not a good reason to move the article. There is no policy that states that, nor should there be. The article has been named "Hillary Rodham Clinton" since 2001, almost 14 years. It's beyond credulous to state 'article stability' as a reason for a move. Dave Dial (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial, please direct me to a couple or three of these "ongoing threats" you've mentioned. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, your claim about Google Ngram favoring HRC is based on a misunderstanding of how the query interface works and is wrong even for the time period you prefer, and indeed any time period where Clinton had any prominence. Your Scholar interpretation is similarly flawed, if not to the same degree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. wp:spnc actually tries to reconcile wp:at and wp:blp, and I think it brings an interesting viewpoint that has largely been glossed over in this and past discussions (although I realize I'm not the first to reference it here). The subject prefers, by her own account, "Hillary Rodham Clinton."  And unlike Cat Stevens, for instance, many reliable sources include "Rodham" on first reference.  And while I don't believe it is the intent of my fellow editors, stripping a woman of her maiden name despite her wishes — because of a Wikipedia article titling policy — strikes me as pretty clear violation of one of our five pillars, wp:iar.  The generic article titling policy is, by its own admission, geared towards making article titles as short as is reasonably possible.  wp:spnc clearly indicates we should care about the preference of the subject.  And given that the commonality of neither "Hillary Clinton" nor "Hillary Rodham Clinton" are trivial, who are we to choose one over the other?  The reason each of these discussions end without consensus is because even reliable sources have failed to adopt a single "preference."  In that case, we should defer to the subject herself and leave the article where it is (and should be).  Justen (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose...for now - I still think its too soon to know if any of the evidence shown is a true set pattern or if the statistics are going to drop further. If you look at the Google trend, it actually seem that it is too soon for that to be seen as evidence yet. Dropping from 100 to 23 the following day and that being the end of that evidence is simply not convincing me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:NOT and User:Omnedon's comments in this section above. Article titles should not fluctuate with changes web hit results.  Sources of the calibre used in an encyclopedia continue to use her full name.  User:Flatterworld states in the Support section above that, "I have yet to hear anyone say they will vote for against Hillary Rodham Clinton, they say Hillary Clinton because that is the name most commonly used."  No, they say simply "Hillary" which is why Wikipedia does not use spoken English usage for encyclopedia article titles.  When she is sworn in as president and drops the Rodham, let's revisit the issue.  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose exactly per oppose statement that is numbered 10 above currently, which I see was written by editor Cirt. -- do ncr  am  02:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I'll try to explain my reasoning why we should stay with the current title of "Hillary Rodham Clinton", without putting up too much of a wall of text. — Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)   Note:User: Wasted Time R asked me to post this in his absence. My comments will be posted separately. Tvoz / talk 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 
 * 6) *It's a common name. Common name counts in news stories are subject to many distorting effects due to contexts where shorter forms are compelled (use in headlines, captions, quotes, disambiguation, later references, etc).  But every New York Times story (recent example), Washington Post story (recent example), Los Angeles Times story (recent example) and Associated Press piece (recent example) uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" upon first reference in the article text.  These news organizations have long been considered as the elite in the serious U.S. media.  So even if you believe from the counts that move proponents put forward that "Hillary Clinton" is the most common name, it is clear that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is a common name and not some odd or obscure choice.
 * 7) *Common name is not always supreme. The idea that the most "common name" always prevails over accuracy and formality and self-identification is a WP myth.  There are many exceptions carved out.  Hence Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (far from the most common use for either); United States presidential election, 2016 (who says it with that word order?) and United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2008 (absolutely nobody says it like that); Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (several more concise forms of that get more Google hits); United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council (common use would use US and UN and omit other words); "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" (more often referred to without the parenthetical part); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hello, Obamacare) and Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (say what? common use is "Bush tax cuts" or "first round of the Bush tax cuts"); and so forth.  These are not isolated cases of "other stuff exists" that can be dismissed but rather are illustrations of where whole subject areas are systematically exempt from "common name" (British nobility, elections, military aircraft, ambassadorial positions, song titles, federal laws).  Another good example in the biographical context is that "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O" all get more search engine hits than "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" does, and by the crude common name argument should win.  But we correctly locate the article at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis because that was the name she used in the latter stages of her life and the name that serious media referred to her by then and after her death. In practice we do not determine article titles solely by Google hit counts or other popularity metrics and we often value correctness and other considerations.
 * 8) *Correctness, official name, and self-identification. So why not make this another exception and call her by her official name and the name she uses?  For a number of years after becoming married she did not use "Clinton" at all, in part to keep her professional life separate from Bill's, in part as she later said as a "gesture to acknowledge that while I was committed to our union, I was still me." Living History pp. 91–92  Political realities in Arkansas led her to start using Clinton in 1982, but she subsequently made clear both in Arkansas in 1983 and again once she reached the White House as First Lady in 1993 that she preferred the "Hillary Rodham Clinton"; see this 1993 New York Times piece and this 2015 Politico piece for background on her name usage during these periods.  The point is that the "Rodham" isn't just some whim; it's there for a reason.  It is the name used by her First Lady page and her official Senate page and her official former Secretary of State page.   If she does get elected to the presidency, it seems quite likely that she'll use "Rodham" as part of her name in that office, just like she has in all previous offices.  All of the books she has written have been published under "Hillary Rodham Clinton": It Takes a Village (1996), Dear Socks, Dear Buddy (1998), An Invitation to the White House (2000), Living History (2003), and Hard Choices (2014).  Her signature is "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  And lest there be any doubt about which name she prefers in this context, when Jimbo asked her people during last year's RM, the answer came back "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * 9) *But wait! She's campaigning as Hillary Clinton now. Yes, it's true that during a few of campaigns she has been involved in, she has dropped the 'Rodham' in her campaign materials.  This is true when Bill was running to regain the Arkansas governorship in 1982; true during her 2007–08 presidential campaign; and true so far in her 2016 presidential campaign that has just begun.  The first of these was clearly for political reasons, but the presidential ones may just be because short-and-snappy carries the day in campaign messaging – indeed for 2008 she was mostly just referred to as "Hillary".  See this 2015 NPR piece for more.  The campaign difference can, and has, been handled by the naming of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article in the past and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article now.  But the bottom line is that the names she has used during her life break down something like this:
 * Hillary Rodham – 34 years including when first married
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton – 29 years including all the major offices/positions she's held
 * Hillary Clinton – 4 years while campaigning.
 * 1) *Stability. This article has been at "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for essentially its entire existence on WP.  It became a GA and then an FA article under this title.  It got written up in the press multiple times under this title.  It keeps getting subjected to RM's but in the end the title has always stayed where it is.  It gets upwards of two million page views a year on average and with web links, our redirects, and search engine predictive completions (they pop up with this article and its lead image and capsule biography after just typing "hilla"), it's hard to credit the view of some move advocates that this title has been causing a loss of readership or confusion about who the subject is.  Nothing has changed since the last RM except that the 2016 campaign has begun.  But the use of "Hillary Clinton" there is nothing new either, since it already happened during the 2008 campaign and she went back to her regular name once that was over.  Two recent data points that she still uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in non-campaign situations:  It's the name used for the title and first reference on her bio page at the Clinton Foundation in the most recently archived version as of late March 2015 (before she resigned from there in order to run for president); and it's on the cover of the paperback edition of Hard Choices due out late April 2015.  Changing the article's title now just because of some 2016 campaign materials would be falling prey to WP:RECENTISM at its worst.  This is a biography of her whole life, and "Rodham" has been part of her name for almost that whole life.
 * Thus I believe the article should remain at "Hillary Rodham Clinton". — Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose when a woman marries she is allowed to continue to use her maiden name on her books if she wishes. Campaign materials naturally lean to brevity, and as before she will likely go back to full name when campaign is over. So for stability, leave as is. If at any point she really starts using "Hillary Clinton" on her books we can move then. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per In ictu oculi and others. More stable, and that is what she uses on her publications and has throughout.  This is not about Google counts, or what you recently see in the street/on the TV/in the newspaper, this is about what her name is.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose agree with Dirk's comments, the re-direct is here so it is not like there is any disambiguation. --Ombase (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Stability suggests that the name should remain as is. And as noted above: WP:TITLECHANGES says: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. The people advocating this name change started multiple parallel "discussions", and a discussion about having a discussion, before getting to this. The editors responsible have put on a master class in how NOT to handle an issue like this.  Whatever the outcome of this vote, the editors responsible for multiplying and prolonging the discussion in this way owe us all an apology.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:: bd2412 et henchmen moved their comments from here into a self-accusatory thread called that was called "Multiplying and prolonging the discussion", and which is now called  Yet more discussion,, that can be found under a section header of the same name.  Unless they have since moved it.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies, but there are two common names in use, HRC and HC. We should also be taking into account the views of the subject, and she seems to prefer HRC. When Charles Salvador changed his name, is was updated quickly on wikipedia, even thought the press still regularly refer to him by his previous name. Chelsea Manning was initially changed quickly, and it was noted in the media how quickly that change was, it was moved back to Bradley, but settled on Chelsea within a couple of months. Common name says the name commonly used, but we don't use nicknames, even when the press use them a lot. John Prescott was never moved to Two Jags, a redirect for Barack Osama does not exist. If the press nicknamed her Minnie Mouse, we would not move the page there unless she used the term herself. Martin 4 5 1  21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) *Per WP:MOS Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.  (my bolding). She publishes under HRC, hence when in doubt, use HRC Martin 4 5 1  21:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Wasted Time R and Martin451 -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
 * 1) Oppose, per much of the above. Search stats that reflect use suggest that the longer name is actually the WP:COMMONNAME, at least in modern sources, if not in material published while Bill Clinton was President.  We don't care about search stats show is more common when random individuals put something into Google or whatever, which is what most of the pro-"Hillary Clinton" search stats are. COMMONNAME is not the only naming concern, anyway.  Preference of the subject is an important factor, especially for living persons.  Regardless of outcome, I propose a 1 year moratorium on further move requests on these articles. We're all getting tired of this. It borders on WP:PARENT, re-re-re-proposing moves and counter moves, hoping that the respondents this time randomly happen to be a sample who support the "right" side.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Depending on the search method and time frame, one could argue for either HC or HRC as the common name. This suggests that both names are very common and that there isn't that much of a difference in usage in reliable secondary sources. The redirect guarantees that people searching for HC will be redirected to the correct page.  What makes me even less inclined to support the move is that the subject has repeatedly expressed a preference for HRC and uses HRC more frequently than HC. -- Sonic Y  (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per my detailed response below. If you're of the TL;DR persuasion, I'll simply invite you to visit the White House, US State Department, US Congress, Congressional biography, Library of Congress, THOMAS, Federal Election Commission (including Hillary's 2015 paperwork), Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Who's Who, C-SPAN, VoteSmart, The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's autobiography, releases from the Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, her USA Today profile, New York Times profile, Times of India profile, etc... to name just a few. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've condensed a few more points and details together into a follow-up post. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per . Also, regarding search terms, that's irrelevant. Though the plausibility of typing in "Hillary Rodham Clinton" into Google is very low, we're still talking about official names here, and how that person officially designated themselves to be called formally, not casually. Is this a casual article? Buffaboy  talk 20:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - It ain't broke and don't need fixin'. The case is strong to keep it as it is, based on longtime usage. Jus  da  fax   22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per . Wbm1058 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. A quick visit to her campaign website—which, yes, is hillaryclinton.com and states "Hillary Clinton is running for president"—leaves no doubt by reproducing her signature. When taken en toto with her stated preference as reproduced above, the arguments in support fall apart, IMHO. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. It seems obvious to me that there are cultural and historical issues here involving identity politics that make this matter too intricate to decide by an overly simplistic interpretation of an overly simple policy. If a lesser-known living person or an apolitical person expressed a preference about her birth name, other encyclopedias would gladly comply with her wishes because of those intricate cultural and historical issues. But, of course, what seems obvious to me might not be obvious to others. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of what seemed obvious last week is still obvious to me, but over the past week, the reasoning for my oppose vote evolved as I began to care less about identity politics and more about encyclopedia-making. The end result is here. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The subject defines her own name, and she uses Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have nothing much else to add to that obvious statement and the reams of text already here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think there is an issue of sexism here. The subject has chosen not to simply take on her husband's surname, as is common practice, but instead to include her birth surname too. It's her way of saying "I'm not just Bill Clinton's wife." Reducing women to "the wife of so-and-so" is one way to limit their roles in society and is part of the glass ceiling effect that she is challenging. Men never have to deal with this problem. Therefore refusing to recognize her choice of name is a political choice, which violates our neutrality policy, and therefore our BLP policy.--agr (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-arkansas-116939.html#.VUJOktJVhHy and .It's clear she prefers the use of her original family name. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OR notwithstanding, game over. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is a waste of time on a scale that does violence to common sense. It is a solution in search of a problem. We now have a wall of text including well over a hundred comments that could have been avoided by the simple application of a redirect. But FWIW Mrs. Clinton clearly prefers the full name which is also what is on pretty much everything of significance she has ever written or signed. And I am not at all sure that there is a significant percentage of people who don't know her hyphenated name. In short, COMMONNAME is pretty doubtful in its applicability here. Beyond which I will second most of the other OPPOSE !votes above. This is just silly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose – I would like to start out by pointing out that this request is built on cursed ground. This type of repeated behaviour, constantly making the equivalent of a mess until a fait accompli can be attained is simply unacceptable. Regardless of that, this proposal has no merit. The common name of the subject described here is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This has not changed, despite what many here seem to claim. I am shocked that many editors have said that "Hillary Clinton" is this woman's common name, without actually looking at the evidence. Yes, a short form ("Hillary Clinton") 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 on the 14th of April, just after the announcement of her presidential candidacy. All of them use "Hillary Rodham Clinton". America's major newspapers, such as The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, and The Washington Post all continue to use "Hillary Rodham Clinton". No massive shift occured. Her name, as used by people generally, is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I am shocked that others claim that they have "never seen" the "Rodham" included in her name. It may well be convenient to shorten the name on occasion, and in headlinese, but that's unacceptable for an encyclopaedic biography. It is important to note that many newspaper articles that introduce the subject as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" subsequently use "Hillary Clinton" to save space in captions or in prose. These artificially inflate the numbers for "Hillary Clinton", but cannot be taken to mean that the subject is primarily known as such. As an encylopaedia, we must maintain the encyclopaedic register in our article titles, and introduce the subject appropriately. Please note what WP:AT says: "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used". Given that the article titles policy tells us to consult other encylopaedias, and to maintain the tone of an encylopaedia, it should be useful to look at the major traditional encylopaedia. It is not a surprise that Encylopaedia Brittanica uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". That's because it is her name, as it is generally used, and as she wants it to be used. Again, the short form may be useful in some instances, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a Wikipedia article title.
 * I am shocked that many people have referred to "Rodham" as her middle name. It is not. It is her family name. Her middle name is "Diane". Women have a right to retain the name that they were born with upon marriage, and this woman has exercised that right. It is an integral part of her name and her identity, not a mere "middle name". Such a view, whereby the importance of a woman's retained family name is reduced to the level of a "middle name" is evidence of systemic bias, and is not a sound basis for any change. She has expressed a clear preference for the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the context of Wikipedia, having relayed that preference to Mr Wales at the time of the last substantive move request. What's more, numerous articles have been written about her struggle to maintain her own identity in the public arena, and to justify to the public her continued use of "Rodham". In response to one case where people tried to drop the "Rodham" from her name, she said, "I need my own identity, too", and offered a correction. There was a large controversy of this matter in 1993, after her husband took office. Many conservatives lambasted her for her "independent" identity, causing the use of "Rodham" to be a political liability or "hot potato". However, her preference remained the same, as demonstrated in this contemporary article from The New York Times, and this one from The Chicago Tribune. The article in the Tribune noted, "Poor Miz Hillary. She can't win, it seems. When she tried to be herself, she was painted as a fearsome feminist. When she compromised, she was demonized as unprincipled". The name of the article, as one can see, is a political issue. It is not a mere matter of article naming. That is why it keeps coming up on a repeated basis. However, common usage in reliable sources, i.e. good books, encyclopaedias, and newspapers, has remained unchanged. The present title embodies neutral point-of-view, describing the subject as she herself describes herself, and as she is actually named in law. The proposed title, however, is a matter of political branding, and hence cannot be considered neutral. Wikipedia should not fall to political pressures, nor should it endorse particular points of view on whether a woman should be allowed to retain her family name after marriage.
 * The only justifiable action, in this case, is to retain the existing title. Not only for the reasons mentioned above, but also because of WP:TITLECHANGES. There is absolutely no justification for a move at this juncture. Nothing major has changed, and switching between controversial titles accomplishing nothing. The type of disruptive behaviour that this request is built on should not be encouraged. Others have said that the article should be moved simply for the sake of stopping this continued disruption, but that would only reward the disruptors, and spread such disruption elsewhere. This request should not go through. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said RGloucester .  Brittanica's use of the full name is a very telling point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.thompson.esq (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose And what exactly is taking "Rodham" out of her full name in several articles supposed to accomplish? Convenience? If we know anything about Hillary, its that whether you use Rodham or Clinton, people know who she is by the sound of her laugh and the style of her hair as well as a political resume of grand proportions. Taking the middle name out of the equation might streamline the articles to one another, but what does it accomplish other than to further tie her that closely to Bill? And another thing, since she is currently running for president a second time, why didn't this issue first come up during her 2008 campaign? - Zach Hontiveros Pagkalinawan (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know why my vote to oppose is listed as No. 1 even though it should be considered as the 41st. Could someone maybe fix this? I'm not sure how to do so. - Zach Hontiveros Pagkalinawan (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was just an indentation thing. I fixed it. Calidum T&#124;C 16:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Calidum. - Zach Hontiveros Pagkalinawan (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Changing from my previous position of "support" based mainly on the rationale of RGloucester (#40) and Wasted Time R (#20).--JayJasper (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as unnecessary, this being the name she has chosen. That it is abbreviated more and more is just the media finding they have no need to use the full name, much as they call the company Apple not Apple Inc. or they call the president Obama rather than Barack Obama. We do not and should not follow such usage.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. She signs as Hillary Rodham Clinton, including on the home page of her website hillaryclinton.com. That's her name as far as she is concerned. There's no reason for Wikipedia to pick the one she uses because it's shorter. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. More or less along the lines of RGloucester and per the subject's own inclusion of the name Rodham in her name. I will add that WP:COMMONNAME cannot be determined by superficially counting Google hits since there is no way of counting up which of those links lead to reliable sources and which do not. Many otherwise fine blogs, commentaries, nes articles and so on omit the "Rodham" as a convenient shorthand. Reference works in general, such as Britannica, include the "Rodham", and I think following that standard is more fitting for this genre. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose At first I thought this was a no-brainer for support, based on WP:COMMONNAME, however I have been convinced otherwise by arguments on the "oppose" side, particularly the fact that she signs documents this way, and that the most reliable, authoritative sources use Rodham Clinton. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My dad, whose name is "Bradley", goes by "Brad", but always signs his name with "Bradley" since that is his legal name. Just signing documents a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it's your preferred name. --B (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Works the other way too. Pres. Lincoln almost always wrote "A. Lincoln" when he signed letters. Lincoln signed his full name on formal documents, but other presidents signed the first two initials and then last name on documents.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we have numerous sources stating that Hillary prefers to be addressed as Hillary Rodham Clinton. None stating otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Numerous?  A statement from Jimbo and a 1993 article from the NYT were the only two I was aware of.  (I don't hugely care - even if there are numerous - because WP:COMMONNAME matters more than the subject's political wishes.  But I hadn't seen the "numerous" sources.) --B (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you missed this, with her stating: "I need my own identity too." As well as books and scholar pieces. Numerous as compared to 0, at least. In any case, you may not care, but her desire to be addressed as HRC is a factor, as well as what many in the press address her as. Thus, meeting WP:COMMONNAME plus. Dave Dial (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial, is this nothing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Numerous as compared to 0"? That's not really a thing. --B (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose as laid out so clearly and comprehensively by Wasted Time R, the editor who is most responsible for keeping this article neutral, well-written, and getting it to its deserved FA status. Please read that again - he outlines the reasons to retaining the name as it has been, stable, for years, brilliantly. Also per many of the comments here by Dave Dial, RGloucester, and numerous others. In sum, her chosen name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is her preference, it is her signature, it is the name she uses on all of her books, in her official capacities. Of course she sometimes uses a  shorter version,  Hillary Clinton or just Hillary, for marketing purposes in her political campaigns. But as Sarah (SV) points out, there is no reason for us to adopt the shorter name, when even on those campaign pages she uses her preferred name.  This is a biography, like the biography in Britannica, which of course is titled as her full name.  The argument that people outside of the US are confused is disingenuous and rather irrelevant.  I am confused by Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. In fact I am so confused by it that I thought just now it was Catherine, Duchess of Windsor and had to check why that came out red when I typed it, so thank goodness for Kate Middleton. That article title is utterly non-intuitive, unnatural, not concise, and virtually unknown in the US. Yet it is the article title, presumably because editors over there decided to IAR and go with that for their reasons. Yes I know that we don't care that other things exist, and they supposedly have no direct bearing on other articles. But this does matter, because we are being bombarded here once again with walls of text citing meaningless n-grams, pleas that the poor English-speaking world at large is dazed and confused by the Rodham to such an extent that one editor actually wants us to believe that he wasn't sure he was on the right page when he landed here. That is ridiculous. The guidelines for naming articles are all well and good, but they are not among the five pillars - we are not required to slavishly follow any rules here, and certainly not naming rules about which we are specifically cautioned to be careful when applying them to biographies.  She has made it abundantly clear that she wishes to be known by the name that she was born with, coupled with her husband's name, like millions of other American women, except those of her generation who bucked the trend  and never changed their names at marriage in recognition of their independent identities. It is well documented that her initial decision was just that - to not change her name at all - and for purely political reasons in conservative 1980s Arkansas she added "Clinton". But she never abandoned Rodham, then or now. And for us to do so does a great disservice to truth, and is, I'm sorry to say, reflective of an attitude that seems to prevail on Wikipedia that does not take women's choices seriously.  RGloucester has it right: There is absolutely no justification for a move at this juncture. Nothing major has changed, and switching between controversial titles accomplishing nothing. The type of disruptive behaviour that this request is built on should not be encouraged. An uninvolved three-admin panel - which by the way included by request a female editor - came to this conclusion the last time, as have the closers on earlier RMs, and nothing has changed. We need to get back to writing the encyclopedia - and keeping this article free of the far worse damage  that is undoubtedly coming as the 2016 campaign gets going. Those of us who are veterans of 2008 and 2012 Wikipedia political articles know this is true, on both sides of the aisle. Leave it alone. Tvoz / talk 05:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per many previous discussions resulting in "No consensus to move". — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Wasted Time. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per strong arguments made by many above. Move arguments above are not particularly persuasive, with many flawed per RECENTISM. Subject signs all her correspondence with Hillary Rodham Clinton, all books are by author Hillary Rodham Clinton. Subject herself seems to prefer Hillary Rodham Clinton as the title of this article and IMHO respecting the inclusion of the birth name (when desired by the woman) is a women's rights issue and not to be ignored lightly. In this case, the subject's preference is a very important consideration and not just because she may be the next US president. Finally, I'm not sure anyone's mentioned this here, but there are a large number of Clinton's political opponents who have influence on political rhetoric in the US who would prefer to steer this discussion in their favor and against the subject's desires. I'm not at all arguing Wikipedia editors have such agendas or are so influenced. Instead I'd assert that there exist a set of sources which might prefer use of "climate change" over "global warming", "death tax" over "estate tax", and "Democrat Party" over "Democratic Party". These sources and their prevalence in American English culture unduly skew search and n-gram results for common name, in my opinion. BusterD (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose This is a close call as I see it, but I find Wasted Time R's arguments the most compelling. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Policy reasons for my opinion: Reliable Sources, Stability, and BLP. Buster and Wasted Time make persuasive arguments, and so do others, strong enough that IMO the article should remain as it is, at least for now. A qualifier based on possible future events: up to now she has consistently used the "Rodham" part of her name, and so do most of the most reliable sources such as Encylopaedica Britannica and the most respected newspapers. The cases where "Rodham" is left out often seem to be a matter of shortening her "real" name for brevity, such as in a headline or on a ballot. However, not everyone here accepts this logic, preferring to tabulate Google results and the like, and so we are still arguing. But if she gets elected president, the article should certainly be named whatever name she takes office under, and that should end the debate once and for all. And after this discussion is closed, whatever the outcome, there should be a moratorium on future discussions until January 2017. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Looking above at the support arguments for the move: many of these "arguments" give no policy reason at all; they just say "I've never heard her referred to this way" or "it's not what she is called here where I live" - basically little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many other "arguments" simply make a WP:VAGUEWAVE in the direction of WP:COMMON NAME. I trust the closers will take the strength and policy-basis of the expressed opinions into account. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * She would certainly use her full name if she sworn-in as President, but that proves nothing. Every President has been sworn-in using his full name, but not all of those articles use the full name. Barack Obama is not "Barack Hussein Obama", George W. Bush is not "George Walker Bush", and Bill Clinton is not "William Jefferson Clinton". SMP0328. (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about how they state their name at the swearing-in; I'm talking about how the White House lists their name, both during their term and for posterity. If you look at the White House website, you will find "Barack Obama", "George W. Bush", "Ronald Reagan", etc. That White House usage is how they go down in history - not as "Barack Hussein Obama" or "Ronald Wilson Reagan". If she chooses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the name used for history by the White House, then that should settle it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you oppose the RM now, but if she becomes President and is listed by the White House as "Hillary Clinton" you would support the RM at that time? SMP0328. (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That would be the name she (her White House) chose to use, for her term and for history, and that would be what our article should be called. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose We should wait until after the election, at minimum. It's possible she could use the Rodham a lot more once she's not actively campaigning.  I'd truly hate to move everything and then end up right back here again.  valereee (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources start using Rodham to refer to her more commonly then a move back to this title would not be controversial, so there would be nothing to hate. The reason this is controversial is because reliable sources use HC more commonly than HRC, but people like you are resistant to changing the title accordingly. --В²C ☎ 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People like me? Not sure what that means. My initial reaction was 'Support.'  Then I looked into it a little further and did a little more thinking. So maybe you mean, 'People who are willing to reconsider their first knee-jerk reaction." ?  valereee (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not agree that "Hillary Clinton" is more common in RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, even if that was true (which it is not), what a gross oversimplification of the situation. "We're right but you don't like change, so this is controversial." Surely you can see that even if you don't like the opposing arguments, they are there. Your use of the term "people like you" is pretty telling. Omnedon (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently I need to fill in between the lines. "The reason this is controversial is because reliable sources use HC more commonly than HRC, but people who oppose this move, like you, are resistant to changing the title accordingly." That is telling?  Telling of what? <P>I accept we disagree that HC is more common in RS - that's an issue to be decided here. What's very revealing is the vast majority of supporters are arguing HC is more common than HRC, while the opposers who even bother to argue based on common name are arguing at best it's a wash - almost nobody is arguing that HRC is more common.  --В²C ☎ 00:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C. please read. Your use of the phrase "people like you" is telling. You're dismissive and offensive, then when you're called on it, you play innocent. Omnedon (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The current name is more inclusive, because there is a part of the name by which she was known in pre-marriage career. If it were only Hillary Rodham I would support - but this is not the case. -- <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;"> Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me   21:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Echoing the arguments put forth by Wasted Time R,  RGloucester, Tvoz, Buster D, and MelanieN, which I find to be the most compelling and convincing. Simply put, it's the subject's preferred name and the one most commonly used by scholarly and encyclopedic sources.--Ruby XL (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) * Neither of which are reasons to favor HRC over HC based in title policy. --В²C ☎ 00:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I'm parking it here just while I work out whether there's really any reasoned argument against to be made. Pandeist (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Moved to support
 * Undecided at the moment, will need some thought <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Moved to support


 * 1) Strongest possible neutral  This discussion is a waste of time.  We should keep it at its current name, because it's a perfectly acceptable, well recognized name, and so there's no impending need to move it.  Please note, I would make the exact same argument if it were already at the other title.  We have two roughly equivalent names we could have this article at.  Since they are equivalent, neither has a major advantage, and so there's no need to move from one to the other.  Or the opposite either.  The discussion has no reason to happen.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) * Just a note; it may be a well recognized name in the States, but internationally? I'm pretty sure if I asked anyone I know in the UK who Hillary Clinton was, that they'd know; but if I said "Hillary Rodham Clinton", they'd either not know the name, or ask "is that the same person as Hillary Clinton?". Wikipedia has to, after all, show an international viewpoint, not just Americancentric or Eurocentric or whatever. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, WP:ENGVAR applies: We don't change to the British usage if the person is American. Please note, I would not argue for a move if this were at the other name.  To the contrary, we should not move articles at a widely recognized name.  This is a widely recognized name.  It's a waste of time to move from one widely recognized name to another.  We should leave this here, in perpetuity, for no other reason than it isn't wrong, it is a widely recognizable name, and it's a waste of effort, time, and bits better spent on more fruitful endeavors.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm far from convinced that ENGVAR applies here. US sources seem to be somewhat in favour of HC; international ones are overwhelmingly in favour anyway. "Not wrong" is hardly a useful or valid argument. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not wrong is the only valid argument here. Neither name is better, so why move it?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME so clearly falls on Hillary Clinton that it isn't funny. Most of the evidence for HRC seems to be based on people cherry-picking US sources from a randomly picked time period, and disregarding anything that disagrees with them - and when it comes to international sources, there's no contest. HC wins there by a country mile. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only because it is a shortened form used in the same piece once her full name has been introduced. If such uses were eliminated, the numbers, while the still favor Hillary Clinton over Hillary Rodham Clinton, do not favor it enough to keep bringing the matter up.  This is not an endorsement of the Hillary Clinton name as better, and saying that is not an endorsement of the Hillary Rodham Clinton name as better.  Just a statement that, based on the evidence I can see and the arguments presented by both sides, that neither name has clear reason to be the favorite.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Jayron, you are so, so right about this.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Neutral . Please note that this is not intended to indicate a preference to keep but to present arguments that I personally think are of importance and which I would ask admin to consider in deciding on this case. The case for support, with arguments being presented on the basis of WP:UCRN and WP:NATURALNESS, are, I think, overwhelming. However I also think that there are mitigating circumstances that may be considered and, in the light of which WP:IAR may validly be applied. The clear fact is that Hillary Diane Rodham most prevalently presents herself as "Hillary Clinton". However it can also be judged that her decision to do this comes within the context of an, arguably, extremely biased and prejudiced US political context. The argument here is that, in a context in which Hillary Diane Rodham may, arguably, be affected by bias and prejudice, that Wikipedia may, with validity, adopt a counteracting bias in the opposite direction. The suggestion here is that a valid application of WP:SHOWCASE/WP:ADVOCATE may be used. In essence I consider that the only valid WP:PG based argument in favour of retaining a title presentation as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is WP:IAR. GregKaye 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Since I began listening in since I proposed the last failed RM and, I believe, for a good time before, I have not heard the name Rodham once in connection to "Hillary Clinton" and think that any direct interpretation of WP:UCRN in relation to prevalence of use can only favour a move to "Hillary Clinton". GregKaye 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) *Strike as above. Wikipedia has to cater for the bulk of its English speaking readership and, regardless of this, in and out of the US, "Hillary Clinton" is the most commonly recognizable presentation of the subject's name.  GregKaye 09:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment Didn't we just have this discussion a little while ago? Are people going to keep proposing this move until it finally gets enough support? There really should be a limit on how many times a debate can happen about retitling an article, like once a year.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can make it so you're not able to try any more move requests for a period of time... but this would have to be by consensus, and would probably be an even greater waste of effort. Banak (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was already a thing, and the restrictions were complied with in full. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I've read both arguments and believe both sides make good points. She is commonly known by both names and that would suggest leaving the article as is. On the other hand, I believe the evidence shows that "Hillary Clinton" is used more often than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". In the end, I believe this is a minor issue about which even Mrs. Clinton doesn't care. What matters is the substance of that article, not whether her middle/maiden name is used. For these reasons, I am neutral on this issue. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. My position exactly mirrors that of SMP0328. Either article title is just fine, and frankly there are far better things to do than waste more time discussing the matter. Anyone searching for Hillary Clinton will be redirected to Hillary Rodham Clinton, so what's the big deal? As far as the "Google hits" argument is concerned, it's a pain in the ass to keep writing "Hillary Rodham Clinton" so I imagine lots of writers simply say "Hillary Clinton" or even "HRC" for brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, mostly a placeholder for a short comment. (I was a member of the 3-admin panel last time around, so I hesitate to comment at all, since I believe it would be poor form for a previous closer to come back and weigh in the next time around.) I didn't understand why this was such a big deal last year, and I still don't understand it this year. The main reason I comment is to request that the closing panel please enact a two year moratorium on future move requests, long enough to get us through the 2016 silly season. I can't imagine how many human-hours have gone into this, and it would be an even bigger mess trying to do it during an election year. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A moratorium should be implemented after this RM is completed. I would impose it until January 20, 2017 (the beginning of the next Presidential term). Even with a moratorium, editors should be allowed to voice their opinions regarding what should be the article's title. Although Wikipedia is not bound by the First Amendment, it should lightly go against the principle of free speech. SMP0328. (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A moratorium essentially presumes nothing will change in that time (considerably unlikely, I'd fathom), and in any event it too can be overturned by a strong enough desire for renewed discussion suiting situational circumstances. Pandeist (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't care so long as we have a redirect from whichever is not the title. Over here in the UK, we don't usually have maiden names tacked into the married name. The married woman may use her husband's surname, or her previous one - or even use both depending what they are doing at the time - as witness Cherie Booth QC as a lawyer, but Cherie Blair as wife of former PM Tony Blair. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - both sides make good arguments and ultimately I don't think it matters that much so long as we have redirects in place. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I hate Hillary Clinton as much as I imagine the average Jewish person hates Adolph Hitler, but when it comes whether or not the article should include Rodham, I don't give a damn. Thanks. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Other search results

 * Google News Archive: -- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 47,600 archived results


 * Google News Archive: -- "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham - 34,500 archived results


 * Newspapers.com:     -- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 16,992 results


 * Newspapers.com:     -- "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham -  8,458 results


 * Yahoo News: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 9,414 recent results


 * Yahoo News: "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham - 13,018 recent results

This shows that the true vast majority of reliable sources address HRC as HRC, throughout her time as a public figure. She was a known public figure before she even added the name Clinton to Hillary Rodham, there is no good reason to change the article title, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

section 1

 * I haven't read every reliable source on the Earth, but the ones I read do not refer to her using Rodham. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your support !vote is ridiculous. Every source on Earth? Did you even bother to read any of the past move requests, or any source? This just shows how systemic bias works, without editors even knowing it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment about sources on Earth was a reply to criticism of my post by the used I named, not my rationale for support. Please show me where it is written that I or any user must research the entire history of a page before posting a comment about a proposal regarding it. My opinion was solicited, I have given it. No more, no less.  It's disappointing when others like yourself make negative comments such as that. Instead of making such comments, why not simply point out reasons for disagreement or correction?  That said, I can only go by what I read, as can any person.  331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I further invite you to support your claims regarding sources by linking to some that back up what you are saying. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. "'Hillary Clinton' -Rodham -- Google News archive search:34,500" compared to:"'Hillary Rodham Clinton' Google News archive search:47,600" Dave Dial (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now look at the headline of the very first result to come up under "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - "Hillary Clinton pledges support for Yankees" (from 1999); the article also has a quote from Rudy Giuliani referring to her as "Hillary Clinton". That's the very definition of "common name". bd2412  T 17:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One example out of tens of thousands of hits makes a definition? Omnedon (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. So even though the article starts off stating:"'Hillary Rodham Clinton, who grew up rooting for the Chicago Cubs..'" -You think the headline is more of an example? I see. So Twitter handles, headlines and campaign posters count, while real world names mean nothing. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One example out of tens of thousands of hits makes a definition when it is typical, even when digging all the way back to 16-year old newspapers. Rodham should be mentioned in the lede; if this were an argument that it should be removed from the article entirely, that would be a valid point. It is inapplicable to the question of what is someone's common name. Also, the fact that Hillary Clinton uses "Hillary Clinton" for her Facebook page is a thousand times more significant that her Twitter handle. bd2412  T 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A thousand times more significant than her Twitter handle? Who assigns these numbers for significance? I would argue a move request that bases it's significance on Twitter, Facebook and campaign slogans is absurd. Instead, we should use Wikipedia policy. You know, policies that state:"If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." and WP:SPNC, which cites BLP policy and weight should be given to the subject of an articles preference of name. Dave Dial (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am curious about the strange dichotomy between these Google news archives results (which all seem to be far out of date) and the general results from Google News:
 * "9,640,000 hits for 'Hillary Clinton'"
 * "443,000 hits for 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'"
 * Of course, the archives results total fewer than 85,000 total articles, and from the thousands of stories in thousands of newspapers, there must be millions of actual uses, which is what a general search reflects. The larger set would seem to be more reflective of reality. bd2412  T 23:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me what we're looking at there. Google News Archive implies that the archive might be defunct, and might simply be a redirect to Google News. Google News says, The service covers news articles appearing within the past 30 days on various news websites. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, people who have lived only in the Google reality would think that there would have to be MILLIONS of results. That's if you are counting multiple instances of the same article, reprinted on different outlets, blogs upon blogs that aren't even reliable sources. That is one of the main problems with your google fallacy. It's not a reason to move an article. Everyone knows that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a common name. Everyone 40+ years old has heard it repeatedly throughout the 90's. Look at the Yahoo News result, for a more recent true hit count of news results."*'Hillary Clinton' -Rodham -- 12,949 results" "*'Hillary Rodham Clinton' 9,954 results" As you well know from the last MR, from 1970-2000 HRC was the common name, more-so than HC. There has been no name change, so recent trends are not a policy based reason for an article move. Dave Dial (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be surprised to learn that there are actually thousands of English-language printed newspapers around the world, and while many use AP stories and other centrally produced content, many also produce there own content. Of these, most will have reason to write something about as public a figure as Hillary Clinton at least every few weeks, over the thousands of days that she has been a significant and worldwide public figure. bd2412  T 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another example of the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Editor user:Anythingyouwant adds reasoning here for a move, citing Article Title policy"Another new part of that policy page: 'neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness', so omission of middle names and other additional names for conciseness is usually fine." Hillary's family name is Rodham, it's NOT her 'middle name'. So the editor cites policy that would prevent a move from HRC to HC, and doesn't even realize it. Unfortunately, there will be many such !votes like this. Totally disregarding policy as if it doesn't exist, because the editor has no clue. Dave Dial (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, since she took the surname Clinton upon marriage, Clinton is her family name. Rodham is her maiden name (or birth name if you will). I'm saying this to avoid confusion, because if people start talking about family name ambiguously, that doesn't help but rather confuses the issue, so it's best to use crystal clear terms like maiden name (or birth surname), versus married name (or married surname). Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? So her family name is gone like smoke because she got married? Is that the case for any male person? What's crystal clear is that Rodham is her family name. Period. HRC did NOT take the Clinton name when she got married. She went by Hillary Rodham for years, until 1983. So it would help if editors actually knew the difference between policy, reality and made up stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maiden name is defined as "a woman's family name before she got married and started using her husband's family name". "Rodham" was the subject's "family name" before she got married, not now.  That is all I can, will, or want to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your statement that scholarly sources prefer HRC over HC is incorrect. The nomination clearly shows a strong preference amongst high level sources (ie scholarly, academic ones) for "Hillary Clinton." Calidum T&#124;C 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's blatantly and patently false. In fact, the MR should be altered because the reasoning at the intro is dishonest, at best. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some sources use a mix of both "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton"; I have searched extensively and have yet to find a scholarly source on this subject that addresses the subject at length but does not refer to her in some places as "Hillary Clinton". The trend for high-level peer-reviewed academic publications in the past year (the important period for this move request, since it is addresses changes since the last one) is to use only "Hillary Clinton". This can be confirmed by a simple search of SSRS, JSTOR, and Google Scholar publications. bd2412  T 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the reason why this move request is so blatantly dishonest is because the same people (you, Calidum and NickCT) were also the main editors from the last move request. And you KNOW that the ngrams and google results were flawed. You KNOW that the results showing "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham had many an instance with the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Yet the results leading off this MR are hidden with caveats like "since 2014" and such. You also know there has been no name change, and article title policy advises against moving contentious moves for stable articles. You also know since the last MR that policy has changed to give weight to the BLP subjects preference of their name. Which should make even more difficult to move HRC to HC. And despite all that, have worded the MR in a totally biased manner. Disregarding policy and reality. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ngrams and Google results are not flawed; sources tend to use "Hillary Clinton", even if a minority also use "Rodham" at some point. Certainly the Google Trends indications and results from other search engines are not flawed. The editors who participate in this discussion are perfectly capable of seeing these things for themselves. bd2412  T 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Twitter argument is poor since Twitter usernames must be <16 characters and display names <21 (source). @HillaryRodhamClinton = 20 characters. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" = 22 characters. It would be technically impossible for Clinton to use her full name in either her username or display name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Facebook has no such restriction, and yet her Facebook account has now been created under "Hillary Clinton". That is a significant change not explained by any editing restriction. bd2412  T 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Twitter argument is not poor. There are two parameters on Twitter: Your name, and your handle/username (the @ thing). The name has no such length restrictions, yet she uses only Hillary Clinton for that as well . Nor does she use the initial R in her username (@HillaryRClinton), as she might well do if it was important to her. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. If you look at the link I've provided, display name is only allotted 20 characters. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "Hit counts are also invalid and misleading in a case like this, since (to give just one reason) it is quite common for articles to mention her as HRC once at the beginning, and then use a shorter version throughout the article." Google results numbers are numbers of articles, not numbers of individual iterations of the phrase, so these hit counts are not misleading. Softlavender (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You said, To quote another editor, “You may wish to mention that to reliable sources since they don't seem to have gotten the message. Actually, these are primary sources, written by people possibly connected to Clinton herself, so they show the maiden name at first, much like many other sources about a prominent person world. The vast majority of sources assume that we know what they're talking about when they say "Hillary Clinton". Epic Genius (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You said, In the case of Chelsea Manning, WP was vehement in taking their choice of name over all argument from officialdom. Secondly, any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects, just as we do it for so many other BLPs. WP:COMMONNAME was the basis for the Chelsea Manning article being moved. If anything, the Chelsea Manning case supports the move request here, as it was moved to the current common name rather than keeping it at the past common name. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear that the common name should be used as the article title. Just because other articles may violate this policy is not a good argument for this article to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

, do you consider it User:GregKaye, User:Scjessey, and User:Wester are "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" when each of them proposed at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton that the page be moved, within the past few weeks? None of them have been involved in any previous discussion of the issue, but each of them independently arrived at the page and felt that the title was wrong. This happens frequently, and will continue to happen to matter what any previous move participants do, until the page ends up getting moved. bd2412 T 21:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that accusations, personal attacks, or rancor, or even the semblance of them, have no place in this move discussion (no matter how frustrating the back-and-forth over the months/years has been); and failure to present points clearly and civilly, rooted only in policy, will only impede one's goal, especially when it comes time for the closing admins to take stock. Softlavender (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:BD2412 - Note that although I indicated my personal preference was that "Hillary Clinton" made more sense to me when I offered up a useful source on the issue, I did not specifically advocate for a page move. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Scjessey, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment. I would, however, stress the larger point, which is that new editors come to Wikipedia all the time (or old editors who have not looked at this article before), and express the feeling that "Hillary Clinton" does make more sense. Some of these editors, unaware that the issue has been discussed before, propose to move the page. They are not trying to disrupt Wikipedia (just as you were not trying to disrupt Wikipedia by indicating your preference). Each time this move is proposed by a new editor, it gets much more support than it did the last time. At the same time, coverage in the rest of the world continues to trend towards "Hillary Clinton". Inevitably the page will end up being moved, and the question is whether it gets moved this year or on someone else's new move proposal next year, after doing this whole discussion all over again. bd2412  T 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you link is whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton and that the article in that link refers to her as Hillary Clinton was elected United States Senator from New York on November 7, 2000. and Hillary Clinton currently serves as U.S. Secretary of State. Did you notice it now omits the Rodham part in recent years, because that has changed? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

section 2

 * (Discussion moved from under my Support !vote. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC))
 * There are arguments and many editors on both sides here. To characterize this as "obstinate opposition to title change" dismisses those that feel that the current title is the right title and who have said precisely why. And yogurt has nothing to do with this. Omnedon (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This list was compiled by proposal opposer :
 * Hillary Rodham – 34 years including when first married
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton – 29 years including all the major offices/positions she's held
 * Hillary Clinton – 4 years while campaigning.
 * In other words, in contexts where using the name most commonly recognized really matters in the real world, while campaigning, the subject herself uses Hillary Clinton. Of course I'm dismissive of the opposing arguments (not the people making them!).  They are indeed reflections of the reasons people just don't like HC as a title, but their arguments are not based in policy. They're mostly rationalizations, like the absurd attempts to downplay the dominating role that WP:COMMONNAME plays in deciding our titles, by highlighting a few cherry-picked odd exceptions, without justifying why an exception is warranted by policy in this case.   --В²C ☎ 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But arguments for keeping the article where it is are indeed policy-based. You just don't like them. And you call them rationalizations, and absurd, and talk about cherry-picking. That's not the situation. Reasonable people can disagree; but you can't seem to accept that. Omnedon (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are policy-based arguments (good) and non-policy-based arguments (bad) on both sides, and we should all strive for the good. Perhaps we can agree on that much? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not agree that arguments not based directly on Wikipedia policy are, by definition, bad arguments. However, having said that, I would agree that policy-based arguments are best. I guess the point is this: some editors tend to characterize their opposition as having nothing but bad arguments, and especially when there are so many editors on both sides, that's just not fair. I believe that HRC is the correct title for reasons given by many editors. Others believe HC is the best title. If we cannot reach consensus on this, then the article can't be moved, according to policy. Omnedon (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, policy says nothing about participants having to agree on what is the "best" title. The point of a proposal is to determine which title meets title policy best. But I agree almost all opposers are discussing this as if the former is the goal (as compared to the support argument presented fully in the nom).  That's my point, and why I think it's appropriate to dismiss the opposing arguments.  --В²C ☎ 00:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are dismissing arguments that have their basis in policy by blindly saying that they do not. Some of the reasons given in the nomination are questionable on their face. The point is that there are arguments on both sides. Since you will not acknowledge that the opposing arguments have any value, that pretty much puts paid to any discussion that can be had with you. But that is no surprise; it's your modus operandi. Omnedon (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , making it personal reveals the flaccidity of your position. It is true that those who do not like HC rationalize basis for their opinion by desperately clinging to a few points on the oppose side that vaguely refer to policy, but these are overwhelmed by the direct support of the support side by policy, primarily as outlined in the nom (the few arguably dubious claims there aside).  It's not even a contest.  --204.115.183.4 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, policy supports the HC name? Good, then. Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The 63 years that Hillary was known as "Rodham" are over, are they not? Epic Genius (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

section 3
Moved from under Beetstra's Oppose !vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, actually, per COMMONNAME, it's about what reliable published sources call her. If they predominantly called her Minnie Mouse, the article would be titled Minnie Mouse (politician) and the first sentence would convey other names such as HC and HRC. Where to send the redirect "Minnie Mouse" would doubtless be a battle of Wagnerian proportion, as the cartoon character had the name first but the politician is probably more important than the cartoon character. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually, she is calling herself, and that is a very allowable primary source, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And throughout this thread, many sources are calling her Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Most of the sources that call her Hillary Clinton are the campaigning sources or the sources that name the campaign.  Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  "the politician is probably more important than the cartoon character" .. that either reeks of plain campaigning for Hillary Clinton, or you are actually able to provide a plethora of reliable sources stating that Hillary Clinton is more important than the cartoon character.  As I doubt you do the latter, that gives quite some weight to your arguments in why you want this article renamed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I went too far with the silly mouse example. Anyway, the simple HC-HRC comparison in Ngram Viewer shows HC leading by 2.8 to 1 as of 2008, with HC increasing since about 2000 and HRC in a gradual but steady decline since 1998. Any Oppose argument based on COMMONNAME, then, has to also subjectively choose which sources are most meaningful, and that is prone to cherry-picking, conscious or otherwise. I believe this means that COMMONNAME clearly supports HC. What is the policy basis to suggest that the primary source should override such a strong COMMONNAME argument? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is the task of the person/group that is suggesting the change - they should show that the most important references use 'Hillary Clinton' and the less important references use something else (and that is similarly prone to cherry-picking). You obviously have now taken the stance that the references that are discussing/naming the campaign are the more important references and the references that discuss/name the use of her own name by the subject are the less important (I repeat, that is obviously the stance that supporters of Hillary Clinton('s campaign) would take).  You make the point that because most of the sources (and hence Google) are referring to the campaign, and hence also most of the reliable sources are mentioning the campaign, by definition means that that is the common name.  I do not believe that is how the statistics for a common name should be counted.  Correlation != Causation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously have now taken the stance that the references that are discussing/naming the campaign are the more important references - How can you say that when I'm using data that ends in 2008? I've said nothing about the campaign. See my !vote if you're interested in understanding my position. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the date, it is here your argument that the count as given by Google, Yahoo, whatever can be used for a determination of the commonname, where it is obvious that because of the run for presidency most of the results will go to campaigning (and that skewing of the count started years ago when she started to campaign on a large scale). What I am saying is that those counts can not determine the commonname in any form, and I think that we can not determine it (and especially now she is running an active campaign).  Therefore, we should probably speedy close this discussion and have it again in about 2 / 6 / 10 years (2 years after the end of this campaign is she fails to become president, or 2 year after the end of her presidency).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The common name is the common name, regardless of the reason or context for that choice by reliable sources, and COMMONNAME says nothing about dismissing reliable sources because we don't like their context, each of us pushing for our own personal criteria of choice. We might as well do away with the policy altogether and just apply our own judgment on a case-by-case basis. If one thinks that would be a good idea, they're welcome to advocate for that; for now, the policy exists and should mean something. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I disagree and disagreed moving this from the actual discussion above. This is after all a discussion, not a vote.
 * The point is, how to determine the common name. Do you change common name because it is now 'fashionable' for (reliable and unreliable) sources to discuss about the campaign, and in the campaign Hillary uses 'Hillary Clinton' (actually, she uses also 'Hillary', maybe we should move it there!  And she signs with 'Hillary Rodham Clinton', so maybe we should leave it there).  And that is indeed the trend since she first started actively campaigning, there she uses 'Hillary Clinton', and that gets increasingly mentioned.  Most of the arguments I see in favour say something like 'look!  This search engine search gives more results than that search engine search', that argument is a massive failure of the Google test:'potato' gets 176M hits, 'pancake' gets 56.4M hits, so potatoes are liked by more people than pancakes - sure, tell that to the kids.  That more people write about the campaign than about her books does not mean that that changes the commonname of a subject.  Statistics is a wonderful tool to abuse, as I said 'correlation is not causation'.
 * Regarding 'We might as well do away with the policy altogether' .. Actually, your repeated linking to WP:COMMONNAME seems to forget the WP:COMMON. Yes, we have reasons to sometimes not follow the rules too strict, and though indeed policy should mean something, the 5 pillars should mean more.  After all, what you suggest is pretty Bureaucratic (yes, from another pillar): 'It is the rule, and because it is the rule, thy shall implement it'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I find this (mentioned below) particularly convincing as a reason to keep using Hillary Rodham Clinton, especially if that is the name voters will see on the election form. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ngrams and stuff
You cited this Ngram Viewer to support your Oppose. The help for Ngram Viewer says this about the use of the hyphen: "subtracts the expression on the right from the expression on the left, giving you a way to measure one ngram relative to another." Thus, you appear your red line appears to be plotting the difference between the "Hillary Clinton" ngram and the "Rodham" ngram. The "Rodham" ngram would include any occurrence of that name, whether or not it refers to Hillary. This would explain why that plot is negative, as there are bound to be more occurrences of "Rodham" than "Hillary Clinton". As I read it, those results are not valid for this purpose, and should be replaced with these. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Edited after reply. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's correct, and I've had this debate before. The results showing just Hillary Clinton include results where HRC is described as HRC. In fact, in some of the results the books were named HRC. One needs to subtract Rodham(from "Hillary Clinton") and compare it to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Otherwise the results are flawed. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When you had the debate before, did it result in a consensus that you were correct? If not, how is that significant? I can only repeat that "Rodham" would have to include all Rodhams, not only Hillary. And, I fail to see how a simple comparison of HC to HRC could be flawed. But I'll leave it there for other commenters and the closer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Google Ngram result gave me pause, until I checked the advanced usage. What you are doing is subtracting the number of hits for just "Rodham" from the number of hits for "Hillary Clinton". See here for a view showing all three terms, and here for one showing HC vs. HRC vs. the wrong (HC-R). If you go up to 2008, the prevalence of HC becomes a lot more pronounced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- If you are correct, and I'm not positive you are, then the results would look like this. I put the years as 1983-2000, both because that is when HRC became a public figure AND when the article was created. Those are the criteria for article creation. The results until 2008 do show a trend towards HC, from HRC, but that is only a criteria if there was a name change. There has not been and Hillary Rodham Clinton has stated she prefers to be addressed as such. So, according to Wikipedia policy, the trend does not matter. As HRC became a public figure and the article was created as HRC, and there was no name change. Also, I see you and some others have cited that in Europe, or the UK, or Germany, HC is more prevalent than HRC. While that may be true, we give deference to article titles by the country of origin. We have a redirect for Hillary Clinton to the HRC article, so the most that would happen is that our readers would be educated. That is hardly a bad thing for an encyclopedia. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Ngram searches for the exact phrases given. It does not use "-" as a subset operators (i.e. "show all occurrences of 'Hillary Clinton' without those that also have 'Rodham'). Results for "Hillary Clinton" do not contain "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to begin with. Google Ngram also does not use pages or books that contain a phrase as a "hit", but basically treats the whole corpus as one long document and counts how often the phrase occurs in the full corpus. Take a look at your query expanded by adding plain "Hillary Clinton". I have to say that I don't find your argument for a 2000 cut -off compelling in the least. We are not retroactively judging the creators of the article back in the stone age, but we try to decide what the best name is now. Also see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you would definitely have to ignore policy to move the page from HRC to HC. So I'll give you that. The other stuff is just your opinion and goes against Wikipedia policy. The reason we have Wikipedia policies like the country specific results for titles and self published names is to prevent moves like this. That and the fact that many reliable sources definitely use(just today we have the AP using her correct name 3 times in 1 article, and the SF Chron also) "Hillary Rodham Clinton(especially books and scholars), there is no policy based reason to move this page. So it's not as if sources have stopped using her correct name. This move is just ridiculous and not policy based at all. Stripping HRC from her family name for no reason seems very sexist. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we strip "HRC", what does that leave? The Politician Formerly Know As Hillary? Or just Illay Odham Inton? We are not talking about removing part of her name, we are deciding under which primary search key we file her article. And even in the US, HC consistently leads HRC. If we trust Google Ngram, by 2008 its by a factor of 2.5 to 1, and in 2000 (your preferred date) its 1.6 to 1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add that country specific names are very common on Wikipedia. We have an article about Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Di or Diana Spencer. We have an article on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, not Kate Middleton. We have an article on Wilhelm_II, German Emperor, not Frederick Albert. We also have an article named Kaiser, not Emperor. The reasons vary, but educating our readers is an important one. Dave Dial (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd submit that we can educate readers about Hillary's maiden name without including it in the title of the article. I mean, assuming they read at least the first sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. But what policy based reason is there for moving the article from HRC to HC? There just isn't one. It has been acknowledged by the main move supporters that HRC came to prominence using the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and the majority of reliable sources used that term while addressing her when this article was created. Since both HRC and HC both get you to the same article, why move it? What if HRC is elected President and is addressed as President Hillary Rodham Clinton(per her request to the press and historians), and this page is moved now. Shall we move back in 2017? 2018? Why move it at all. A Wikipedia based policy is not there for such a move. It's just absurd. I know a lot of good editors automatically state that the article should be named HC(whether it's because they don't know better or just are not familiar with US and Wikipedia policies), but there just is not any good policy based reason to move this article. Reliable sources still refer to her as HRC, most especially in the more advanced sources. Dave Dial (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me also add, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but IF Hillary Rodham Clinton does win the Democratic nomination(and there doesn't seem to be any serious challengers), AND wins the Presidency(she IS ahead in most all the polls against all serious Republican challengers), what name do you think the press is going to refer to her as? President Clinton? We already had one of those. Most press will happily take her suggestion to refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton, just because it's easier to refer to her as President Rodham Clinton than any other name. So this mover request is not only premature, it has a high degree of having to be reversed in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The press called George W. Bush "President Bush" despite there already having been a President Bush. If they need to distinguish the two, they will call her "Hillary Clinton" (or "President Hillary Clinton") as they do now. bd2412  T 17:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true, and you know it. They used it sometimes, but the press distinguished by calling GHWB "the first President Bush", or Bush 41. They also, when writing, stated President George HW Bush, or President George W Bush. That's one reason why our articles for those two Presidents are named George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bushes have the same first and last names; the middle initials are the point of distinction. Thank you, however, for pointing out that the press can also refer to the Clintons as "the first President Clinton" and "the second President Clinton" or Clinton 42 and Clinton 45, as the case may be. bd2412  T 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True, that will be used while speaking and for brevity, but you must know that when writing journalists and authors(especially historians and scholars) will use the preferred name of President Hillary Rodham Clinton. You have to know that. Dave Dial (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think writers resting on formality will use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to the same extent that they use "William Jefferson Clinton" and "Elizabeth Hanford Dole". bd2412  T 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave, I really don't see how you can reasonably say that my !vote, and those of many others, are not policy-based arguments for HC. They are policy-based arguments that differ from your policy-based arguments. Could we possibly stop making hyperbolic statements like that? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mandruss, I don't mean to diminish supporters of a move. I just cannot see a policy based reason to MOVE the article. Our policies say that stable article titles should not be moved without a good reason, and since the subject is still referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in much of the press(especially more advanced and scholarly outlets), there doesn't seem to be a good, policy based reason. Most especially when you take into consideration the two new polices we have since the last move request.Subject preference(which lists BLP considerations) and Concise which states: "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness". It's hard to argue that HRC's family name isn't Rodham. Dave Dial (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to have entered the dreaded black hole of circular argument. If our policies say that she shouldn't be moved without good reason, the question becomes whether a blind and objective measure of RS is a good reason per COMMONNAME. Many think it is, you disagree; I get that. WP:CONCISE gives one "family name" example pursuant to your quote, and it's Oprah vs Oprah Winfrey. Is it patently unreasonable to postulate that they're talking about a person's current surname, not the maiden names of married women? No one is proposing moving her to "Hillary". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What about the usage by all her opponents?
Since her announcement of candidacy ALL of her opponents, female or male, married or not, from the left and from the right, have acceded to that primacy of use established on Hillary Clinton's website/Facebook page/all other aspects of her rollout, referencing her solely as "Hillary Clinton." This evinces a universality of recognition that the common name here is "Hillary Clinton" because neither she nor anybody opposed to her projects any utility in reducing the clarity inherent in using that name. For example, here is left-most Senator Bernie Sanders, “I do have doubts that Hillary Clinton or any Republican out there will take on big-money interests who control so much of our economy," and on the other side here is corporatist/rightist Carly Fiorina (hmmmm, not Carly Sneed Fiorina), "Hillary Clinton must not be president." Statements similarly reflecting "Hillary Clinton" can be found from declared and undeclared candidates on both sides -- Ted Cruz and Martin O'Malley; Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren; Marco Rubio and Lincoln Chafee; and yet I cannot find a single statement by a single potential 2016 rival which disagrees with Hillary Clinton's own website. Pandeist (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, Hillary Clinton is more commonly referred to, so that's what the name of this article should be. No word on whether she is a fit candidate for president, because I'm not voting. Epic Genius (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but I'm keen to see if opposers of the move have any answer to this proposition. If not I'd have to cut the estimation of opposition neatly by half. Pandeist (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are more. Just yesterday here is Rand Paul, "There's only one candidate beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa now." And here is sometimes mentioned Dem Senator Amy Klobuchar, "we have seen Hillary Clinton being attacked for various things." Pandeist (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a serious question, can no opposer of the page renaming rationally answer for this? If none can I am liable to change my vote to support the move, and sooner than later.... Pandeist (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The key word is "opponents". Her opponents want to tie her hand and foot to her husband, Billy Bob Clinton, he of Monica fame. They will be running against him as much if not more than her. So of course they want to remind the voters that she is a Clinton. If they used her full name they'd be reminding voters that Hillary had more time as just Hillary Rodham than as a Clinton, and that her career has surpassed his on some levels. In presidential campaigns she is 'Hillary Clinton', or just 'Hillary' (can we rename the page 'Hill' for brevity?), and that is the way that ball bounces. In real life and career, she's Hillary Rodham Clinton and proud of it. A good but morbid way to judge how she thinks of herself: I take out my WP:CRYSTAL and look at her tombstone and yes, her full name will attach itself to her through eternity, death being the opponent on which Hillary Rodham Clinton - with the Rodham proudly attached - will have the last laugh. Randy Kryn 11:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going by tombstones, we would need to move Betty Ford to Elizabeth Bloomer Ford. bd2412  T 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can believe that critics on the right wish to pin Hillary to Bill, but does this make sense as to applied to opponents on the left? To Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and such? Pandeist (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. Opponents on the left may want her to win, ultimately, when it comes down to the general election, but the left is no fan of Bill and yes, they want to pin them together. Randy Kryn makes a good point here that I had missed in the wall of words here, hence my late reply. But to your question, it is not relevant what her opponents call her in a political campaign of the last weeks or months. This is a biography of her whole life. Tvoz / talk 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am immediately leery of the proposition that we ought to limit our consideration to those sources perceptible as in immediate alliance with one favored political person who happens to have access to Wikipedia's levers of power. That seems to me to be short-circuiting the opinions of half the country or more in one blow. Pandeist (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on time since the last RM discussion
Just FYI, the last RM discussion was a year ago. If you've been seeing other discussions lately about the article title, they haven't been RMs, but only informal discussions about the possibility of a RM. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this discussion down from the "Neutral" section:
 * , the last full discussion was initiated over a year ago (in the interim, various newbie editors have wandered by to propose various title changes, and those have been speedily closed without discussion). The issue is that editors who have never seen the article before happen upon it, are confused by the title, and propose to change it, even though they have no idea that anyone has proposed this before (the current discussion was prompted by exactly that kind of proposal). We can't punish new editors for not knowing what old battles have been fought under different circumstances, but new editors will make move proposals as long as the title is confusing to at least some of them. bd2412  T 22:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems like it just happened, if I recall correctly, there was a moratorium on suggesting article title changes for a while there. But maybe it is just vivid in my memory and it was a year ago. I remember it being contentious. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was contentious - that might be why it is vividly remembered! ;-) bd2412  T 22:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

One person, many valid names
I've added the words "also known as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton" to the intro, which seems to be appropriate regardless of the decision regarding this move. As far as I can see, she has had, or used, the following names:


 * Hillary Diane Rodham, her official birth name
 * Hillary Rodham, the name she used, and was most commonly referred to by, before her marriage
 * Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, her official name after taking her husband's name
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton, her preferred name for herself. both then and now
 * Hillary Clinton, the name the public knows her by, which is also the name she primarily uses in her official campaign materials

All of these names are, or have been, in their respective contexts, valid names for the same person, and she currently uses both of the last two herself, in two different contexts -- The Anome (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't put also known as, because she's not known as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. I would remove the word "also". Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Mungo Grant
@Anthonyhcole, you say that "Hillary's people told Jimmy she prefers HRC. On a matter such as this, where neither name diminishes the reader experience, we should respect the preference of the subject over a style guide. It is a matter of respecting the human dignity of our BLP subjects." So, if Hugh Grant's people notify Jimmy's people that Mr. Grant would like his Wikipedia page to be titled "Hugh Mungo Grant" then we would have to comply to respect Mr. Grant's human dignity notwithstanding Wikipedia policies?18.51.3.209 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When a credible expression of preference comes from a living person that we write about, we give it appropriate weight in our deliberations. Where it won't negatively affect our readers' experience, we should always honour their preference. It's about respecting human dignity, and a name is a very important part of identity. Let me know when Hugh requests a title change. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you know, "Mungo" is really part of Grant's legal name. Does that matter, or can any subject of a BLP successfully request a random middle name for their BLP?  Maybe Elizabeth Warren would like "Elizabeth Presidential Warren" or what have you.  The fact is, Hillary Clinton could make "Hillary Rodham Clinton" her common-name at the drop of a hat if she wanted to.  Instead, she wants her common name to be "Hillary Clinton" except when dealing with particular demographics like Wikipedia-users.  You realize that, right?  It's not like this kind of situation has crept up on us all of a sudden, and yet no one has successfully amended the relevant policies to allow BLP subjects to alter their article titles by contacting Jimmy.18.51.3.209 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That weirdly-skewed demographic: Wikipedia-users. By the way, are you also contributing to this discussion using your user name? You're obviously an experienced editor. What user name do you usually use? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In any event, the argument put forward here is invalid because it is not analogous. To my knowledge, if Hugh Grant did come forward with such a request it would be surprising, out-of-context, possibly even a joke, coming out of thin air for no apparent reason.  In the case of Hilary, she has used the longer version formally for a long time, and has made public statements about it and why.  It is part of her identity, and she has expressed a preference.  Does her preference absolutely override all else? Of course not, and the supposition that the Hugh Grant case is similar is a straw man argument - it isn't *just* the preference of the subject that matters, but the preference of the subject, reasonably expressed, is one factor among many.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even as one factor among many, we need to consider not only the preference expressed, but the strength of preference, telegraphed by the actions of the subject. If there was a dispute about whether your article should be moved from "Jimmy Wales" to "Jimbo Wales", and the basis was a substantial preference in the media for the latter, how strongly would you feel about the proposal? I submit that a preference must be weighed in light of the actions of the person expressing that preference. Some editors have suggested that the prominent use of "Hillary Clinton" in her campaigns is just branding, but it is persistent, intentional, and successful branding that is under the control of the candidate, and we rename articles on brands when the owner of the brand succeeds in taking steps to change the perceived name of the brand in the public mind. bd2412  T 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * She's a person. This is a brief biography of a person, not a summary of a brand. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * She's a person who is intentionally presenting herself in the most prominent way possible as "Hillary Clinton", and is thereby succeeding in convincing most of the world that this is her common name. That cannot be discounted. bd2412  T 14:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It can and should be discounted. Per our policies. The article name is supposed to be the common name used while the subject came to prominence. Everyone who is 40+ years old knows that every time the media referred to HRC in the 90's(and before), they described her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was droned into our brains during the healthcare debates in the early 90's, and 'Whitewater' throughout the mid-late 90's. Recent trends can ONLY be taken into considerations if there were a name change. There has not been, and in fact HRC reiterated she prefers to be addressed as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to a policy that says the article name "is supposed to be the common name used while the subject came to prominence"? That seems to run counter to the idea of ever changing an article name to suit the changing plurality of references, even though it is a common practice to change article names for exactly that reason. For example, the Willis Tower certainly came to prominence as the "Sears Tower", Jenna Coleman came to prominence as "Jenna-Louise Coleman", and Odisha came to prominence as "Orissa". All have since been renamed in Wikipedia. bd2412  T 14:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Better example: What if Niel DeGrasse Tyson said tomorrow he wanted to be known as Neil Tyson? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What if he didn't say he wanted to be known as "Neil Tyson", but started having his name included in television credits as "Neil Tyson"? What if he ran for high office as "Neil Tyson", and presented himself in a way that caused the media to report that as his name, and the public to think that was his name? bd2412  T 13:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * raises the, I think, thought provoking issue that: "... she has expressed a preference." and that "the preference of the subject, reasonably expressed, is one factor among many." I'm wondering how this squares with the very explicitly written p&g at WP:NOTSHOWCASE/WP:NOTADVOCATE.  I can't remember seeing any policy/guidance quotation to say that we should take an individuals less widely broadcast views into account in these matters.  If there is then I would like to see it.  If there is no such content then I think we should write it.  However I can't see a reason why we should make, and from reading what you say I'm guessing you agree, a special case for a particular political figure.  We also have cases like  Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, Yusef Islam, Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting and others who not only would like to be known by these names but who also make, to varying extremes, consistent presentations of themselves by these names.  In contrast the name most consistently and publicly presented by the subject is "Hillary Clinton".  I'm personally concerned, in the context that in news reports I have not heard the name Rodham once, that Wikipedia is picking and choosing who it WP:advocates for.
 * Another argument is that, because of pressures in US society, the subject may not have felt able to present herself so publicly as HRC. I raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons but there has been no expressed inclination to move policy in this direction.  I also made a similar proposal in the thread Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton  so as to ask whether there was a way in which we might find a route for legitimate advocacy but, again, these proposals gained no support.  I think that we are left with a stark situation, as stated in the lead, in which "Wikipedia only responds to real world situations of actuality and does not give any special consideration to any privately expressed view as to how a subject may personally want to have their name presented."  Failing application or IAR we can't make special allowances in a case in which a person makes all of her most far reaching broadcasts of her name in a form which, apparently, is in some way and to some extent, not her preference.  GregKaye 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you have ignored the several times I have already pointed you to the policy that states we should take the articles subject preferred name into consideration. Citing BLP. Here is part of the policy- WP:SPNC. In which Hillary Rodham Clinton stated in 1983("I need my own identity too."), and again in 1993(["It's Hillary Rodham Clinton. Got That?"]) that she prefers to be addressed as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Seeing as HRC is an American, the way she is addressed in her own Country takes precedence per our Title policy. To claim that a women's preference to include her family name is somehow 'soapboxing' is an insult. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not at all convinced that she uses "Hillary Clinton" because of some perceived prejudice against maiden names. Some very successful women in politics have used both names as their campaign name - Kay Bailey Hutchison, Margaret Chase Smith, Christine Todd Whitman. They were able to do so because they used their name consistently throughout their political career, so there was no recognition problem. Some men have also successfully used longer versions of their names in politics - William Howard Taft comes to mind. bd2412  T 18:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you know that she filed her FEC papers as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' too. Campaign posters or ads are just that, campaigns. They are not reliable sources. But thanks for the polite response. Dave Dial (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If Ngram's the question, just plain "Hillary" is the answer
μηδείς What you are asking is for something that is difficult to judge. The following searches in books may help:
 * Might I point out that if we're going to go by Ngram, HRC is by far most referred to as simply Hillary? If ghits is the criterion, Hillary is the only possible answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely some of those hits for just "Hillary" actually describe Edmund Hillary, or other people named "Hillary". What is the most concise title to exactly describe this subject, and only this subject? bd2412  T 02:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But again we are going by recent Ngrams or ghits or whatever. Do a verbatim search for "Hillary" and Edmund Hillary might show up.  Do a news search, and see how many headlines call her anything more than just Hillary.  The Ngram game is just a game. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About 3,350,000 results for "Hillary" AND ("Secretary of State" OR "senator of new york" OR "senator for new york" OR "senator from new york" OR "Yale Law School" OR "Barack Obama" OR "Democratic party")
 * About 1,170,000 results "Hillary Clinton" AND ("Secretary of State" OR "senator of new york" OR "senator for new york" OR "senator from new york" OR "Yale Law School" OR "Barack Obama" OR "Democratic party")
 * About 238,000 results for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" AND ("Secretary of State" OR "senator of new york" OR "senator for new york" OR "senator from new york" OR "Yale Law School" OR "Barack Obama" OR "Democratic party")
 * About 67,400 results for "Hillary" AND -"Clinton" AND ("Secretary of State" OR "senator of new york" OR "senator for new york" OR "senator from new york" OR "Yale Law School" OR "Barack Obama" OR "Democratic party")
 * The only thing that is for sure from this is that there is far more prevalent use in books that refer to the subject as "Hillary Clinton" than refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * GregKaye 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for all the hard work, but my point is really rhetorical. Whether yo get H, HC, or HRC is going to depend on the context.  Obviously bumperstickers and campaign ads with HRC would be a bad choice, I have sold and designed advertising, and would advise against it.  But as demonstrated above, HRC's own preference and what she uses officially is HRC. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DD2K (aka "Dave Dial") weird Google date range error
Aka "Dave Dial," I am confused as to why your Google Scholar searches have this weird date range parameter showing only results from 1970(?) to 2000. Is there a reason you're not showing results from 2000 to 2015? I am guessing it is because those results show "Hillary Clinton" as being three times as used, but maybe you just put in those date ranges by accident? I do hope there's a good explanation, because it initially looks a bit shady. Somebody else pointed out another error by you in your ngram formulation -- and then you deleted both comments. If people have to resort to classic misdirection techniques to abet their positions, they simply ought not be counted. Pandeist (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my oppose, the valid dates are 1970-2000. because that is when the article was created(2001). The only policies given are for article creation, not renaming articles. Our policy on renaming articles is clear(via my links to policy). Dave Dial (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, do not accuse me of things that are obviously false. If you bothered to read my whole comment, or the past move request, you would see the reasons. And you should not make new threads with editors handles in them. Dave Dial (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I might've bothered to read it if it were better written. I haven't made up my mind yet, but you're certainly making it up for me in a hurry. Pandeist (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More rudeness from you. It doesn't surprise me. Don't let me stop you from !voting any way you choose. This is not a vote, and is based on Wikipedia policy. So the 'vote' could be 75-25(like it was last time) and policy based reality still would need to trump numbers. And our policy is clear, imo. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm not "voting" -- I'm contemplating a neutral evaluation of policy based reality. A tiebreaker, if you will. And what you perceive as rudeness is a mirror. Contemplate that!! Pandeist (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial Please retract your presented material on view that they give skewed results that dont represent what they claim. GregKaye 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial In your edit above dated 01:38, 27 April 2015 you have presented the scholar search results above as follows:
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets "About 2,490 results" while
 * "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham gets "About 2,420 results"

An equivalent to your second search would have been: An equivalent to your first search would have been. Your presentation of "Scholar(HRC, HC)" is misleading. Contrary to your presentation of rigged searches, non skewed results in no way "favor Hillary Rodham Clinton". Your presentation of the "ngram results" search displays, according to my interpretation, equal manipulation. GregKaye 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -"Hillary Clinton" which gets "About 1,960 results"
 * "Hillary Clinton" which gets "About 2,990 results"
 * And I call bullshit on that. As soon as the RM initiators remove their cherry-picked data(from 2014-present), as if 'Hillary Clinton' popped out of nowhere and wasn't referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton' from 1983-2003. From the vast majority of reliable sourcing. Any American who was old enough during the 90's remembers that name over and over and over. So no, I'm not removing jack shit. And ffs quit pinging me and adding mt name to headers. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial I am really trying to find reason not to change my currently neutral !vote to support but given attacks on talk pages and what I interpret to by your manipulations, I'm not finding it easy. Here are the Ngram results from 2004 to 2015.  So what is your point?  I have found the statistics interesting and I thank you for them.  However, while the statistics of the proposal were transparently presented, your presentation as at 01:38, 27 April 2015 was not.  Where have I added your name to headers?  GregKaye 14:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, I am going to ask you one more time. Please stop pinging me. I have this page on my watch list, and will see questions. I may or may not choose to answer them, but I won't respond to any more that Ping me. Let me ask you something, are you over 40 and an American? Because any 40+ American that followed politics in the 90's knows damn well that HRC is the common name of Hillary. We have the 1970's where Hillary was semi-notable as 'Hillary Rodham', and from 1983 to 2001 where she was definitely notable as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Perhaps from 2002-2008 HRC and HC were used almost hand and hand, and from 2009-2015 HC has surpassed HRC in google hits. But we take the totality of the subjects notability, not the most recent trends. To pretend that the past 35 years didn't exist is not the way this RM should be conducted. As for your !vote, make it any fashion you desire. I'm not here to tell you how to express your opinion of policy. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a few comments to add to that. First, there's no point in one editor asking another to retract an error (or asserted error) if that error has been publicly identified. Other participants in the discussion will see both the assertion and the rebuttal of it, and can make up their own minds about its value. Second, the reason the proposal cites changes in the last year is because some opponents of having the discussion asserted that nothing had changed between last year and this year; the trend of scholarly publications increasingly using only "Hillary Clinton" is such a change, and one that will only be increased by the current campaign dynamic. Of course, it is not as big a change as we are likely to see by this time next year, but it is identified solely as an indication of a continuing trend. Lastly, it is worth noting that about half of all Americans are under 40 (and those who are now over 40 were not necessarily paying attention to politics in the 90s, though they may have started paying attention later). bd2412  T 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BD2412It I get annoy by what I interpret to be the wilful shading of information.
 * DD2K I'm from Good old Sussex by the Sea. Its in the UK and, if you did not know that, this may help illustrate my next points.
 * I have in the past personally gone out of my way to watch documentaries about the history of the Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton and their spectacular progression in politics but, apart from that, I don't remember once hearing the name Rodham. It has always been "Hillary Clinton".  This is why, when I was recently scanning through the listing at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages the first and only page that seemed to be wrongly named was Hillary Rodham Clinton.  It seemed so preposterously wrong that I didn't even think to check the history of the page as I might have normally done.  It just seemed wrong,  really wrong.  Then I made my I think good but succinct RM proposal - now found at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 21 - and was very surprised at the reaction.  The idea that the move wouldn't go through easily just seemed crazily outlandish.  "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not her commonly recognizable name, its very, very far from it.
 * I've also taken an interest to ask just a few people if they knew "Hillary Clinton's middle name". Apologies for phrasing it like that but, for my purpose, that's all I needed to do.  No one knew.
 * The question that you asked is a good one which made me think to visit Wikipedia's List of countries by English-speaking population. The states is listed as having a total of ~298,444,149 English speakers.  The rest of the world has a combined total of ~976,880,101 English speakers.  Sure some of those people may be from a country like Canada or perhaps Mexico where they may hear more of the of the US coverage but many many others will not be familiar with the Rodham designation.  Similarly many people even from the US may be under 40 and may, you tell me, have had relatively little contact with the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  Britannica Inc. may have a vested interest, for all I know, in servicing to the sensibilities of the US public but Wikipedia is a service and we provide for the needs of the wider population.
 * In the above thread Jimbo wrote "the preference of the subject, reasonably expressed, is one factor among many." This, however, is a minor issue.  Wikipedia is not in the "business" of writing so as to fit in with the sensibilities of the people that we are writing about.  Our central concern is that we write for our english speaking readers - a great many of whom are not in the United States.
 * Thank-you. You have helped me decide on my !vote.  GregKaye 20:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton
I noticed your comment about the List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton part of the proposal. I actually had been working on a move request just for that list, a while back. It was on the back burner, but since you mentioned it I thought I'd add my comments on it here. I don't expect this to necessarily change your opinion, but I did look into it and would like you to consider what I have found.
 * First, the current title is nine words and fourteen syllables. It can be reduced to eight words and twelve syllables by taking out one word that readers are rarely, if ever, going to type in when looking for such a list, since more than nine times out of ten, a person searching for anything about its subject is going to type "Hillary Clinton." (This is actually a question independent of the name of the article on the subject, because that is still only a three word title.) As per WP:SHORTFORM, it is common for this reason to use a shorter form of the original title for subtopic titles. Probably the most comparable examples from that section would be: Madonna (entertainer), but Madonna bibliography, not Madonna (entertainer) bibliography, and Brandy Norwood, but Brandy discography and List of songs recorded by Brandy, not Brandy Norwood discography or List of songs recorded by Brandy Norwood.
 * Second, although Google Trends does not have enough information to generate comparisons for the phrases "books by Hillary Clinton" versus "books by Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "books about Hillary Clinton" versus "books about Hillary Rodham Clinton," it does provide the following numbers for "Hillary Clinton books" versus "Hillary Rodham Clinton books," which shows that the common search term for such a list of books would use "Hillary Clinton," by an average ratio of about 60 to 1:
 * Third, by way of comparison, several notable websites that have freestanding lists of books in some way related to Hillary Clinton leave out "Rodham" in their names. For example, the National First Ladies Library titles their page Bibliography: Clinton, Hillary, Goodreads website has a "shelf" of books by and about Clinton titled Popular Hillary Clinton Books, Oprah Winfrey's O Magazine has an online feature called Hillary Clinton's Bookshelf (a list of books recommended by Clinton), and the Notable Names Database (NNDB) has a Hillary Clinton: Bibliography. There is not a single reliable source anywhere (or any source at all other than Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors) that actually uses the specific title "List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton."
 * Fourth, Hillary Clinton is to date most notable for her 2008 presidential campaign, and her declared 2016 presidential campaign, both of which she has carried out under the name "Hillary Clinton," and for which the relevant articles are titled Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Clinton presidential primary campaign, 2008, Statewide opinion polling for Hillary Clinton for the United States presidential election, 2008. This topic is covered in a good many of the books listed, such as the liberal The Case for Hillary Clinton, the conservative Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton, and the "neutral" Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton 'Won' in 2008. Moving that page will make this title more inclusive and more consistent with the articles on Clinton's most notable activity, her presidential campaign. We even have an article title, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.
 * All this taken together makes a good case, in my opinion, that whether other pages are moved or not, the list of books really should be moved to List of books by or about Hillary Clinton. Thanks!   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

for genuinely informative content for which I am grateful and which will certainly be on my mind as I continue to consider my position. BTW, not that this carries any weight of argument, I consider myself to be a prime author of this RM having contributed at least half of its content.

An additional content that I thought of adding was as follows.

A search in books on ("Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton") AND (Biography OR Autobiography) on 15 April 15 sequentially listed the following 10 results of books classified as "Biography & Autobiography" or "BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY". The sequential list also includes reference to books placed in other categories and these have been given a double indent. A sequential approach was taken so as to not selectively present content in a partisan way.
 * 1) Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton 2012 - 629 pages
 * 2) Hillary Clinton: A Biography by Dena B. Levy, ‎Nicole R. Krassas 2008 - 130 pages
 * 3) Hard Choices By Hillary Rodham Clinton 2014 - 656 pages
 * 4) HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton By Jonathan Allen, Amie Parnes 2014 - 448 pages
 * 5) TIME Magazine Biography--Hillary Rodham Clinton By Garth Sundem 2014 - 5 pages
 * 6) Hillary Clinton By Jean F. Blashfield 2010 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
 * 7) Hillary Clinton: A Life in Politics By Jeff Burlingame 2008 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
 * 8) Hillary Rodham Clinton: Secretary of State By JoAnn Bren Guernsey 2009 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 112 pages
 * 9) Hillary Rodham Clinton By Bernard Ryan 2009
 * 10) Hillary Clinton By Sally Lee 2011 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 24 pages
 * 11) Hillary Rodham Clinton By Sarah Tieck 2010 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 32 pages
 * 12) Hillary Rodham Clinton: Politician Dennis Abrams 2009 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 144 pages
 * 13) further instances of Juvenile Nonfiction are not included on the list
 * 14) A Woman in Charge Carl Bernstein 2007 - 640 pages "Drawing on hundreds of interviews with colleagues, friends and with unique access to campaign records, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Carl Bernstein offers a complex and nuanced portrait of one of the most controversial figures of our time: Hillary Clinton."
 * 15) Shaping Ethos: A Perspective of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidential Campaign's Online Rhetorical Strategies, January-December 2007 Daniel Flores 2007 - 99 pages
 * 16) Dictionary of World Biography Barry Jones 2013 - BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY - (~0.7 of) 934 pages entry on Bill Clinton, Mentions "Hillary Diane Rodham" once and "Hilary Clinton" three times
 * 17) Michelle Obama: A Biography (Google eBook) Alma Halbert Bond - 167 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 6 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used 3 times
 * 18) Oprah Winfrey: A Biography: A Biography, Second Edition (Google eBook) Helen S. Garson 2011 - Social Science - 212 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 6 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used once
 * 19) Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (Google eBook) By Webster Griffin Tarpley 2008 - 436 pages with "Hillary Clinton" being used 19 times (inc. first use) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" used three times
 * 20) The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse (Google eBook) By Colleen E. Kelley 2001 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 311 pages

Basically there seems to me that usage in books reference slightly favours "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and the fact that Hillary Diane Rodman publishes under the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" pen name I think is a further argument for presenting this as a part of the current, I believe, encyclopedic title.

While I do not believe that a marginal prevalence in books for the use of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" should carry any great weight in the general (Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton) naming debate within our largely news dominated media society, I certainly think this information to be of great relevance in regard to a perspective move of:  List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton.

To me a difference in 14 and 12 syllables is of little consequence when our aim is to develop encyclopedic content.

The scope of the RM was increased to cover multiple pages on 23 April by.

I personally think that the difference in Hillary Diane Rodman's self presentation in regard to her publishing endevours might have set this particular subject area slightly apart.

GregKaye 05:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It may also be relevant to note that, in searches in books:
 * "Hillary Clinton" books gets "About 94,700 results" while
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" books gets "About 18,100 results"
 * GregKaye 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it really though? Since these google results have been shown to be flawed, at best. As one can see just by clicking on your results there, every single result on the first page from the "Hillary Clinton" books search has "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the main name of HRC. Every. Single. Result. Sans the 'graphic novel', which has a cartoon of HRC stating she kept her family name to have her own identity, much to the chagrin the parents. Dave Dial (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, ever since Google started massively spamming the Books results with completely unrelated books (this started a few years ago), Google Books results counts cannot be trusted at all. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * TY Softlavender and I don't dispute this. Never-the-less the use of any form of search list from an organisation that may be interpreted not to themselves have any preference of name use provides a potentially neutral context within which name usage may be assessed.  GregKaye 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New evidence - Op ed signed "Hillary Clinton" in today's Des Moines Register
This is new evidence directed particularly towards those editors who oppose a move based on the name Hillary Clinton uses with respect to "publications". Specifically, Hillary Clinton published an op-ed piece in today's Des Moines Register, and signed it as "Hillary Clinton". This is not a piece purported to be from a campaign staffer or any other person, but directly from Hillary Clinton herself. bd2412 T 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So in other words, more "look what I found on Google today". Tarc (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was reported in other news outlets. It can't be dismissed that easily. bd2412  T 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, do you mean these news outlets?
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a shoutout to some of the Iowans she met on...
 * For the average Iowan flipping open Monday's Des Moines Register, the opinion piece from Hillary Clinton...


 * You will never win on the "here's what I saw in the news today" argument, as many Rodham uses can be cited alongside non-Rodham uses. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, Clinton herself was signing her own name as "Hillary Clinton" in that op-ed. Epic Genius (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the point which seems to have eluded Tarc; Hillary Clinton can sign an op-ed however she wants; she chose to sign it "Hillary Clinton". I really don't see how the significance of this development is hard to understand. bd2412  T 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? I don't see any signature from that link at all. And even if she did 'sign' something saying "Hillary Clinton", how does that count against the thousands upon thousands of signatures of "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? You know, the thousands and thousands of official documents she has signed? You guys crack me up. Dave Dial (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a handwritten signature. A typed signature does just fine. And maybe she signs official documents with her maiden name because they're, you know, official. Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is neither a typed signature nor a handwritten one that I can see. Since both you and BD2412 have made this claim, point to people where HRC has 'signed' this op-ed as HC. Otherwise, this claim is a farce. Dave Dial (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most web browsers now incorporate a word search function. Open the article in your browser, figure out how to do that word search, and search for "Hillary Clinton". Right at the beginning you will see: "Hillary Clinton, Special to the Register". That is how an op-ed in the Des Moines Register is signed. bd2412  T 03:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. You've got to be kidding me. Dave Dial (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously. It blows my mind. Clinton herself used "HC" as the name that she would be using at the top. Just wow. Epic Genius (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the "HILLARY CLINTON is a Democratic candidate for president and former secretary of state."? Who signs in third person?  I would call that a back announcement by the editor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to "Hillary Clinton, Special to the Register", at the top. bd2412  T 12:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh. OK. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is where the reporter's name would usually go, but the point still stands: Clinton must have chosen to use that as her displayed name in the article. Epic Genius (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bd-whatever continues to whiff on the point here; for every utterance of "HC", I can pull up an instance of "HRC", day in and day out. That is why past RMs close and no consensus and why this one will/should eventually wind up that way as well.  This is a dead heat, and since we're already sitting on "HRC", that is what we stay at.  If no good reason is presented to rename an article, then you don't rename it.  Simple. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bd-whatever"? Is that supposed to signify that you are unable to read numbers? bd2412  T 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc's first point is correct, and it means that Supporters are pretty much committing suicide by even engaging in such arguments. As Tarc said, the burden is on the Support side. By far the strongest Support argument is a blind, automated reading of all reliable sources, per COMMONNAME. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The problem that Tarc embodies here is what I call the Wyoming/Virginia problem. Tarc can "prove" that Wyoming has twice as many people as Virginia if, for every person I name from Virginia, he names two from Wyoming, until we run out of time after each naming a few thousand people. If we disqualify raw data results (like Google hits and Census data), then Tarc can convince a neutral arbitrator (and himself) that he has thereby proved that the empty sagebrush of Wyoming has twice the population of Virginia. Of course, this also deviates from one of our most standard and most recommended practices in RM discussions - citing Google results and other search engine returns to demonstrate the relative commonality of use for a particular name. There is no reason to suspect the particular search engine results provided, or the trending proportionate increase that they reflect over the past year, in the use of "Hillary Clinton" as the default identifier for this subject. bd2412  T 13:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, more accurately, Tarc can convince the arbitrator that you have failed to make your case. Opposers don't need to prove anything, they only need to divide the arguments enough, and confuse the discussion enough, to make consensus for move impossible. Whatever works. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, I know that you know what an encyclopedia is. We are meant to be building one.  We are not here to play such petty manipulative games.  GregKaye 20:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment placed out of sequence GregKaye
 * That's an assumption of bad faith. As someone who opposes this move, I am not here to "make consensus impossible". I feel this article is where it should be, and have said why. So have others. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't lumping all Opposers into one group. I would have thought that would be obvious. But there are enough of them that fit that description to get the job done. Anyone who cares to take me to ANI for that observation is welcome to give it a shot. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Omnedon. That's a pretty outrageous assumption of bad faith, and that "take me to ANI" comment is just an unnecessary ratcheting-up of rhetoric. Your accusations are just as unwelcome as the tactics you are accusing people of. It's my feeling that this move discussion had outlived its usefulness ages ago. At the end of the day, redirects mean it doesn't fucking matter what the article title is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bd's strawmen aside, the point remains that both HC vs. HRC usage can be found in many sources at any time, so again, what we have always had on this issue is a no-consensus deadlock. Perhaps some see it as a bit unfair and a "first mover" problem that the article first settled on HRC and thus remains by default, but "it is what it is". If you can't come up with a genuine need to rename the article, then it should remain as-is per WP:TITLECHANGES.Tarc (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then do away with COMMONNAME entirely, if its application is not genuine. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME aside, the fact that editors are even now pointing out that it fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for some portion of the population is a genuine need. bd2412  T 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the point; both HC & HRC have a valid claim to WP:COMMONNAME. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only one is causing WP:RECOGNIZABILITY issues. What's wrong with using the title that more people will recognize? We have a pretty strong policy that says we should. bd2412  T 14:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. HRC has gone by HRC for like, ever. And REDIRECTS make the whole issue moot anyway. I don't care which title is used, but the arguments for using one over the other are flimsy on both sides. I just don't see a compelling reason for changing anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you personally have not had an issue with WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, but there are editors who have come to this discussion, to previous discussions, and to the article talk page, who have had that issue (and those are just the ones who are involved enough with Wikipedia to be able to note the issue in these fora). We must assume good faith when other editors have such a problem (in this case, one that is easily solved by moving the page and having the redirects run the other way). bd2412  T 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! Nobody has come to Wikipedia and been unable to find Hillary Clinton, or figure out that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are the same person. I just don't know how you can possibly claim otherwise. HRC used Hillary Rodham Clinton consistently until at least 2006, so only people less than 9 years old could possibly be confused, and the redirect solves that problem anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about now, not about 2006, when everyone outside of professional sources is calling Hillary "HC". Redirects take up server space, too, and the more views that redirects get,the more useful it is to move that article over that redirect. Epic Genius (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can say about the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY issue is that if people are coming here (or other places) and saying they have a problem with it, I take them at their word. As for "people less than 9 years old", that presumes that someone who was, say, three years old (or six, or ten) in 2006 should have been aware of the name being used by the Senator from New York. I don't know about you, but I probably had little knowledge of senators from outside my own state until I was at least a teenager. Of course, that is not even addressing English-language news in countries like India. bd2412  T 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If there has been a COMMONNAME-based argument for HRC that doesn't pick-and-choose sources and assert that they are more meaningful than all reliable sources combined, I've missed it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no question that Hillary Rodham Clinton prefers to be addressed as such. None. Despite the vast original research and synthesis done here by some supporters of this move. We have Hillary herself stating that in 1978 and again in 1983:"'I need my own identity too.'" Then in 1993, she stated again she wanted to be addressed with her family name included, as Hillary Rodham Clinton:"It's Hillary Rodham Clinton. Got That? 'Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the First Lady's name all along, since 1982. We're at a loss as to why people think this is something that we're just trying to change now.'" And then we had in 2014, her reiterating once again, she prefers to keep her family name."'To your question, 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' would be the preference.'" So please stop with this OR, and realize the ONLY sourced statements we have from her preference are that she prefers HRC. That and the fact we have policies which state we should not move stable articles, and the fact that HRC came to prominence using that name, there is no question the article title is correct now and should not be moved. Dave Dial (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already asked you to point me to a policy that says the article name "is supposed to be the common name used while the subject came to prominence", and given you examples of titles that have changed when common use changed. Can you point me to one, or are you wrong about that?  bd2412  T 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So now we have "We should call her 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' because she said so, and not because 300 million people call her 'Hillary Clinton' and somehow COMMONNAME doesn't apply to famous politicians"? Is that a policy now? Plus, articles with millions of views have been moved before, so TITLECHANGES is an irrelevant point. Epic Genius (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know that it says recent trends should only be considered after a name change, and there has been no name change. In fact, we have actual reliable sources stating that HRC wants to be addressed as HRC. All these Google hits are not evidence of real, reliable sources. Google updates their algorithm all the time(500-600 times a year), so the results CANNOT be used as a replacement for actual reliable sources. Even today, with all of the "Hillary Clinton" hoopla, Yahoo News results show a almost dead heat between HRC and HC. When you search throughout history, the totality of sources far favor HRC over HC. By a large margin. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep misusing search engines. Your search would e.g. eliminate all pages saying that her father was named Rodham, or that mention the string Rodham in any way. Making the search sharper vs.  yields a comfortable majority for RC over RHC. And with respect to "When you search throughout history, the totality of sources far favor HRC over HC. By a large margin" all I can say is "". And yes, Google changes its algorithms. So what? Don't you use it anyways? Results for this question have been fairly consistent despite all the changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Errr. Those result numbers are exactly the same. And I'm going to ask you once again to move your comment from my oppose vote, before I remove it. The discussion thread is for discussion, the survey are for the voting. As described in the instructions here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote and never was. It is a discussion. Per the guidelines at the top, "Excessively lengthy or off-topic discussions may be collapsed" - I don't think my comment is excessively lengthy or off-topic. But I'm ready to compromise - if you strike the faulty comment on Google Ngram results, I'll remove my comment. Indeed, in this case, feel free to remove it at the same time, with my blessings. Otherwise, please keep WP:TPG in mind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of 'Support' voters I disagree with, and believe they are interpretating data and policies incorrectly, yet we have agreed to have discussion in the discussion thread. But if you want to be obstinate, then I;'m not going to fight over it. I will note, however, that almost every 'Oppose' voter has followed the rules, while several 'Support' voters have harassed 'Oppose' and 'Neutral' voters. Dave Dial (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will also note that most Support voters have followed the rules, and that some of these "harrassments" are actually legitimate queries. Epic Genius (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do as a say, not as I do? Anyways, I can understand how you arrived at your mistaken interpretation of Google Ngram data - it's an easy enough error to make, and other search engines, including the main Google interface, interpret the "-" more or less as you did. But I cannot understand how, after that error has been pointed out and explained to you by more than one person, you still want to stick to that mistaken interpretation, or at least want it to stand uncorrected. Do you still think that your interpretation of the data is right? Or is there some other subtlety that I don't get? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "totality of sources favor HRC"? You said yourself that Google hits aren't reliable. So, by your reasoning, we don't know whether the results of "when you search throughout history" are indeed reliable. Epic Genius (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're beyond circular here, and I'm out. Y'all have fun! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Search Interest


By using Google Trends to gauge search interest, there is a clearly much higher value for Hillary Clinton than there is for Hillary Rodham Clinton. You can personally verify the graph at http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Hillary%20Rodham%20Clinton%2C%20Hillary%20Clinton&cmpt=q&tz=. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has no relavence. Google trend shows the trend in what people search for on Google and that is all it is. Rather we should look at which name is most often used by reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This image is irrelevant and should be removed so as not to bias the discussion. The eye automatically wanders to images and people retain images better than text (picture superiority effect). The use of images in this discussion is excessive, especially irrelevant or misleading images. -- Sonic Y (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a picture that distinctly shows what people in general think the name of the subject is irrelevant? bd2412  T 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is misleading or irrelevant about this graph? I really don't get it.- MrX 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @ BD2412: We do not base our decisions on what (you believe) internet users think or do. We base our decisions on reliable (secondary) sources. -- Sonic Y (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles."- MrX 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the same page: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. RS, not internet users. Besides, the sentence you quoted refers to what readers are likely to to search for on Wikipedia, not Google. -- Sonic Y (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources nowadays mostly say Hillary Clinton. People search on Google and find Wikipedia. Epic Genius (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This should give us pause. If the most common search is for "Hillary Clinton" it means that this is what the article should be called in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The commonest search terms are merely an indicator of the most unique terms someone can think of that will easily identify a topic in as few keystrokes as possible. I use the minimum search terms necessary to pull up any search.  I don't NEED to type in Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Just plain Hillary Clinton is enough to bring her up; why would I type in more than that?  The fact I don't need to specify 'Rodham' when I type in Hillary and Clinton is completely irrelevant to what her actual name is or what the article name should be.   Should we move the Diana, Princess of Wales article to Princess Diana?  Because very few people search for her using 'Diana, Princess of Wales.'  They type in Princess Diana (or even just Princess Di) and up she comes.  And we handle it by redirecting Princess Di to Diana, Princess of Wales because that was her name. valereee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet more discussion

 *  following comment at 05:44, 4 May 2015 with request to "move this section elsewhere" in a stated context that "We already have complaints about the size of this page. This thread seems to be disruptive and non-productive, and not specifically about whether the article should be titled HC or HRC." I have, with agreement, collapsed the content and readily concede that there is no value to a section of discussion that, none-the-less, is part of page history. GregKaye 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The following comments were added in response to the post of dated 18:50, 27 April 2015 which originally had a content inclusive of "Greg et al have put on a master class in how NOT to handle an issue like this." but which was apparently edited back from a use of personal name reference at the same time as I made my reply.  I have moved this content in response to request from bd2412 with of: "editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy."  David.thompson.esq is of course perfectly entitled to move things back.  GregKaye 07:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * David.thompson.esq
 * in good faith I started the thread Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 21;
 * As an intended positive contribution I presented a Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton into which I then added the sub thread: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton due to the perception that things were getting ludicrously off a valid track;
 * Intending to offer a positive argument for the defense of the HRC title I then started the thread: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton and I have presented these arguments below;
 * Lastly after a whole string of pointed comment I stared a sub thread on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. GregKaye 19:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Greg, and please don't do something like that again. Combining your (by my count from your description above) 5 threads or "subthreads" and the thing someone started on the Village Pump, we had six different locations where people were being asked to opine on this issue; at least five of which were going simultaneously. This significantly contributed to the epic level of time-wasting on this trivial issue.  I don't question your good faith, but I hope you can recognize that -- whatever your intentions -- the result was a bad result which should not be repeated.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first content was in response to the great relative prevalence of reference to "Hillary Clinton", the second content was on a different topic, the third content was in response to editors going awol, the fourth content was an assist and the fifth content was due to edits many of which I contend were uncalled for.  19:53, 27 April 2015.  I also think that it is fair to note that proposers of the move were far from being the only people to multiply threads and we certainly weren't the people who prolonged them.  GregKaye 07:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with carrying on any of those discussions at all. It seems to me that David.thompson.esq Is a fellow who went and posted "tl;dr" in a whole bunch of discussions on different topics in this field of discussion. Now, since that stands for "too long, didn't read" that tells us something. It tells us that Mr. thompson.esq has a short attention span and lacks patience to read things through, and yet is quite pleased to comment in blissful unawareness on the things he has not read. Taken at face value, that explains the whole of his participation. Pandeist (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pandeist, I am a fellow who posted tl;dr, by which I meant "too long, didn't read" on each of the several drivelthreads created by GregKaye and his henchperson sysop bd2412  These multiple, long, drivel- and drama-filled threads were not worth reading, because they by Wikilaw could not lead to any result.  And, indeed, after I declared my own lack of intention/inability to read the extensive verbiage of those threads, they were declared -- by consensus or something -- useless and were superseded by an allegedly proper move request discussion.  So,Pandeist, you are correct that you can take my tl;dr at face value.  All that shit was indeed too long, I didn't read it, no-one read all of it.  The decision on this issue will not take any of that shit into account at all.  Am I someone with "short attention span and lacks patience to read things through, and yet is quite pleased to comment in blissful unawareness"?  No. You Pandeist, GregKaye, and  bd2412  moved this "discussion" here in order to "tidy up" the complete, utter, absolute, and infinite shitfest that you created. My shorts may be eaten forthwith.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TL;DR .... yawn. Pandeist (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of the following threads are, in you opinion, "drivelthreads":
 * Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * IMO there is an extremely large content both in those threads and elsewhere that has been supported, sustained and in many cases started by editors who defend the HRC titling. Questions relating to validity and helpfullness of content can, I think, be raised in regard to many threads and subthreads here.  05:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All of them. None have any relation to the actual extant attempt to rename the article.  Each are chock full of drivel. David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * David.thompson.esq Please see WP:CIVIL. If you have a specific point about a specific content then please make it.  In many cases much of any length that these threads had was not contributed by me.  You practically accuse me of "drivel" and yet I cannot see any value in your current comments in relation to the move proposal presented on this page.  GregKaye 09:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * David.thompson.esq You talk of "drama-filled threads". What, if anything, has your 05:00, 4 May 2015 post, with it's talk of henchmen etc. contributed other than drama?  05:19, 4 May 2015
 * Please, if you have any complaint about any inappropriateness that you perceive in editor action please consider taking it to that editor's talk page or WP:AN/I. GregKaye 05:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kaye]. Honestly, my dear Greg, you moved this discussion here, yourself, despite my lack of consent to the move. Are you saying it is improper for me to respond here, where you moved the thread?  Are you saying I need to go and address my "questions relating to validity and helpfulness of content" at these expired threads?  Once again, my shorts. If you want to go to WP:AN/I, do so.[[User:David.thompson.esq|David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My dear David.thompson.esq I started here by saying: "I have moved this content in response to request from bd2412 with of: "editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy." David.thompson.esq is of course perfectly entitled to move things back." Would you to prefer me to move it back?  That would certainly be acceptable perhaps as a collapsed content.  Despite being part of page history, nothing here that I can see has been of any benefit to this page.  GregKaye 09:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Could someone please move this section elsewhere, off of this page? We already have complaints about the size of this page. This thread seems to be disruptive and non-productive, and not specifically about whether the article should be titled HC or HRC. I have a feeling this thread will continue to grow, so could someone please move it? Thank you. Softlavender (talk):z 05:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Softlavender. You are certainly not wrong that this sub-thread is useless.  My only concern is that the editors who are cultivating this discussion moved this discussion here, so that it could be hidden from the 'vote' section where it started.  And -- by the way -- I made a statement while voting that did not require a response, but I got responses nonetheless.  From the same guys that moved the discussion here. So, they have an interest in "keep tidy" this cluster that they have created because it makes it look less like a cluster created by editors with glory on their minds and time on their hands.  They clean it up by moving their own chatter down the page, and then off the page.  So the discussion looks less stupid than it would, if all their contributions remained part of it.  All their contributions should remain part of the discussion they started.  The size of the page is something that should be addressed globally, not by picking off particular discussions -- especially not those perpetuated by move-proponents -- for expurgation to some never-to-be-read subpage.  Apart from the foregoing, I fell your pain.  David.thompson.esq (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * David.thompson.esq, Every reply that I have made has been in I think fair response to you. As mentioned you are quite entitled to move the content back and you are perfectly entitled to make any related comment when you do.  Please consider that throughout this content you have been complaining about drama.  I quite agree that "this sub-thread is useless" and think that it would be of the general benefit of this page if this content were, for instance, collapsed under a neutral title such as digression.  IMO, it has been a complete waste of time and yet, if comments are made, I have the right to respond.  GregKaye 09:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. In the interest of not prolonging this, I'm taking this discussion off my watch list, and won't add to it further.David.thompson.esq (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes to WP:NATURALNESS
Since the beginning of this RM discussion the edits have been made to WP:AT that affect WP:NATURALNESS. In this case additions for the sake of disambiguation are considered to be excluded from title content when assessments related to naturalness are made, GregKaye 07:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that. What's your take on its impact here? Pandeist (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pandeist I guess it is a moot point now as the text has been edited back to its original form. It says:
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
 * In this is incorrect on this occasion in saying that the google trend results are not relevant.  Naturalness is the third most important issue in article naming after Recognizability and NPOV and part of this relates to searchable terms.  I have already commented on the vast number of links that direct to the namespace for "Hillary Clinton".  I guess the argument is that we are misrepresenting our links if we make them say one thing while the destination presents something else.  I have also commented that other of our links notably have piping such as "Hillary Clinton" and "Clinton"
 * In the view of policy the links and the title do not most "naturally" fit together.  GregKaye 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that does seem apparent now -- an anomaly in the generally more smooth fabric of Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful analysis. And blessings!! (skepticism and all) Pandeist (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia view stats
Hillary Rodham Clinton has 10 times more pageviews on Wikipedia than Hillary Clinton, so it would seem nobody is having any trouble finding it. There's no reader confusion and no technical reason for moving. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very incorrect assessment. Hillary Rodham Clinton's page view stats include ever page that redirects to it include Hillary Clinton, and other links directly to it, as most traffic comes from these. For example a google search for Hillary Clinton will link directly to the HRC page no matter what that person actually searched. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh..Isn't that the point? Readers are not having a problem finding the article. That's blatantly obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud. That's like saying if I move White House to Sausage Head and leave a redirect, Sausage Head would get more views and therefore be the better name. No, it wouldn't be the most common name, so it's in the wrong place. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, . Furthermore,, yours is a quintessential straw man argument.  Neither the nom nor anyone else is arguing the title should be changed because readers are having a problem finding the article with the current title, so "proving" that the article is not difficult to find is totally irrelevant.   But it's telling that that is all that you've got.   --В²C ☎ 20:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I posted this here as a specific response to all the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and "reader confusion" bullshit in an earlier thread. And I've already said (several times) that I couldn't give a shit which title we go for. My contention has always be that there is no point whatsoever to the move. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Response
(I felt my full response would be little too detailed to inject into the oppose list above, so for courtesy and for ease of formatting I'm placing it here. –Huw)

HRC continues to be the preferred form in most major sources relevant to the subject. Significantly, this includes other encyclopedias and practically all government sources, as well as many of the subject's own works including her autobiography, plus the subject's own explicitly stated preference expressed during the last RM. HRC is also frequent in many news sources where (despite HC being most common overall) HRC is often used on first reference; it also dominates official documents where Hillary continues to use HRC (notably including her recent presidential candidacy filing), and much more.

This RM relies heavily on broad ngrams; unfortunately, these aren't a particularly reliable means for determining the title of any BLP (let alone this unusually complex one) due to problems like headlinese, the practice of shortening names after first reference, etc. It also rests heavily on a campaign site of Hillary's that uses the HC form, but this also isn't new; Hillary had a website using HC during the last RM too. These points don't overcome the many that support HRC – and certainly not to the very clear and overwhelming degree necessary to change the title given that Wikipedia policy cautions against swapping one contentious title for another.

In fairness, a detailed proposal merits a detailed response, so here are a few of the points I considered:

Recognizibility in high-level sources

Per Wikipedia guidelines, some sources may carry more significance than others in debates such as these, so it's good to consider the form preferred by "high-level sources". Like last time, official sources overwhelmingly favor HRC:
 * The White House
 * US State Department
 * US Congress
 * Congressional biography
 * Library of Congress
 * THOMAS
 * Federal Election Commission (including 2015)

Also like last time, other encyclopedias use HRC:
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * World Book
 * Who's Who

Same for various politics-dedicated sources:
 * C-SPAN
 * VoteSmart

Same for a number of significant sources directly linked to Hillary herself:
 * The Clinton Foundation
 * Hard Choices, the autobiography of Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton releases, etc.

Recognizibility in media

Raw frequency ngrams certainly favor HC over HRC as they always have, but HRC remains common on first reference. To use a current example, see the opening words of the stories from the nation's largest newspapers reporting the announcement of Hillary's presidential candidacy, showing how Hillary's name appears on first use in the text: Note that even some that did not use HRC in the text nonetheless use HRC on profile pages (e.g. USA Today: Hillary Rodham Clinton). As before, Rodham's certainly not universal, but it remains common on first reference in the text, which I consider a more reliable indicator than a raw frequency ngram. Why? Among other things, raw frequency counts are affected by things like abbreviated headlinese or the shortening of a name after first reference – phenomena that make shorter forms more common but that don't necessarily indicate the form we should use as the title for a BLP article.
 * Wall Street Journal: "Hillary Clinton ended years of speculation about her plans Sunday..."
 * The New York Times: "Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday..."
 * USA Today: "Hillary Clinton formally launched her second presidential bid today..."
 * The Los Angeles Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's long-anticipated announcement Sunday that she’s running for president..."
 * Daily News: "It’s official: Hillary Clinton is running for president..."
 * New York Post: "Hillary Clinton finally ended speculation Sunday..."
 * The Washington Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race Sunday..."
 * Chicago Sun Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton finally jumped in the White House race on Sunday..."
 * Denver Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped back into presidential politics on Sunday..."
 * Chicago Tribune: "Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race on Sunday..."
 * The Orange County Register: "Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s running for president..."
 * San Jose Mercury News: "Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped back into presidential politics on Sunday..."
 * Newsday: "Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Sunday she is running for president..."

Recognizibility in international media

The nominator suggests that international readers may be "confused" by references to HRC, but little evidence is presented for this. On the contrary, The Times of India, the world's largest English language daily, prominently uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It does seems fair to say that the HRC is probably less common abroad than in the US, but it also seems fair to say that international readers are unlikely to be confused by references to HRC versus HC.

Other points

Regarding consistency, the nominator suggests the examples of "Elizabeth Dole" and "Laura Bush" as somehow equivalent to this case. They're not. The situation here is not that of a middle name, or of a maiden name that did not continue to be widely used after marriage; it's a maiden name that the individual has chosen to retain and use prominently over many years. Regarding Hillary's own personal preference, it was established as HRC by Hillary herself via Jimmy Wales who contacted her office during the last RM. This preference is also evident in sources ranging from her recent autobiography which she authored as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", to recent releases from the Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Hillary's own statement of presidential candidacy. This is her choice and it's perfectly reasonable for a BLP to give due weight to that choice.

Put simply, deciding the most suitable title for a BLP article involves not just ngrams and raw frequency counts but also consideration of the kinds of sources that prefer each form, and how and in what ways that form is used. That consideration makes it clear that HRC is a perfectly suitable title, reflecting not only Hillary's explicit preference but also the preferred form used by government sources, other encyclopedias, Hillary's office, etc. Retaining the current title is best. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My, that declaration of candidacy (FEC form 2) screen is interesting. That means, when we pull the lever, or touch the touchscreen, or mark the paper ballot, the name we see will be "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? And now it seems there will be a contested primary: Notice her name in the lead of this news report! AP sources: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to run for president. Your arguments are convincing – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, her FEC candidacy filing as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is certainly interesting – particularly so when you see some other candidates filing as Marco Rubio (not Marco Antonio Rubio), Rand Paul (not Randal Howard Paul), etc. That said, though, I'm not sure that the form has any bearing on the style that the ballots will use; to me it's just interesting to see another data point indicating how Hillary chooses to respond when asked her name.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, let's see what those News articles have in their titles (don't have time to go through the others):
 * Wall Street Journal: "Hillary Clinton and Democrats Aim to Buck History"
 * The New York Times: "Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid"
 * USA Today: "Hillary Clinton launches 2016 presidential bid"
 * The Los Angeles Times: "Hillary Clinton enters 2016 race: 'Everyday Americans need a champion'"
 * Daily News: "Hillary Clinton announces she will enter 2016 presidential race:..."
 * New York Post: "Hillary Clinton is running for president"
 * The Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton launches presidential bid"
 * Chicago Sun Times: (No title)
 * Denver Post: "Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016"
 * Chicago Tribune: "Hillary Clinton launches presidential bid"
 * The Orange County Register: "Hillary Clinton's officially in the race: What you need to know"
 * San Jose Mercury News: "Hillary Clinton running again for president"
 * Newsday: "Hillary Clinton announces presidential candidacy in video on campaign website"
 * Exactly the setup being proposed here, isn't it? No such user (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, you suggest using headlinese as a basis for our titles? If Wikipedia was a newspaper, and headlines our guide, then sure; in fact if that was the case we'd probably do away with "Hillary" altogether and shorten the title to just "Clinton"...
 * AFL-CIO’s Trumka to Clinton: Candidates can't hedge bets
 * Fact check: No 'veto power' for Clinton on uranium deal
 * Charlie Baker Joins Clinton Campaign
 * ...just as we'd shorten the title of the Barack Obama article to just Obama...
 * Obama on Baltimore: Violent Rioters 'Need to Be Treated as Criminals'
 * Obama: Baltimore Violence Is 'Counterproductive'
 * Obama: 'No excuse' for violence in Baltimore
 * ...or shorten our Nancy Pelosi article to just Pelosi:
 * Pelosi criticizes Obama-backed trade bill
 * Senate Panel Backs Trade Bill as Pelosi Supports New Version
 * Pelosi’s choice: Obama or the left?
 * ...but we don't. Headlinese is a stylized and highly compressed form designed for maximal concision, but it's not the form we follow.  That's why IMHO it's much more instructive to examine the lede.  How do news writers currently refer to Hillary on first reference?  Frequently as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  In fact, if it weren't for there being other notable Clintons in politics, my guess is that we'd probably see nearly all headlines use only her surname alone, just as they often do for other distinctively-named individuals like Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Cruz, etc.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  13:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I want the shed to stay blue!
Perhaps my subject is a little on the silly side, but my rationale for opposing this move is this:
 * First, we are suppose to be a neutral encyclopedia, so the first question I asked myself is what would another reputable encyclopedia use for a title? The answer I came up with was http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121809/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton
 * I also came up with http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2744 http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.aspx
 * Next, I asked myself, what does the White House call her? I came up with https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton which is confusing looking at the URL, but navigating to the page shows in 35px font "Hillary Rodham Clinton" with a lede of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton served as the First Lady of the United States to the 42nd President, Bill Clinton.
 * I also found http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/HILLARY_Home.html, http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/HILLARY_Bio.html, and http://www.whitehousehistory.org/history/white-house-first-ladies/first-lady-hillary-clinton.html (which although the header says "Hillary Clinton", the body text uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" three times and "Hillary Clinton" none)
 * Then I decided to poke around in other places and found http://www.amazon.com/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/e/B000APZ9VU http://www.wic.org/bio/hclinton.htm http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/ https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/authors/hillary-rodham-clinton-and-chelsea-clinton which all indicate that she self identifies as Hillary Rodham Clinton


 * Based on the fact that most other reputable encyclopedias use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the fact that our governmental websites use primarily "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and the fact that she apparently self identifies as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", I think it is pretty clear that we should have the page at that title as well. —  15:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a bit disconcerted by the implications of Wikipedia surrendering its autonomy and allowing its content to be dictated by the practices of other products that are created with their own agendas, and which are demonstrably slow to adapt to changes. In some of these cases, following these other sources would also require us to move "Bill Clinton" to "William Jefferson Clinton", and to move "Nancy Reagan" to "Nancy Davis Reagan". bd2412  T 18:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "content to be dictated by the practices of other products" or 'the person involved', as I prefer to call it.
 * Bill Clinton self-identifies as Bill Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton self-identifies as Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well wait a moment now, maybe we ought to consider moving Bill Clinton to "William Jefferson Clinton." High-level sources including all professional biographies reference him as William Jefferson Clinton. Every time he has had to take an oath of office it has been as William Jefferson Clinton, so it is quite possible that that's his preference and his campaigns and such as "Bill" are only due to political and societal pressures to be folksy for the electorate. And it would make these article titles feel right together. Pandeist (talk) 2:44 pm, Today (UTC−4)


 * It is standard for both biographers and journalists in articles about people to use a more full name in opening.  Biographers will generally dispose of the subjects name, ancestry and birth early on, and move on to more substantive matters.  Journalists, perhaps, are looking for their word count, or want to show off, or are following the herd.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

Wanting the shed to stay blue is a quite interesting analogy by the way -- since sheds are usually red, and a representation of "blue" as the common color of sheds would verily merit amendment. And so wanting the shed to stay blue in that case, by reference to a few pics of sheds which were stentorially so hued, would be a Quixotian quest.... Pandeist (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary's speeches
Rightly or wrongly, there seems to be considerable focus on the question of which form of Hillary's name is being publicly used since the formal kick-off of her campaign a couple weeks ago, so I thought I'd investigate the public speeches that Hillary herself is now making and document how she's identified.

Following the formal declaration of her candidacy on 12 April 2015 it looks like Hillary has given at least two major speeches with significant coverage; I've included relevant video links where available. I'll keep investigating and will add entries as speeches continue. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 29 April: Keynote speaker at the 18th annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University. Hillary is introduced by Columbia President Lee Bollinger  and David Dinkins as as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  Identified on Columbia's site as as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"..
 * 23 April: Keynote speaker at the sixth annual Women in the World Summit. Identified as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  (See also comments from organizer Tina Brown)


 * While waiting for more new speeches to be made, I figured I'd start working backwards into the speeches immediately preceding Hillary's announcement of candidacy:
 * 23 March: Keynote speaker for the Robin Toner Prize ceremony, introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * 19 March: American Camp Association speech. [Looking for full video/transcript w/intro.]
 * 10 March: Keynote speaker at the 2015 Women's Empowerment Principles Event, introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

Ngrams again
Response to this edit. Dave Dial (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand the difference between Google Ngram and Google Books. Both use the same (or at least largely overlapping) corpora. But Google NGram counts number of occurrences in the whole corpus. If the exact phrase "Hillary Clinton" appear 50 times in one book published 1993, that contributes 50 hits to that year's Ngram count, not one hit. And no occurrence of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" will contribute anything to the "Hillary Clinton" Ngram count. The Google Books search links below the NGram graphics are just convenience links, not links to documents Google counted for the NGram result. Google Books, on the other hand, looks for individual words, not exact phrases, and returns a hit when the book contains one or more of those words (with relevancy determined by Googles proprietary algorithm). This means that both "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" may find the same books (even if that book only contains one of these exact phrases, and in fact even if it contains none). Finally, your Ngram still is based on the same misunderstanding. The "-" operator in Google Ngrams simply subtracts the two results from each other. It does not exclude certain "hits", because NGrams is not based on that concept, but simply searches the corpus sequentially for exact phrases. Here is your Ngram search extended with plain "Hillary Clinton". It's easy to verify that at each time, the green line (HC) is just the sum of the red and the blue (HC-HRC, HRC). This is not some opinion we can debate, this is simply a verifiable mathematical fact. To clarify once more: Ngrams does not count number of sources that contain a phrase, it counts how often a phrase is used in all sources that make up its corpus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, the Ngram being pointed to for move Supporters is useless. I have just shown the results for Hillary Clinton have multiple instances of calling HRC by her correct name, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Shit, even the book titles from those results are named HRC. How can one, in all honesty, list those results as some kind of reason for supporting a move? It's beyond understanding. Dave Dial (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. WP:COMMONNAME goes "by [a name's] prevalence in reliable English-language sources", not "by the number of reliable sources that use a name". If a book uses "HC" 50 times and "HRC" twice, it points us towards using HC. Most books will indeed have both forms of the name, but Google Ngram shows us that they consistently use the shorter form a lot more often. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to the closers Dave Dial, whether by incompetence or desire to decieve, is using an inapplicable date range, cutting off in 2003', right before the result turn sharply in favor of "Hillary Clinton" -- if you look at the full date range you see that "Hillary Clinton" clearly pulls ahead. Pandeist (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, its worse. See above. HC is always ahead. It's just that over the full range, HC pulls to more than twice HRC, so that even the difference HC-HRC is larger than HRC alone. --Stephan Schulz (Talk) 23:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I've already explained to you before, I meant to stop at 2001. And I explained the reason. Those are the periods where she became a prominent public figure, and when this article was created. You people are giving reasons why this article should be named HC right now. As if the past 35 freaking years didn't even exist. I am showing a more complete history. The fact you don't like that doesn't concern me at all. And stop making insults directed at me. Now. Dave Dial (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the 1 next to the 3 on your keyboard? Did you not look at the screen when the result came up? Sounds a wee bit implausible. Pandeist (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no idea how it happened, and don't care. Are you still trying to pretend you're neutral to fool people into believing you've changed your mind? You posted several battleground behavior protests in support of moving HRC to HC in the last move request as user:DeistCosmos( who has been topic banned from some kind of topics concerning women, are you sure you can even vote in this? ). Dave Dial (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never been topic banned from anything, but you're lining yourself up to be. Pandeist (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due and considered respect, I hereby formally and officially request that you rescind and repudiate your above-published claim that I have been topic banned from anything. Pandeist (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've struck the false part, not the true portion. Do not remove my posts again. Dave Dial (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, why the hell not? It's the Wild Wild West out here. The rules are out the window. You've seen the response, no one cares how we conduct ourselves here. Pandeist (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean no one cares? GregKaye 03:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey of policy/guideline basis in !votes
The following presents brief yet potentially subjectively distilled interpretations of the various policy or guidelines based reasons cited within !voting above. Under each cited reason, we list all the participants who cited that reason in their comment. If the policy or guideline is not explicitly cited but inferred, the inference is quoted here. Specific reference should be made to the actual comments of each editor concerned to verify what each editor specifically said.*


 *  citing nom:
 * (1) "I agree"
 * (2) "... move request is solid and relevant"
 * (3) "As stated above..."
 * (4) "As stated above..."
 * (5) "every factor presented in the move proposal"
 * (7) "per all of the reasons described in the move request"
 * (11) "per the above"
 * (16) "As the above proposal clearly lays out"
 * (17) "per above"


 *  citing WP:COMMONNAME:
 * (4)
 * (5)
 * (6)
 * (8)
 * (9)
 * (10)
 * (11) "more commonly used"
 * (12)
 * (13)
 * (14)
 * (15)
 * (16)
 * (17)
 * (20)
 * (21) "preponderance of reliable sources use 'Hillary Clinton'."
 * (23)
 * (24) "she is 100% referred to as 'Hillary Clinton'"
 * (25)
 * (26)
 * (27)
 * (28)
 * (29)
 * (30)
 * (31)
 * (32)
 * (33)
 * (34)


 *  citing recognizability:
 * (5)


 *  citing Unnecessary disambiguation (WP:PRECISION)
 * (6) "The 'Rodham' doesn't add anything in disambiguation"
 * (8) "because there's no other bio-article of a Hillary Clinton, therefore 'Rodham' isn't required to clarify wich Hillary Clinton we're mentioning."
 * (27) - "I don't believe there are any other Hillary Clintons such that disambiguation is required"


 *  citing WP:CONCISE
 * (6) "the shorter version should be used"
 * (7) "especially concision"
 * (20)
 * (27)


 *  citing Consistency
 * (23) "...follows the same pattern as other well known political figures "


 *  per WP:JDLI (no policy-based reasons given)
 * (22)

NOTE: processed supporters through #34


 *  per interpreting WP:COMMONNAME to prefer scholarly, academic sources over merely reliable sources
 * (3) "WP:COMMONNAME prefers the common name in scholarly, academic sources to online sources"
 * (9) "relied on higher-quality scholarly and professional sources"
 * (14) "per reasons already stated by Chasewc91 and Tarc."
 * (15) "Scholar(HRC, HC) and ngram results favor Hillary Rodham Clinton."


 *  per WP:COMMONNAME because it was more common in the past
 * (15) "especially considering the time period where she became publicly known(1972-2000). In order for recent trends to be used for a common name, a name change needs to happen. HRC has not changed her name,..." "The attempt to state that Hillary Clinton is trending more than Hillary Rodham Clinton is flawed and irrelevant, since there has been no name change and recentism is not a policy based argument."


 *  per WP:COMMONNAME because WP:OTHERSTUFF
 * (13) "under WP:COMMONNAME we have John F. Kennedy rather than Jack Kennedy"


 *  per "subject preference" (NOTE: as opposer notes, "nowhere in our guidelines do we specifically give weight to the subject's wishes", but this reason is cited so many times it's worth tabulating, but these are not references to title policy, and are arguably JDLI reasons too)
 * (1) "She uses it ..."
 * (2)
 * (5) "Hillary Rodham Clinton uses that as her name."
 * (8)
 * (9) "The subject's own preference is not a firm indicator of what the Wikipedia must do, as nowhere in our guidelines do we specifically give weight to the subject's wishes, but nowhere in said guidelines does it say subject preference is to be ignored either."
 * (10) "she writes under Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * (11) "It is a matter of respecting the human dignity of our BLP subjects."
 * (13) "what she chooses to be called when not abbreviating for brevity or convenience"
 * (15) "...she prefers to be addressed as Hillary Rodham Clinton."
 * "The reason each of these discussions end without consensus is because even reliable sources have failed to adopt a single "preference." In that case, we should defer to the subject herself and leave the article where it is (and should be)."


 *  per WP:TITLECHANGES or some variant of "no change is needed"
 * (5) "any issue of commonname is easily dealt with by redirects"
 * (7) "per Andy Dingley. What's the problem for the HC folks to just use a redirect? "
 * (9)
 * (10) "The redirect exists, no one is confused who reads the article. "
 * (11) "A search for either HRC or HC will find this article."
 * (12) "None of those voting support are arguing that Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't her name just that it isn't the one they most commonly associate with her, there isn't even the hypothetical case that someone looking for the article will be unable to find it as this is easily and invisibly catered for by redirects."
 * (15)


 *  per WP:Self-published name changes


 *  per interpretation of WP:CONCISENESS as HC would be omitting a family name (Rodham)
 * (15) "for biographical articles... neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness."


 *  (no policy-based reasons given)
 * (6)
 * (17)

NOTE: processed opposers through #17


 * *В²C I realise that I have made good faith edits within your edit here. In the opener you said "we list" and, in this context, I thought that an edit was OK.  Please revert or otherwise modify my adaptations as you see fit.  GregKaye 03:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Thanks for pitching in! --В²C ☎ 06:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly biased and should be removed. To take just my own example, it quotes a sentence fragment from my paragraph describing my oppose,  and characterizes my entire position by those out-of-context words. B2C is as usual trying to make it seem that opposes are not applying policy, extremely unfairly and inaccurately. Omnedon (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. B2C, the closing panel will fairly weigh the arguments that commentators have made here.  You're free to make your own points, but for you as a strong supporter of one side to try to re-cut and re-present what all other editors are asserting is clearly not helping.  Make your own statements and others will make theirs.
 * If this does remain, I predict we'll very quickly wind up with two or even more competing parallel "policy/guidline summation" sections... ╠╣uw [ talk ] 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this section isn't removed then every interested editor should process the position of all other editors in a similar fashion. Remaining interested editors would then process the bias of each editor during the first processing step to assist us in determining which editors are least biased at processing other editors' positions. But this assessment of ability to process other editors' processing of editor positions would vary from one editor to the next and would require at least several additional rounds of recursive mutual processing before reaching that smallest, innermost, remaining-editor Matryoshka doll of process who would be crowned champion of process and would resemble a tiny baby turned from a single piece of wood. That might be fun! Who's in? Flying Jazz (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * claims his entire position is characterized by out-of-context words. What? No one's entire position is characterized by this section, and there is no attempt to do so. The focus here is on the title policy basis in people's arguments and how many relied on each title policy. We should be able to identify every title policy used and who used each one, no? Anyone who thinks a contribution was based in title policy that has been missed is free to list that title policy and the name of the editor who based their argument/point on that policy., did you cite or infer any other title policy? If so, identify it. If not, what again is your complaint? There should be no argument weighing in any of this analysis. Either people cited (directly or by inference) title policy, or they didn't. If the result appears biased that doesn't mean it is. I will say this, before I started this my impression was that the supporters tended to rely much more on policy than did the opposers. But even I'm surprised by these results. So far at least the opposers have practically nothing with respect to policy basis. No wonder they don't want this kind of analysis exposed. And it is only opposers opposing this section, isn't it? By the way, if you don't think this analysis is fair, and you don't want to contribute to make it fair, you can also do your own analysis, and others are free to comment about how much they think it is or isn't fair. What's the problem? --В²C ☎ 16:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give a direct answer to your final question and proceed upwards. "The problem" is that human beings consider it disrespectful when a portion of their words are taken out of the context which suited their desires and placed into another person's context to suit that other person's desires. Of course, you have the freedom to be disrespectful. It's my opinion that many supporters of the move have a deliciously and ridiculously dehumanizing view about the historical role of women changing/not-changing/adding/not-adding their husband's names upon marriage, and to support that view, certain editors here have creating an amusingly misguided analogy to the distinction between the words "yogurt" and "yoghurt." Just as you have the freedom to be disrespectful, opponents also have that same freedom, and certain opponents (not me) will do a much better job at being disrespectful than you did, and they will do a better job at taking your words out of context than you have done. That's because the yogurt-is-to-yoghurt as Hillary Clinton-is-to-Hillary Rodham Clinton analogy is so astonishingly worthy of disrespect in the broader community outside of Wikipedia that it will contribute to a (perhaps well-deserved) recent public impression that the English encyclopedia is run by laughably moronic, over-argumentative, and sexist nitwits. I don't mean to call you or other editors those names. I am simply predicting where certain escalations of disrespect are (very!) likely to lead. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Okay, let's take  as an example since he specifically complained.  "My" desire was to show that part of his argument, like for many other opposers, relied on subject preference. The snippet of his I quoted ("her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover.")  was intended to be just enough to establish that his argument did indeed do that.  Similarly, for, "She uses it ..." was enough to establish the same. Compare that to what I did on the support side.  To establish that  referenced consistency in their !vote, the snippet of theirs I quoted was, "...follows the same pattern as other well known political figures". Where is the bias?  How is anyone's position misrepresented by doing this? How is it disrespectful? Is it disrespectful to Casprings too?  If not how is it disrespectful to Omnedon? Why two sets of standards? The analysis (partially) completed in this section makes no mention of yogurt/yoghurt so I have no idea why you're bringing that up here. It's unrelated so I'm ignoring it. If you want to start a separate discussion on that issue I'd be delighted to participate. --В²C ☎ 20:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B2C, in my oppose, I said, "First, though it has already been pointed out, some of the reasons given above are not valid. For example, the claim that HC is her preference, which has often been shown not to be the case. To take just one example, her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover." You know you took my words, "her autobiography from just last year has HRC on the cover." totally out of context and characterized my entire position incorrectly, on purpose. Please remove your biased "analysis" and stop playing dumb. Omnedon (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * В²C, perhaps the better course with respect to this effort would be to move it to a subpage in your user space. You're free to sum up anyone's !votes any way you want there, and can link to it and say, "here's my opinion of what people meant by their !votes". Cheers! bd2412  T 21:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , but then would I be as likely to get corrections, like the one I just got from Omnedon?, my reading is that one of the reasons you oppose the move is that the subject (HRC) prefers HRC, and that that is a reason the title should be HRC, are you not? That's all I'm trying to show by listing you under "oppose per subject preference" - that you're one of many who is opposing the change from HRC to HC based partially on the subject's preference of HRC.   I'm still confused, but due to your objection for now I've removed you entirely from the list of opposers references the "subject preference" argument.  Is that accurate? Is there any policy-based argument that you feel your !vote opposition is based on that we could list here? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you put it in your userspace and let both participants and closers know it is there, and they can inform you if they dispute your interpretation of their votes, then there is little difference from having it collapsed here, except that you won't have complaints about it being on this page. bd2412  T 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also hoping to get some help so that it's a collaborative effort. Putting in my page makes it "mine" - I'm trying to make this collaborative to ensure objectivity. So far there have been claims of bias but nothing specific except Omnedon, and I still don't understand what he was saying. I think he thought I was using his quote to make it look like he supported the argument that the subject preferred HC over HRC. But that doesn't make sense. I don't know he what he thought. At any rate, I'm trying to make something that everyone agrees is fair and objective. We've done it before in disputes like this.  --В²C ☎ 01:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Omnedon, ╠╣uw, I suggest that if you want to start another version of the above content with other distilled yet potentially subjectively boiled out interpretations of reasoning, then you go ahead and do it. I would also suggest that, if any editor thinks that their position could be better summarised then they can perhaps give a clear indication of their preferred summary. It seems to me that В²C has performed a valuable service here in pinging the various contributors above prior to close.  Perspectives presented may help contributors evaluate their own responses so as to enable them to add, if deemed relevant, to their arguments.
 * В²C: Multiple summations are neither necessary nor desirable – they will add needless bloat and confusion to what's already massive thread. Further, it should be obvious that you are not the ideal candidate to re-state what you see everyone's else's views and policy positions are (even if doing so was necessary or desirable, which IMHO it is not).  As is becoming quite evident, it adds more contention and heat to an already contentious debate.  Please remember the conditions of your pledge.
 * Several editors here are now asking you to desist or to move this to your own user space; I ask again that you do so. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally feel quite inspired by what I view to be a positive innovation. GregKaye 03:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the son of a sea cook! Randy Kryn 00:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Complete BS

 * This is disruptive tolling on the part of user Born2cycle, the entire section should be removed and the user banned from partaking further. No one has the right to make sweeping generalizations of other editors' votes and fraudulently present them as legitimate analysis. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All you've got is to attack me and this section in vague critical terms? Nothing substantive? Wow, exposing the dearth of policy basis in your side's position really hit a nerve, didn't it? --В²C ☎ 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you, none of this particular back-and-forth is helpful to the discussion. bd2412  T 17:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean other than the many arguments that HRC satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, that a title that has been what it is for years should stay WP:TITLECHANGES policy, among others? It is one thing to disagree with the opinion of others, Mr. B2c; it is quite another to lie about a "dearth of policy" behind the opinions of other editors. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dearth is scarcity, not absence. I only got through the first 11 Opposes so far, and noted that two of them did rely on common name, including yours. What exactly are you complaining about? --В²C ☎ 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please just put it on your personal subpage, and then link to it here. This is your interpretation of other editors reasoning. We are never really going to agree, since that's one reason this debate is happening. For instance, WP:COMMONNAME actually favors HRC over HC, when you take all sources over the total years of the time HRC has been a public figure. No, we didn't have Google for most of the 1970-2001 era, so there won't be a million hits from multiple blog posts in the archived results, but it's a known fact. I do appreciate your toned down manner in this most recent move attempt, but can we just agree that your interpretation of other editors votes is yours, and not Cannon Law? Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you give me one example of where I interpreted a single person's !vote so I can understand what you're talking about? Is the format really that hard to understand? It's not my interpretation. It's not anybody's interpretation. If user X mentions policy P in their !vote comment, then user X gets included in the list of users using policy P to support their position. If the mention is inferred rather than explicit, then I provide a quote fragment of the inferred reference to the policy simply to make it easier for others to verify that they were basing their argument on policy P. There is no interpretation, no evaluation of whether the argument is actually supported by the cited policy - just that the user thought it was. It is that simple. If it's anything other than that, then it's a mistake, and it should be corrected. --В²C ☎ 05:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Appearance that Wikipedia is biased in favor of preferential treatment for Hillary
There's already sentiment out there that "Hillary Gets Special Protection On Wikipedia" (this article even calls out User:Wasted Time R by name). There's a lot of mention of 'preference' which is being applied here in a way that it is applied to no other person discussed in Wikipedia. Is it a valid consideration that maybe some editors don't want Wikipedia to be perceived as a biased towards being capitulant to the whims of a single other person, in a way that it is not to anybody else in the world? What to tell people whose impression is, Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anybody can edit (unless it conflicts with Hillary Clinton's 'preference')?

And while this question is up in the air, are there any conflicts of interest in here? Is anybody participating in this discussion--on either side--a Clinton staffer/campaign person/otherwise paid employee? Pandeist (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * David Horowitz Freedom Center's truthrevolt.org? Who cares? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, the democrats are whipping African-Americans into an anti-white frenzy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter who it's from. There's lots of literature out there proposing Wikipedia to be biased one way or another an various subjects, but this is the first I've seen suggesting such bias bows toward the preferences of one especial person. Is this the case? Is Wikipedia biased in favor of protecting and accommodating a single famous and powerful person? In a way it doesn't accomodate others? Pandeist (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pandeist: yeah, Vast left-wing conspiracy at play here in WP. FYI: no single editor anywhere in WP can have so much sway... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't tell him I said so, but WTR is an unusually competent and fair editor. And I guarantee you that WTR is way left of AYW.  I haven't followed the HRC page closely, but I suspect it would be more like the Barack Obama hagiography if WTR were not protecting the HRC BLP.  Soon to be the HC BLP, I suspect.  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The opinion of the lunatic fringe of right-wing American conservatism is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess they're on the wrong wing, eh Tarc? :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since editors are asking us all to come clean, for full disclosure (or full disco share), I was on the Democratic National Platform Committee in 1992 representing Jerry Brown, not Bill Clinton. I've never met either Bill or Hillary, ever talked to them or written to them. Passed along something to Hillary's people twice, once when she was running for the Senate, next, indirectly through Sen. Kennedy's office, after she was named Secretary of State but before she took office. None of that makes a difference in thinking that her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton and if she wins the American presidency, judging from her past elected and appointed-office history, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she'll use on her official documents, jottings, presidential statements, her executive orders, and the White House stationary. WP:Common sense applies. Randy Kryn 23:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey of participant's gender (by biology or specified preference) and residency/nationality as presented in user page content in reference to !votes

 * title changed as per "Survey of P p" so as to match similarly structured content above. GregKaye 03:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed political support but when I noticed a comment I added a comment on this as well. Feel free to edit into this list and please add a signature if the information added is added directly and not in reference to user or user talk page content. GregKaye 06:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) edit GregKaye 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * :
 * 1)  in prefs
 * 2) M (per presented picture featuring Wikimania London)  in prefs
 * 3) "This user was born and lives in the U.S. State of Maine"  in prefs
 * 4) "I'm female,..., and live in the U.S."  in prefs
 * 5)   in prefs
 * 6)  I'm not sure.  I definitely appear male to others, but there seems to be a woman underneath.  And underneath her there's a male.  It's so confusing!  I'm sorry if this comment offends anyone who does not sympathize with this condition.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)  in prefs
 * 7) Presents File:Flag of Canada.svg and writes: "Canada new line May we someday become a republic"  in prefs
 * 8) "This user is a native speaker of British English."  in prefs
 * 9) "male"  in prefs
 * 10) "I am male"  in prefs
 * 11)   in prefs
 * 12) "This user is a White, USAmerican, straight, male, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, pro-gay feminist - and proud of it!", "Wikipedians in MarylandWikipedians in the United StatesWikipedians in Connecticut"  in prefs
 * 13)   in prefs
 * 14) (15) "This user lives in or hails from Chicago."  in prefs
 * 15)   in prefs
 * 16) "My name's Dave & I live in Strood, Kent, UK," "This user loves Maisie Williams, "This user loves Chloë Moretz, This user loves Ariana Grande"  in prefs
 * 17) "This user is from the UK but lives in the U.S.A." "This user is a proud native citizen of England" "This user lives in the U.S. State of North Carolina" "Male"  in prefs
 * 18)   in prefs
 * 19)   in prefs
 * 20) according to Category:Images by Beyond My Ken takes pictures with names starting File:1 West 22nd Street.jpg  in prefs
 * 21)   in prefs
 * 22)   in prefs
 * 23) "This user is male."  in prefs
 * 24) "male", "This user is a proud Canadian."  in prefs
 * 25)   in prefs
 * 26) "Male Wikipedians", "This user participates in WikiProject Idaho"   in prefs
 * 27) "This user is a lifelong resident citizen of the U.S. State of Montana", "This user supports the Democratic Party of the United States."   in prefs
 * 28) "Wikipedians in the United Kingdom"  in prefs
 * 29)   in prefs
 * 30)   in prefs
 * 31) "India"  in prefs
 * 32) Prioryman  in prefs
 * 33) Timrollpickering  in prefs
 * 34)  in prefs
 * 35) Winner 42  in prefs
 * 36) Carrite  in prefs
 * 37)  in prefs
 * 38) Rationalobserver "This user is female."  in prefs
 * 39) Milowent  in prefs
 * 40) Knowledgekid87 "This user is male."  in prefs
 * 41) Obi-Wan Kenobi "This user is male."  in prefs
 * 42) "This user identifies as a gay male."  in prefs
 * 43) kennethaw88  in prefs
 * 44) Mark Schierbecker "Country United States"  in prefs
 * 45) No such user  in prefs
 * 46)  in prefs
 * 47)  in prefs
 * 48) Blueboar  in prefs
 * 49) "This user is male." "This user lives in England"  in prefs
 * 50) "I am a Californian Wikipedian."  in prefs
 * 51) Fyunck(click)  in prefs
 * 52) JJARichardson "This user is male." "This user lives in Yorkshire."  in prefs
 * 53)  in prefs
 * 54) Xezbeth  in prefs
 * 55) SchreiberBike  in prefs
 * 56)  in prefs
 * 57) "Wikipedians in England"  in prefs
 * 58)  in prefs
 * 59) Moriori  in prefs
 * 60) "Male Wikipedians"  in prefs
 * 61) older  in prefs
 * 62) zziccardi  in prefs
 * 63) "Wikipedians in the United States"  in prefs
 * 64)  in prefs
 * 65) GRuban  in prefs
 * 66) "Female Wikipedians"  in prefs
 * 67) Torquemama007  in prefs
 * 68) Sonĝanto  in prefs
 * 69) Crazy Eddy  in prefs
 * 70) B  in prefs
 * 71) Nations United "This user comes from Canada."  in prefs
 * 72) GregKaye "This user is male" "This user comes from: Good old Sussex by the Sea."  in prefs
 * 73) John Cline  in prefs
 * 74) Mellowed Fillmore  in prefs
 * 75) Formerip "This user is male." "This user lives in England"  in prefs
 * 76) Tinton5  in prefs
 * 77) "This user is a citizen of the United States of America."  in prefs
 * 78) Rockypedia  in prefs
 * 79) Pandeist "This user is God (and so are you)."  in prefs
 * 80) Tiller54  in prefs
 * 81) Ahecht  in prefs
 * 82) Skm989898  in prefs
 * 1) Ahecht  in prefs
 * 2) Skm989898  in prefs
 * 
 * 1)   in prefs
 * 2)   in prefs
 * 3)   in prefs
 * 4) "This user comes from or lives in the United Kingdom. This user lives in Cymru."  in prefs
 * 5) "Wikipedian gentlemen who support their female allies", "WikiProject Maine members"  in prefs
 * 6) "Born and raised: [[Media:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|40px]]"  in prefs
 * 7) Interpreted as English due to presentation of File:Flag of England.svg  in prefs
 * 8)   in prefs
 * 9) KTo288  in prefs
 * 10)  in prefs
 * 11)  in prefs
 * 12)  in prefs
 * 13) Justen  in prefs
 * 14) Mark Miller  in prefs
 * 15)  in prefs
 * 16)  in prefs
 * 17)  in prefs
 * 18) In ictu oculi  in prefs
 * 19)   in prefs
 * 20) Ombase  in prefs
 * 21)  in prefs
 * 22)   in prefs
 * 23)  in prefs
 * 24)  in prefs
 * 25) "This user is male."  in prefs
 * 26)  in prefs
 * 27)  in prefs
 * 28)  in prefs
 * 29)  in prefs
 * 30) Wbm1058  in prefs
 * 31)  in prefs
 * 32)  in prefs
 * 33) "This user is female."  in prefs
 * 34)  in prefs
 * 35)   in prefs
 * 36) Ad Orientem "This user is male."  in prefs
 * 37)   in prefs
 * 38) picture looks male  in prefs
 * 39) JayJasper "Male Wikipedians" "Wikipedians in the United States"  in prefs
 * 40) JohnBlackburne "This user lives in County Durham"  in prefs
 * 41) "Female Wikipedians"  in prefs
 * 42) Sjakkalle  in prefs
 * 43)  in prefs
 * 44)  in prefs
 * 45)  in prefs
 * 46) Ealdgyth "Wikipedians in Illinois"  in prefs
 * 47)  in prefs
 * 48)  in prefs
 * 1)  in prefs


 * 
 * (1) "This user is an American male"  in prefs


 * As both genders support both positions, this should put to bed any suggestion of systemic bias within Wikipedia. GregKaye
 * No, that puts nothing to bed regarding whether there is gender bias in Wikipedia. That the small minority of editors who choose to report a gender aren't entirely divided pro and con in no way proves that there is no bias present.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say much about whether there is gender bias in WP, except that it suggests more men than women edit, which I think we knew. It does show, much more narrowly, a lack of evidence that this question is split along gender lines. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah; other than indicating that at least 3 of 83 supporters identify as female, the most one can really say based on the limited responses is that support is not completely split on gender lines (which of course is an insufficient basis for suggesting that gender bias is absent). ╠╣uw [ talk ]  18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we just looking for gender bias? How many people voting here don't remember the Clinton Administration?  How many of us are alcoholics?  PhD's?   Why not look for anti-Illinois/glasses-wearing/Arkansas/First Lady/Lawyer/blonde sentiment?  And why was my name listed here on the presumption that I should declare my gender for the sake of some agenda?  Count me out.  My genitals don't control me. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But I responded to the survey anyway (have fun trying to categorize me).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did someone put day-old bait in a bed again? Flying Jazz (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll rephrase:
 * As both genders support both positions, this should put to bed any suggestion of systemic bias within Wikipedia on the issue of the title choice of this article. GregKaye 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Do you consider that there is any evidence of "bias present" and if so what?
 * , The close of the Spring 2014 RM commented that, "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." However, in the case of the current discussion, contributors of both genders have supported both options.  If you want to also give consideration to issues such as alcoholism, qualification levels or anything else then you are at liberty to do so.  There was no presumption that you should declare your gender.  I conducted a "Survey of participant's gender (by biology or specified preference) and residency/nationality as presented in user page content ..."
 * , Thank you for participation.   00:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Greg, but you don't seem to understand what systemic gender bias on Wikipedia means. I once referred to it as "an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages", but please don't ask me to explain it here - this is not the place. Tvoz / talk 00:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just added response to Medeis above which I hope will explain the rationale for the presentation of the above content. I am not sure either.  There is nothing here that I have asked.  GregKaye 00:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are either incredibly obtuse, or being purposely insulting. Either way, I suggest you end this charade. Dave Dial (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial Please note that you the editor who presented all the, I think, incredibly misleading "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham searches at 16:16, 28 April 2015 on this page and who started the thread where you made, I think, unsubstantiated comment regarding "Naming convention policy".  I would be be careful how I used the word "charade" if I were you.  If you think that the above survey is a charade please state why and how?


 * ...Your support !vote is ridiculous. Dave Dial 16:32, 26 April 2015
 * ... because the editor has no clue. Dave Dial 16:39, 26 April 2015
 * ... the reasoning at the intro is dishonest, at best. Dave Dial 17:06, 26 April 2015
 * ... ( who has been topic banned from some kind of topics concerning women, are you sure you can even vote in this? ). Dave Dial 29 April 2015


 * GregKaye 07:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

People who analyze surveys have a phrase they use sometimes called "insufficient data to reach a conclusion about..." That phrase is not synonymous with "this should put to bed any suggestion of..." Now there's even more bait in your bed. Must be stinky. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flying Jazz I have just made an I think conciliatory reply to you as at 06:11, 6 May 2015 thinking that you might be an editor who might be generally interested in debate and not "simple" attack. I have never come across reference to "bait" in regard to editing.  I have done my best to present relevant content relating to the assessment of this request.  I am honestly trying to present an honest and direct content.


 * "OK, I'll rephrase":
 * As both genders support both positions, this should put to bed any suggestion assertion of systemic bias within Wikipedia on the issue of the title choice of this article.
 * Contributors of both genders have contributed to both sides of the debate. GregKaye 06:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye: No, you're still not getting it. Even within the scope of this article, the fact that the male/female distribution and the pro/con distribution are not identical in no way proves that there can be no gender bias here.  I don't know how else to put it: there's simply no logical connection.  If you can't understand that (and seemingly you don't), then you really need to stop pursuing this.
 * I also see that the list above has now shifted from simply allowing participants to voluntarily report their gender in the debate to actually researching every participant's gender and posting it here. That's just... there are no words.  I think some outside attention to this matter is warranted.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  08:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that I have never come across reference to "bait" in regard to editing. struck me as dubious at best. A simple search on your user talk page led to an instance on Archive 2 just this past October where another editor used the phrase "rise to the bait on the Talk page" in reference to a third editor. I hope you consider paying closer attention to text that you encounter in case you come across it again. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flying Jazz I am replacing here the reply that I placed earlier yet withdrew in the hope of decreasing what I have considered to be persisting drama.
 * "Flying Jazz I most regularly edit in association to topics like ISIL in whose talk page archive the only references to "bait" are to Ansar Bait al-Maqdis. Are you familiar?  Another possible explanation, other than your arguable assumption of bad faith, is that the pages I regularly edit are just less political than this one."
 * I initiated with you on your talk page in a Revision as of 13:55, 6 May 2015 where I said, "I thought to give the option to retract comment about bait."
 * Without replying you still made revision as of 14:31, 6 May 2015
 * I am honestly just trying to be as straight forward as I can and do not appreciate the accusations or insinuations. GregKaye 11:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All sorts or editor and all sorts of bias
There comes a time when we heed a certain call edit any page &emsp; When the world Wikipedians must come together as one ... Life or should I say editing, it may be argued, is not like that. Perhaps the problem here, as may be validly speculated, is that most if not all of us have bias.

"People have bias", and I think that this is just the way it is. Obviously we are not discussing major level bias here of at a level that might lead to an ethnic cleansing of a group such as the Yazidis but frivolous biases within Wikipedia may be argued to begin on issues such as individual editor's decisions regarding the topical areas that they think warrant the investment of their editing time (which, of course, may include perceptions as to whether this is a pointless move proposal or not).

However if talk is to be made of bias then I think we need to be clear on what we are saying.


 * ...weight to avoid the bias of editors, or the bias of the unknowledgeable (it is eminently proper to defer to the professional encyclopedic biographer, when you are not one)... We deal with the subjects of BLP's all the time and do not turn them away when they have multiple high quality reliable sources to back them up, not unless you want to introduce editor's bias or un-knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a view, whereby the importance of a woman's retained family name is reduced to the level of a "middle name" is evidence of systemic bias, and is not a sound basis for any change... 19:33, 1 May 2015
 * However it can also be judged that her decision to do this comes within the context of an, arguably, extremely biased and prejudiced US political context. The argument here is that, in a context in which Hillary Diane Rodham may, arguably, be affected by bias and prejudice, that Wikipedia may, with validity, adopt a counteracting bias in the opposite direction... 20:38, 26 April 2015
 * ...bother to read any of the past move requests, or any source? This just shows how systemic bias works, without editors even knowing it. 16:32, 26 April 2015
 * Another example of the systemic bias of Wikipedia... 16:39, 26 April 2015
 * And despite all that, have worded the MR in a totally biased manner. Disregarding policy and reality. 17:35, 26 April 2015
 * Incredibly biased and should be removed. 12:25, 30 April 2015
 * If this section isn't removed then every interested editor should process the position of all other editors in a similar fashion. Remaining interested editors would then process the bias of each editor during the first processing step to assist us in determining which editors are least biased at processing other editors' positions.... 15:52, 30 April 2015
 * If the result appears biased that doesn't mean it is... 16:59, 30 April 2015
 * Where is the bias? 20:08, 30 April 2015
 * Please remove your biased "analysis" and stop playing dumb. 21:24, 30 April 2015
 * So far there have been claims of bias but nothing specific except ... 01:20, 1 May 2015
 * Appearance that Wikipedia is biased in favor of preferential treatment for Hillary ... Is it a valid consideration that maybe some editors don't want Wikipedia to be perceived as a biased ... 20:39, 30 April 2015
 * There's lots of literature out there proposing Wikipedia to be biased one way or another an various subjects, but this is the first I've seen suggesting such bias bows toward the preferences of one especial person... 20:49, 30 April 2015

oxforddictionaries.com defines bias as: I personally hope that no one here has bias towards the subject as a person at least not to an extent to which this would influence positions presented on this page. It is also possible, however, that we may have bias in regard to the areas of policy and guidance that we think are applicable to the current case and I guess that this falls under the category of a "concentration on ... one particular area or subject".
 * Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair:
 * A concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject:
 * A systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation.

Anyway, that is my basic take on the generalities of the topic. GregKaye 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifics

In the sometimes heated debate on this page I think, and I may be wrong, that a lot of the more involved contributions have been made by male editors. This comes in the context, as far as I can tell, of one solitary news article that quotes ("Hillary Clinton" OR "hillary rodham clinton") as saying "I need my own identity too". This occurred in the context that "Bill" had been elected governor and, despite her doing a lot of the work and providing a lot of the inspiration and within the context that her husband was - so to speak - getting top billing and in any other context that may or may not have been in effect at the time, a newspaper article had spelt her first name with one "l".

The only other reference that we have is in regard to a comment that did not initiate from Hillary's camp but came in response from an enquiry from with the response saying, ""To your question, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be the preference.""  Preference? To what extent preference?

Of course there can be speculation as to whether this is to any greatly significant extent an issue. Hillary's preference may, for all we know, be at a level of a preference of coffee over tea or vice versa (admittedly an important issue for some people) or it may be at a level of preference as being one of the things that she would most want in the world. There is, however, no evidence for the latter.

Sure, there are various WP:OR interpretations of this situation that may be taken but the fact is that there has, as far as editors have been able to present, no other content anywhere to that shows HC/HRC as personally expressing preference. All we have is her various uses of either of the two main designations as they have been presented in different contexts. Any view in regard to any level of perceived strength of feeling that HC/HRC may have in regard to the presentation of her name will very substantially fall into the category of original research.

In this external context and in the context of Wikipedia's clear policy / guideline regarding the Wikipedia's preference for the use of "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" I argue that, if anything, the people who are exhibiting systemic bias are those who, regardless of the situations mentioned, advocate for the continued presentation of "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

The only issue as far as policy is concerned is to the extent to which we can ignore all rules so as to take this speculation into account.

I totally agree with the views of Huwmanbeing in saying that "the fact that the male/female distribution and the pro/con distribution are not identical in no way proves that there can be no gender bias here". However, the fact is that gender bias can work both ways within the current context. There are several editors here who are defending the Rodham titling to what might even be regarded to be a heroic extent. This comes in a context in which, arguably, there is very little evidence that she cares much about the issue at all. GregKaye 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How do editors get disrespected and attacked on this page? Let me count the ways.

 * An editor commented regarding perceived mud-slinging here, "I have run out of fish" (in reference to: trout) . My final proposal was that the fish get caked in the mud and that with a healthy application of positive flaming and everything would be fine.  I held back on this but sense that the tone of the discussion may be heading for another downturn.  Forgive me if I have been remiss in not including your comments GregKaye 07:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your support !vote is ridiculous. Every source on Earth? Did you even bother to read any of the past move requests, or any source? This just shows how systemic bias works, without editors even knowing it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC) to 331dot
 * You might be surprised to learn that there are actually thousands of English-language printed newspapers around the world, ... bd2412 T 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) to Dial Dave
 * Actually, some people are genuinely surprised to learn that. bd2412  T 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ... because the reasoning at the intro is dishonest, at best. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) unsubstantiated accusation against all those involved in the move request section of an earlier incarnation of this page.
 * Yes, and the reason why this move request is so blatantly dishonest is because the same people (you, Calidum and NickCT) were also the main editors from the last move request. And you KNOW that the ngrams and google results were flawed. You KNOW that the results showing "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham had many an instance with the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Yet the results leading off this MR are hidden with caveats like "since 2014" and such. You also know there has been no name change, and article title policy advises against moving contentious moves for stable articles. You also know since the last MR that policy has changed to give weight to the BLP subjects preference of their name. Which should make even more difficult to move HRC to HC. And despite all that, have worded the MR in a totally biased manner. Disregarding policy and reality. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Calling the move request dishonest IMO smacks of calling the people wrote it dishonest. I wrote more than half of it even on the basis that I am currently neutral and have added my IAR argument in favour of keeping HRC.  However, as I presented on the article talk page "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 ..."
 * ... Since you will not acknowledge that the opposing arguments have any value, that pretty much puts paid to any discussion that can be had with you. But that is no surprise; it's your modus operandi. Omnedon (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC) to Born2Cycle
 * Well, you would definitely have to ignore policy to move the page from HRC to HC. So I'll give you that. The other stuff is just your opinion and goes against Wikipedia policy. The reason we have Wikipedia policies like the country specific results for titles and self published names is to prevent moves like this. That and the fact that many reliable sources definitely use(just today we have the AP using her correct name 3 times in 1 article, and the SF Chron also) "Hillary Rodham Clinton(especially books and scholars), there is no policy based reason to move this page. So it's not as if sources have stopped using her correct name. This move is just ridiculous and not policy based at all. Stripping HRC from her family name for no reason seems very sexist. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) to Stephan Schulz
 * I might've bothered to read it if it were better written. Pandeist (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC) to DD2K
 * Bd-whatever continues to whiff on the point here. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bd-whatever"? Is that supposed to signify that you are unable to read numbers? bd2412 T 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC) in reply to tarc

Moving the page now is no big deal because it can be moved back
If the page is moved now, and at some point in the future there is a consensus that it should be moved back, then it will be moved back. No article title anywhere in Wikipedia is so set in stone that it can not be moved if circumstances change sufficiently. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly titles can change – when there's good reason and clear consensus to do so. Changing a longstanding title to a contested alternative without that would be a big deal.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not moving the page now is no big deal because of redirects
If the page is not moved now, and at some point in the future there is a consensus that is should be moved, then it will be moved. No article title anywhere in Wikipedia is so set in stone that it can not be moved if circumstances change sufficiently. Cheers! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So at the end of the day, it is no big deal if the page is moved, because the redirects will resolve any objections to moving it. bd2412  T 15:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. That is why my response to the move proposal is neutral. It doesn't really matter whether or not this article is moved, and this endless disucssion is totally unnecessary. There's no compelling reason for a move, just as there is no compelling reason not to move. This talk page has become a battleground that is achieving absolutely nothing of value. And if I'm honest, you are a big part of why this has happened because of your endless commenting about it. This snarky response to the previous section is designed to highlight just how utterly ridiculous this whole thing has become. Everyone should just shut the fuck up and let an administrator come along, make an assessment and do whatever needs to be done. Now, that poor fucker has to wade through eleventy-billion words of complete twaddle instead of a simple list of support/oppose/neutral responses with their associated rationales. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is forcing you to follow this page; quite frankly, it seems like doing so is only going to give you heartburn. In any case, if it's all the same then, we might as well go with majority rule. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You see what I mean? You can't help yourself, can you? You simply have to reply to every comment. It's like this has become your little hill that you have to defend to the death. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to bait you. You addressed a specific comment to me, and I responded to it. Unfortunately, in the textual environment, the failure by one editor to respond to a direct accusation by another is often misread as some kind of admission that the accusation is true. If you have said everything that you wanted to say, and don't care one way or the other about the outcome, the healthiest thing for your heart and your mind is to unwatch the page and let it go. We both could be doing more productive things with our time than having this particular conversation. bd2412  T 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. This move discussion ceased being productive long ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very silly argument. Let's say this article was at Nonsense article #32456 and someone proposed moving it to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Would your response be "neutral" because no "article title anywhere in Wikipedia is so set in stone that it can not be moved if circumstances change sufficiently", and that "not moving the page now is no big deal because of redirects"?  Or would you argue there is a good reason for the article to be moved as proposed despite redirects and the fact that the article could be moved later?  Well, that's exactly what supporters of this move are doing here.  --В²C ☎ 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I would argue it needed to move to an article title that made sense. Either HRC or HC would be fine as far as I'm concerned. But in this case, it is already at one of those two commonsense titles; therefore, no move is necessary. And it should be obvious I chose those exact words to mimic the previous section, and for no other reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But to most people outside of America, HRC is NOT a common sense title. I had genuinely never, as a Brit, heard HRC used anywhere prior to the first time I searched for HC here. And I'm not the only editor who has come out and explicitly said that either. Internationally, it's a no-brainer. Example; not once is Rodham mentioned in this BBC source - she's either Hillary, Hillary Clinton, or Mrs Clinton. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right and many people do not know that Hillary Rodham Clinton uses that name and is addressed in that manner in America(and other places). But, per TITLEVAR and ENGVAR that is not a reason to move the page. What's the worse thing that can happen when some unsuspecting 'bloke' gets redirected from the Hillary Clinton redirect? They get information that they didn't have beforehand? That's one of the main purposes of an encyclopedia. Dave Dial (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR is irrelevant, it doesn't apply to people's names, and I've never seen anywhere where it does apply to names. The only way HRC comes out as being a sensible title is if you take a very limited scope of sources and disregard all common sense and policy. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you believe that, in good faith. But you don't seem to understand that from 1983 to at least 2003, every time HRC was referred to it was as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. I'm not talking about every headline, or every single source(but most of them), I am talking about news outlets. Which is the way we used to get our news back in the day. Like I said, I think you are debating in good faith. But you must be either pretty young or not paid attention to the news in the 80's, 90's, and the early Millennial. I understand that a lot of people believe the world started with Google and that the internet was always there. But it didn't and it wasn't. Dave Dial (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That argument is really not valid. Not only is it cherry-picking from a period that is now well over ten years ago, and you could just as easily use that kind of logic to say "this article should be entitled Hillary Rodham" - after all, according to one source in the article, she never changed her name officially from that - and that same source destroys your argument that she was always referred to as HRC, with the explicit passage of text But from 1983 until 1992, the First Lady of Arkansas was either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Hillary Clinton, depending on who was writing about her. The conservative Arkansas Democrat generally, but not always, called her Hillary Rodham Clinton, as did The Associated Press. The liberal Arkansas Gazette preferred Hillary Clinton. During the 1992 campaign, Mrs. Clinton was known to her staff as Hillary Rodham Clinton, or "H.R.C." She signed autographs "Hillary Rodham Clinton.' But news accounts most often referred to her as "Hillary Clinton." So no, not everyone was calling her HRC then, and even if it was the primary choice of name... it isn't any more, and what it has been for the last few years is all that really matters. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial: No, the suggestion that HRC is not the form that Hillary currently chooses to use is directly contradicted – not just by the varied and numerous significant sources already cited in this debate but by Hillary herself, both during the previous RM (as reported by Jimbo) as well as in a host of current sources including her present office ("Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton"), her recent autobiography, her Clinton Foundation bio, her presidential candidacy filing, etc.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Expanded reasoning to Oppose
1. Common name --Although recent trends seem to indicate that more sources use "Hillary Clinton" in place of "Hillary Rodham Clinton", we cannot rely on just Google hits to decide an article that is subject to BLP considerations. There is little doubt that "Hillary Rodham" was at the very least semi-notable before she added the Clinton to her name in 1983, or that from 1983-2003 her common name was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Perhaps from 2003-2009 both HRC and HC were used equally, and from 2010-2015 HC has surpassed HRC, but we must take the whole of an article subjects history into consideration, not just recent trends.There is a big discrepancy between the Google News results and other search engines, or Newspaper archive.
 * Google News Archive: -- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 47,600 archived results


 * Google News Archive: -- "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham - 34,500 archived results


 * Newspapers.com:     -- "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 16,992 results


 * Newspapers.com:     -- "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham -  8,458 results


 * Yahoo News: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -- 9,414 recent results


 * Yahoo News: "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham - 13,018 recent results


 * Overall, HRC is the more common name when you take the totality of the article subjects life into consideration. Especially when you take the results from more advanced, scholarly outlets.

2. CONCISE --This Wikipedia policy states:"Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." Since Rodham is HRC's family name, and she has stated on multiple occasions that it is important to her that she retains it, any argument to shorten the article title for conciseness should be disregarded.


 * We have seen editors from Europe, or some other areas state that where they live people do not know HRC as HRC, but that they only know her as HC. First, that can't possible be true. Second, we have Wikipedia policies to prevent editors from areas outside of the article subjects area from changing the wording or titles based on location. TITLEVAR and ENGVAR both state that the article subjects having "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation". HRC is an American, so people not familiar with the Rodham family name in other areas besides the United States have the chance to be educated to Hillary's full name. That's what an encyclopedia is for, to educate people. This is not a reason to move the article.


 * Now that we have shown that the reason given by move Supporters are not actually policy based, here are some Wikipedia policy reason to not move the article, or in favor of keeping the article title as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'.

3. Our article changing policy states:"If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."
 * The article has been named Hillary Rodham Clinton since 2001(14 years), this policy definitely applies here.

4. Naming convention policy states states we should give weight to an article subjects preference on BLP grounds. HRC has stated on several occasions that she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton. HRC stated in 1983 that she keeps her family name(Rodham) because "I need my own identity too.", and in 1993 she reiterated that she would like to be addressed as Hillary Rodham Clinton:"It's Hillary Rodham Clinton. Got That?", and just last year Jimbo inquired and HRC responded with the fact she prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton. So it doesn't really matter what vote total we get here. A large group of editors can change some Wikipedia policies, but they cannot override them. Dave Dial (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clear explanation. Unfortunately, your methodology is based on a subtle but invalid assumption that skews the results, namely that this is an either-or case. Your search for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" will find all articles that contain "Hillary Rodham Clinton", wether or not they also contain plain "Hillary Clinton". On the other hand, the search for "Hillary Clinton" - "Rodham" will only find article that contain "Hillary Clinton" exclusively, not those containing both "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Correcting the search (for Google only) finds:
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" -"Hillary Clinton" (i.e. exclusively the long form): About 42,100 results.
 * "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodham Clinton" (i.e. exclusively the short form): About 41,100 results
 * Clinton" and  "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (i.e. both versions): About 5,540 results.
 * That seems to fit with your results, only you count the "both version" articles for the long form only. Overall, I'd call this result based on Google News a dead heat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did that on purpose. My results are purposely showing those containing HRC, and comparing results with those with only HC -Rodham. The argument isn't if her name is sometimes shortened for brevity in sources(especially headlines). The debate is about her common name. When she is addressed, it is almost always as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'(most especially from 1983-2003). I wasn't trying to claim that she is never referred to as HC, only that HRC is her common name. The common name is HRC, when you take the totality of her time as a public figure. Recent results are only really important after a name change. Otherwise you must take the totality of the article subjects time as a public figure as the main consideration. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dave regarding 4. above, can you please specify which text in BLP p&g you consider to support your claim.
 * WP:SPNC regards "Self-published name changes" and presents "When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply. Particularly relevant:
 * Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source
 * Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names, advising to give more weight to reliable sources published after the name change when deciding whether the article title should change."
 * How, if at all, is there any justification to go beyond the normal stipulations of WP:UCRN as time frame applied according to WP:SPNC?
 * The p&g content mentioned only regards a "new name".   GregKaye 02:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, she published her new name in 1983. Even when she was married in the 70's, she kept her name as Hillary Rodham. In 1983 she published her new name as Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 1993, she reiterated that was her preferred name. As she has done again last year to Jimbo. Dave Dial (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave, to clarify in 4. you said "Naming convention policy states states we should give weight to an article subjects preference on BLP grounds. Do you agree that we have already covered WP:SPNC above?
 * WP:BLPSELFPUB acts as shortcut (not policy shortcut) to the informative text as WP:BLP that provides contextualised permission so as to say:
 * "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources."
 * All this does is that it let's us know "what may be used" but, even then, then gives a range of "only if" provisos.
 * I find no weight in your claim that "Naming convention policy states we should give weight to an article subjects preference on BLP grounds"
 * In summary:
 * All WP:SPNC does in the case of the current subject is to say that RS references since 1983 should be considered with more weight than RS references from before that time.
 * All WP:BLPSELFPUB does is to say that the subjects self published material, "such as through press releases or personal websites", may be taken into account.
 * Press releases have been one contributory factor to a press that predominantly describe her as "Hillary Clinton".
 * Information on her website presented above presents that:
 * At http://www.hillaryclinton.com, "Hillary Clinton" is the web page title text as shown through any "Hillary Clinton" web search that reaches the main page. The name "Hillary Clinton" similarly appears within the text of many of the site's pages as well as, of course, in the web address itself. The name "Rodham" only seems to appear twice and both times in signatures, once on an English page and once on a Spanish page.
 * In effect BLP here reinforces the existing UCRN argument in favour of the use of "Hillary Clinton".
 * Is there anything that you disagree with or would like to add?
 * GregKaye 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only that I give direct reliable sources citing HRC's preference for using HRC, while you(and others) are using original research and synthesis to assume she prefers HC because of political campaigns or political ads. In other words, I disagree with the conclusion. Dave Dial (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I read over your post again, you are obviously incorrect. It is obvious that we give weight to a subjects preference, and WP:BLPSELFPUB is cited. Your conclusion is a complete runaround. Dave Dial (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up
Dave Dial: Thanks for your expanded reasoning above; I agree with your points and support your conclusions. Having read much of the plethora of material posted over the last week or so, and having done a little more investigation of my own, I felt like I also should expand a little on some of the points that have been raised. (I also wanted to condense some scattered points together for clarity, and so I could easily append that reasoning to my !vote.) I hope you don't mind if I attach it to your section, but it's getting hard to know where best to post things in this sprawling thread!

╠╣uw [ talk ] 15:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * N-grams/sources: N-grams favor HC over HRC (as they did during the last debate), but more important than counting the raw number of occurrences of each form is considering what kind of sources prefer each form, and how the different forms are used:
 * As noted throughout the thread, "what kind" is fairly clear: nearly all government sources, other encyclopedias, official documents, etc. favor HRC. It's also frequent in news sources – less so in headlines but more so on first reference.  It's how Hillary is introduced for nearly all her recent speeches, even after the launch of her latest campaign.
 * As for the "how", shorter forms of HRC are often used after HRC is established on first reference; HC is also often used in abbreviated media headlines. Both phenomena diminish the utility of raw frequency counts.
 * Personal preference. I don't see much opposition to considering the subject's preference when determining a BLP title; debate seems to be around what Hillary's preference actually is, but this is surprising given the evidence.  HRC is Hillary's explicitly-stated preference, as reported by Jimmy Wales during the previous debate; HRC is in the current name of her office and prominent on the recent documents it issues; it's how she authored her recent autobiography; it's how she's identified in her bio at the Clinton Foundation; it's how she filed as a presidential candidate; it's her signature. Claims that HRC is not Hillary's preference seem to rest heavily on the prominence of the HC form on her current campaign website; our article is about the person as a whole, not the merely campaign, and while her campaign is of course a perfectly reasonable source to consider, it stands against many other sources closely connected to Hillary that favor HRC.  I also think that examples like Eisenhower's memorable "I Like Ike" campaign are interesting to consider.
 * Family name. That "Rodham" is a family name (not her middle name as some mistakenly claim) is important to re-emphasize, and the guidance that Dave Dial cites from WP:CONCISE is worth reiterating: "Neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness".  Hillary opted to retain her original family name (in addition to taking her husband's) and continues to use it publicly; it's reasonable for us to recognize this.
 * Gender bias. Wikipedia acknowledges a systemic gender bias.  It's impossible to say to what extent bias enters this particular debate, if it does at all, but it's something that must be at least considered given the nature of the change being proposed: removing a woman's retained maiden family name.  (As an aside, I also have to say that the attempt by other editors to address this point by deciding to announce all participating editors' genders was not only entirely unhelpful but very inappropriate and intrusive.)
 * Familiarity outside the US. It's relevant that the largest English-speaking media source in the world, The Times of India, opts to prominently use "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  While I do think that HRC may be a bit less common overseas than in the US, I have to doubt anecdotal claims that HRC is somehow entirely unknown to those abroad.
 * Stability/support. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia has a bias toward the status quo in situations like this, and flipping between controversial choices is inadvisable, particularly without a clear consensus to do so.  The current title has been very stable, and unsuccessful attempts to change it do not make it unstable.  Given that the percentage support for this proposal has diminished since last time even as the pool of participants has more than doubled, and given the contentious and highly divided discussion that's resulted, I personally don't think we're close to even a vague consensus... let alone the strong consensus that'd it'd be reasonable to expect in order to make this kind of move.
 * Is your impression that The Times of India opts to prominently use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" based solely on that profile page? In the course of my research on this question, I have reviewed literally hundreds of Times of India articles discussing Clinton, and "Rodham" is rarely mentioned in them. See, for example, Hillary Clinton dismisses claims Indian cash swayed her n-deal stance (Apr. 30, 2015), Mira Sethi’s connection with Hillary Clinton (Apr. 20, 2015), Lopez excited about Hillary Clinton's White House bid (Apr. 14, 2015), WikiLeaks accuses Hillary Clinton for stealing its logo (Apr. 13, 2015), Hillary Clinton praises PM Narendra Modi's focus on sanitation (Oct. 31, 2014), Hillary Clinton called to party duty ahead of 2016 presidential elections (Oct. 22, 2014),, Warren Buffett predicts Hillary Clinton will win presidency in 2016 (Oct 8, 2014), German secret service 'spied on Hillary Clinton' (Aug 16, 2014), Hillary Clinton faults Obama's foreign policy (Aug. 11, 2014), Hillary Clinton will be the president of America, predicts Vimal Singh (Aug 5, 2014), Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama’s political reunion amid rumours of rift (Jun 25, 2014), Hillary Clinton has serious health issues, new book claims (Jun 24, 2014), Katy Perry wants to write Hillary Clinton’s campaign theme song (Jun 23, 2014), What if Hillary Clinton doesn't run? (Jun 13, 2014), Hillary Clinton visited Delhi to convince India on Iran (Jun 10, 2014), Hillary Clinton says Benghazi probes won't deter possible White House bid (Jun 10, 2014), and many more - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Cheers! bd2412  T 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of The Times of India&apos;s topic-level pages like Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Electoral History of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc. That said, though, you're right that recent Times headlines like "Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign to focus on economic security opportunity" and ledes like "Hillary Rodham Clinton opens her presidential campaign" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign is all about 'everyday Americans'" are less common than those using "Hillary Clinton"; the point I made above was simply that HRC is not (as some others editors suggested) completely unknown outside the US.
 * Perhaps more interesting is that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" seems to be the form preferred by the Associated Press, and AP stories are carried by media sources around the world (including the Times). Neat to consider how/whether that will affect diffusion of the HRC form.  Within the ap.org domain, Google reports more hits for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" than for "Hillary Clinton", but (not being a fan of rough counts) I think just browsing the results of an AP search for "Hillary" alone is actually much more instructive, particularly as one scans through the ledes...  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

To what extent - regarding US citizens - have they voted (been able to vote)/will they vote (be able to vote) for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton"?
This was a significant topic within the last thread that I thought might be gainfully discussed? GregKaye 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go to Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Move_rationale andl look over to the right, a bunch of 2008 ballots were posted there and every one of them said "Hillary Clinton", not "Hillary Rodham Clinton". (I have no idea if these were a good sample or were cherry picked to get the desired result.) --B (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually provided external links in the same discussion to sample ballots or pictures of actual ballots for every state for which I could find them. They were uniform in using "Hillary Clinton", even where there were variations used by other candidates. bd2412  T 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Conversely, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was the form used for ballots in the 2006 Senate race and in 2010 reports from the New York Board of Elections. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is also the form currently used by the Federal Election Commission and by Hillary herself on her 2015 presidential candidacy filing.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen what will be used on 2016 ballots. bd2412  T 19:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How should various forms of RS be weighed in relation to UCRN and why?
The text at WP:AT/WP:UCRN explicitly 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."

WP:SOURCES links to p & g content at WP:Verifiability and just to keep this in context, the text of WP:Verifiability begins:
 * In Wikipedia, verifiability means that the people who are reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing here that needs to be verified. The actual identity or the subject is in no dispute and the only issue is a common recognizability of description.

The WP:V text mentioned original research. Perhaps the parameters of the relevance of WP:No original research are best set out in the second paragraph of that text:
 * The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[removed ref.] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

On the same reasoning I do not think that there is anything here to be verified. Obviously it is totally clear that the capital city of France is Paris and that it is called "Paris". When there are disputes in names in regard to places (as is typically found in examples in Category:Geographical naming disputes) there is may often be conflict between sides with fairly clearly defined lines.

However, in the current case, two name presentations are used by the same person ("Hillary Diane Rodham") as: "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton". In this case the only issue that may apply is that we follow Wikipedia's general preference that we "Use commonly recognized names", "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". GregKaye 05:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How the selective utility of different reliable sources under different circumstances is applied in different situations for different decisions is best considered on a case-by-case basis, and reasonable people can disagree. I've found it helpful to locate the editors who warble on about yogurt or Paris, France, recognize that they're writing about those irrelevant things because they're unwilling or unable to apply those policies on a case-by-base basis, and then I pretty much know how to regard their other views about that particular decision. This talk page section is useful in that regard. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your relevant comment. On a side note I do not find your "warble" comment and unrelated mention of "yogurt" to be "helpful" in a discussion of a sensible and direct application of commonname.  GregKaye 09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding of your first post in this section is that, by tracing WP:AT/WP:UCRN through reliable English-language sources on to WP:Verifiability, original research, and WP:CHALLENGED as applied to Category:Geographical naming disputes, you seem to have returned to the importance of WP:UCRN by determining that what you'd previously written with regards to Category:Geographical naming disputes was not applicable to this situation. I agree! Everything you wrote before "However, in the current case..." does not apply to this current case. An analysis that concluded with a statement about its own irrelevance may be meritorious in an artistic sense, like bird-song, so the verb "warble" seemed appropriate. I think the reader is helped when editors have focused discussions, and I confess to being judgmental. But no offense was intended. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flying Jazz No offence is taken. The only thing that I am arguing is that "Use commonly recognizable names" can and I think should be most logically interpreted in regard to name and in regard to its recognisability to the common woman or man.  This, I argue, is determined by "determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" and I think is the issue at the heart of the policy / guidance presented at WP:UCRN. GregKaye 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that Wikipedia should always weigh most highly the best sources. How to choose the "best" sources may be a matter for debate, but in this case they should include academic/scholarly books, and reputably published biographies, both independent and non-independent.  Academic and scholarly articles are much more complex, as these things can be self published, published in back waters, and otherwise difficult to assign reputability.  Probably, all academic and scholarly articles should be weighted according to their citation count by other reliable sources.
 * Ingrained in these HRC RM discussions is whether computational automated data retrievals such as ngram and google scholar, are acceptable proxies for reliable sources when their results are at odds with reliable sources judged individually to be suitable sources for the article. I think that finding in favor of automated data retrievals over human examination of the best sources would be an unfortunate precedent.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: Agreed, automated frequency counts are a coarse tool, especially so in cases like this where instances of shorter forms of a name may appear more frequently for reasons that may not be pertinent to our decision (e.g., abbreviated headlines or the shortening of a name after first reference). I also agree that not all sources are equal, and that it's right to consider things like reputability and significance when deciding how to weight competing sources.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of checking sources for usage is to determine which use is going to be most commonly known/recognized/used by WP users. A more reputable or "significant" source is not necessarily more influential on, or reflective of, usage to which WP users are exposed. So why should such sources be given more weight when determining WP:COMMONNAME? Now, we dismiss usage in sources that are not reliable because we presume they are neither influential nor reflective of actual common usage that is relevant to COMMONNAME determination. But that does not apply to any degree to any reliable sources. --В²C ☎ 23:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is a dubious purpose. Adjusting content to make it recognizable to ignorant readers means dumbing down the content.  Any reader who finds Rodham unrecognizable is obviously fairly ignorant of the subject, not having seen nearly any biography, nor knowing much of her history.  The quality of Wikipedia depends upon relying on quality sources.  Google scholar and google ngram does not dismiss non-reliable sources, although the more important point is that they do not dismiss repeated usage in the same source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe We are ajusting title according to clear Wikipedia policy. We then present a full range of informative content within that context and according to other Wikipedia P & G such as NPOV etc.  The subject most widely presents herself as Hillary Clinton and so do a wide range of sources.  Seriously, how can commonname be interpreted differently?  GregKaye 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, COMMONNAME (agreed to be an unfortunate shortcut) refers to usage in reliable sources, deferring to WP:V for nuance. What does usage mean?  Many here confuse usage in flowing text with usage in titling or first introduction.  The naming of a subject in a title is quite normally different to the repeated naming in the running text.  At WP:V, source discrimination os overt, there is clear preference for secondary sources.  Secondary sources do not typically include running newspaper reporting.  Indeed, for HRC, the continuous newspaper reporting never (re-)introduces here because she is assumed to be permanently in the public conciousness.  This implicit assumption by non-quality sources is indeed the reason for the discrepancy between raw data mining for usage, and usage in titling found when looking at quality sources.  The full range of informative content you refer to I think is heavily polluted with inappropriate sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For people with multiple possible names that could be used to title an encyclopedia article, the purpose of checking sources for usage should be to determine whether the name that's in an encyclopedic register is also a common name. It shouldn't be a numerically-based excuse to avoid thinking about what an encyclopedia would do. The sentence at WP:COMMONNAME, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." makes that very clear. Those who are attempting to "adjust the title" are ignoring the parts of policy that they don't want to think about. In a section below I discuss the critical role of autobiographies in determining encyclopedic register for article titles. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flying Jazz I do not see that there is evidence that editors are ignoring anything. Editors on one side of this debate are quoting one set of issues in policy while editors on the other side of the debate are quoting others.  Please note what I consider to be a context of a general antagonistic approach taken on this page within which I think it is unlikely that editors will admit to arguments of what seems to be sectarian camps.
 * My personal view on other encyclopedias is that they may be taking the interpretation, as I outlined in my 20:38, 26 April 2015 post, of Clinton reacting to prejudice and bias in the US political system with effect that she is influenced to present a name that is not her ideal choice and that they have, in effect, cut her some slack.
 * I think that this concurs with your comments at "It seems obvious to me that there are cultural and historical issues here involving identity politics that make this matter too intricate to decide by an overly simplistic interpretation of an overly simple policy." To me the only valid policy based argument for justifying retention of the "HRC" title would be under the justification of "ignore all rules".  It can't be made under a justification of the use of commonly recognizable name because "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not it.  Perhaps it would be good if it did but Wikipedia's arguably "overly simple policy" does not allow for no such consideration by any provision other than IAR.
 * The purpose of Wikipedia titles is to help readers navigate to relevant articles so that the reader can then digest the contents. There is no need to depart from common name in cases like this and, even in cases of genuine disambiguation, this would be dubious and potentially unhelpful.  To illustrate, I was in a  discussion at Talk:ISIL regarding the inclusion of an article with theological content by a journalist who published by the name "Graeme Wood".  My response after running a few checks made reference to him as "... a lone political scientist from The Atlantic (who is not individually of sufficient note to have his own Wikipedia article) ..."  I later received the informative reply that "Graeme Wood does have his own article and he is a notable figure,".  The only, ok, the main reason that I did not/may not have accessed the article myself was that the hatnote reference given to the journalist (at the top of the article that was then titled Graeme Wood did not present the journalists commonly recognizable name.  The article has now been sensibly moved to Graeme Wood (journalist).  This was one of the experiences that encouraged me to advocate for the importance of recognizability in Wikipedia titles and which certainly gave an extra motivation for my 9 April proposal of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 21.  The whole basis of the proposal was on how she is prevalently referred to in those sometimes whimsical things that we call "reliable sources" and the way in which she most publicly presents herself.  Nothing has changed.  GregKaye 06:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to encyclopedias, I am not entirely sure what is meant by an "encyclopedic register" but the other purpose is "in deciding ... what names are most frequently used." "Hillary Clinton" is the designation that is most prevalently used and, according to Wikipedia's p & g, this should be the title of this article.  GregKaye 06:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of Wikipedia titles is to help readers navigate to relevant articles so that the reader can then digest the contents"? Not really.  The purpose of a title is to be the big text at the top of the first page.  Most people navigate by following wiki links.  For that, the title doesn't matter, if there is any issue, links are piped.  Navigation is done by the category system.  For that method, it would help considerably if titles were far more precise and informative than vocal people seem to prefer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your idea that other encyclopedias "cut her some slack" is a risible reflection of your view of the world and little else. I'm confident that if Graeme Wood (journalist) chose to publish an autobiography under the name Graeme C.A. Wood and if he met other encyclopedia's criteria for inclusion then other encyclopedias would use his initials in his name in order to achieve encyclopedic register for their article title. Because Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are lower than other encyclopedias (which is a good thing), we require that the name be commonly used in addition to being in an encyclopedic register. Encyclopedic register is a scholarly register that does not fall along the informal/formal spectrum for human names, and autobiographies carry huge weight in determining encyclopedic register due to their uniquely self-citing author/subject identity in library science. So, if Graeme Wood published an autobiography under the name Graeme C.A. Wood but that name did not achieve much common use (according to the tools we like to use), the requirement for encyclopedic register and common usage would conflict with each other, and we would most likely still stick with Graeme Wood as our title under current policy. If the man published an autobiography with his initials and if his name with his initials was also in common use, then we would (or at least should) use his encyclopedic autobiography-name as our article title even if the tools we like showed the result that this was the less commonly used name while still being a commonly used name. I appreciate your admission that you're not entirely sure what is meant by encyclopedic register, and I believe you. I hope you can find it within yourself to cut some slack to editors at Wikipedia who do understand it. Wikipedia's title name policy is overly simple in the sense that it lumps many requirements and ideas into the concept of encyclopedic register and trusts that editors will understand what that is and what it requires. If you want to prevent Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia, removing that phrase from that policy should be part of your plan. Removing ideas that you don't understand may be easier for you than trying to understand them. Instead of taking that course, I hope you have another look at the section below, reread my comments above about Mr. Wood's article's title, and keep trying to understand how all parts of the policy WP:COMMONNAME can be met by a Hillary Rodham Clinton article. If you're citing WP:COMMONNAME multiple times without even understanding it, are you part of the solution to problems at Wikipedia or are you part of the problem at Wikipedia? Flying Jazz (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flying Jazz I don't think that there is anyone here that wants "to prevent Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia". What phrase from what policy?  I am interested in the claim in the later thread that "other encyclopedias weigh autobiographies for naming decisions to such a great extent."  Is it in any way possible to cite or quantify this extent?  In the area that I live people generally regard it as strange when I ask them the somewhat compromised question, "do you know Hillary Clinton's middle name?"  It is not something that people in any way tend to know.  The policy that we have within Wikipedia is that we use commonly recognisable name as established by prevalence in reliable sources.  That is our stated policy and I think that we have it for a reason.  If you want to change or develop Wikipedia so that we present different a different form of statement of policy then I suggest that you work on such a development.  My guess is that the kind of thing you are talking about in regard to other encycolpedia's is something akin to our policy on WP:OFFICIAL.  Our content here states that, in many cases, this kind of use is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.  The main policy here is recognizability.  Everyone will recognise "Hillary Clinton" and I think that our presentation of Rodman presents a false idea of how she presents herself.
 * For sure, one possible explanation for presentation by other sources of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" may be due to specifics in relation to the titling policy of any specific source. However, given information garnered from Ngrams another distinct possibility may quite simply be that they have not yet got around to making the change.  GregKaye 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the time and had the consideration to run with your Graeme Wood example and reach a series of sound hypotheticals that addresses both the encyclopedic register requirement and the common name requirement for article titles in the context of weight for sources used at WP:UCRN. I took this time to stay on topic and address your example because of your title of this discussion page section. You may be unable or unwilling to reciprocate that consideration by continuing to discuss that on-topic example that you brought up in this on-topic discussion section that you titled. That inability or unwillingness to continue may be why you've begun (in this most recent post) to warble about official names and what people in your neighborhood say. This will be my final post in this talk page. I appreciate the restraint of the closers in leaving the talk page open until my role in the discussion played out. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will consider replying once you have struck your, imo, 'judgmental' and 'offense' "warble" reference of which I have previously objected. I am sick of, what I see as, this type of combative behaviour on this page.  In the mean time please, if possible, address the points that I have raised.  "I don't think that there is anyone here that wants "I am interested in the claim in the later thread that "other encyclopedias weigh autobiographies for naming decisions to such a great extent." Is it in any way possible to cite or quantify this extent?"  You made use of the terms "encyclopedic" and "encyclopedia" 13 times in your 11:43 post.  To what extent if at all do you think it would be less encyclopedic to present "Hillary Clinton" as the subject's common name?
 * GregKaye 14:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Signature
Imma just leave this here, for consideration;



Over at Talk: Bill Clinton, we have one of the supporters of a rename of "HRC" to "HC" above curiously...and a wee bit hypocritically...suggesting that Bill's article be moved to "William Jefferson Clinton", due to his signature, oath of office, official documents, etc... Tarc (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? While the Bill Clinton move discussion may be facetiously pointy, nonetheless the point may be worth considering.  Much of the supposed evidence cited by opposers here can also be used in much the same way to justify moving Bill Clinton's article. His signature, how reliable sources initially refer to him, etc. The only real substantive difference is that Hillary has reportedly indicated a preference. So the issue really bills down to how much weight should we give that preference. older ≠ wiser

Signatures often differ from Wikipedia article titles. See First Ladies
 * Florence Harding: Florence_Harding_Signature.svg
 * Abigail Adams: Abigail_Adams_Signature.svg
 * Louisa Adams: Louisa_C_Adams_Signature.svg
 * Mamie Eisenhower: Mamie_Eisenhower_Signature.svg
 * Anna Harrison: Anna_Harrison_Signature.svg
 * Edith Roosevelt: Presidents_Edith_Kermit_Roosevelt_signature.png
 * Edith Wilson: Edith_Bolling_Wilson_Signature.svg
 * Martha Washington: Presidents_Martha_Washington_signature.jpg

Many other U.S. political figures left signatures that differ from their Wikipedia article titles. See etc. etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Henry Clay: Appleton%27s_Clay_Henry_Signature.jpg
 * George Tenet: George_Tenet_signature.png
 * Bill Clinton: William_J_Clinton_signature.svg
 * Abraham Lincoln: Presidents_v2_frontispiece_-_Abraham_Lincoln_signature.png
 * I hope you don't mind, but I formatted your pictures to not dominate the whole page. We don't need to see every detail of every penstroke to get the point. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:62.5%;text-align:center;">'''TALK
 * Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is a signature evidence of use of a formal full name for one person and not evidence of formal, full name use for another? Tarc (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whose signatures are you referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But there's something further: surely the fact that Hillary does sign her name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is significant when contrasted with those that do something different. Omnedon (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to understand what you mean. Anyway, it's clear that the subject likes both forms of her name.  I have to go now.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...it's clear that the subject likes both forms of her name..., well at least you admit that your support to rename the article is baseless. 1 down 84 to go... Tarc (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc, there are many other article title considerations besides what names the subject uses. Like I just said, I have to go now.  So feel free to put more words in my mouth....Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. If someone's making trouble and being silly over there at Bill's article's talk page, why carry that silliness over here? Why not just talk about it over there? But if we're going to be silly here, the use of more bandwidth should be considered; signature images that are irrelevant to the actual discussion aren't wasteful enough. High resolution stereoscopic color videos of signing ceremonies where the video zooms in on the signature at the key moment as it's being written will help editors get the most rewarding feeling possible while pointing out irrelevant things to each other about the correspondence of signature-names to encyclopedia-article-names. Imagine the thrill of typing, "HA! Look at this 3D video! It shows I'm right and you're wrong!" about some silly off-topic thing. There is a competition about which side and which individual can be the most irrelevant, silly, and wasteful, and there must be a winner. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, I have only installed one audio-video into a Wikipedia article, and of course it was in color. I don't go to all that trouble for talk pages, however.  Nor do I remember how the hell I did it, way back in 2008.  I must have had some sinister assistance from people who were subsequently banned from Wikipedia for various thought crimes.  I doubt User:Tarc could accomplish such a feat.  But I digress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A word about the role of autobiographical citations in catalogs and encyclopedias
The reason for my oppose vote has evolved. Looking at choices made by other encyclopedias, a pattern emerges that, if multiple names are common, they use the names in autobiographies and memoirs. The reason behind this choice is not subject preference in my view; that's a mere side effect. Editorial choices made about a name by a (not auto-)biographer should be given great weight in an encyclopedia article about the book but not in an article about the subject of the book. But autobiographies/memoirs are uniquely useful to encyclopedias because the editorial decision made by the author is relevant to the article about the book and also the article about the subject. The counterargument involves citing times and places when the subject used a different name from the one used as author/title in her autobiographies. This counterargument misses the unique role of autobiographies in encyclopedia-making and bibliography. Autobiographies/memoirs inform encyclopedia-makers about how the subject presents his or her name as a simultaneously cited author and subject without the explicit other purposes of campaign literature or signatures. That's why other encyclopedias weigh autobiographies for naming decisions to such a great extent. It's because that name is how the author/subject has cited himself or herself purely as an author/subject. The act of self-citation is key. The expression of preference is less important. If the subject had expressed a preference for an encyclopedia-name that was different from her autobiography-name, I would not have supported that preference. The philosophical view behind encyclopedia-making ought to be a consistent deferral of murky editorial decisions to the best sources based on the logical analysis and application of ideas from library science. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would need to see some evidence of this as a general practice by encyclopedias - I have seen many people presented with various different names in equally reputable encyclopedias, which seems to defy the existence of any such pattern. As there is no basis in existing title policy for us to take a hypothetical pattern by other encyclopedias into account, I would suggest moving the page now, and then seeking a change in policy to allow usage by other encyclopedias to override common name. bd2412  T 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you read my oppose, and WP:AT, which make it clear that the usage of other encyclopaedias is directly relevant? It is already in the policy. Your canard about common usage needs to stop. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:AT says that other encyclopedias are any more relevant than any other reliable source. Furthermore, Britannica's title (to take one example) is seven years old; our policies favor weighing more recent sources more heavily, because unlike stagnant sources, we are able to change as common use changes. bd2412  T 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AT clearly says that encyclopaedias are more relevant for determining what title potential title amongst variants is in the encyclopaedic register: "Other encyclopaedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopaedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used". Given that the question of register has come up repeatedly in this discussion, it is clear that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the title that falls within the encyclopaedic register. "Seven years old"? Her name has not changed in seven years. There has been no reason for a change (WP:TITLECHANGES). That's one of the fallacies of your whole position. Her name is her name, and nothing changes that. Common usage hasn't changed, nor has her legal name. Nothing in our policies favours weighing "recent sources more heavily", as that's contrary to all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and especially to WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are reading "among the sources" to mean "more relevant", but it just isn't there. bd2412  T 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is even more than Hillary Rodham Clinton
Here are some sources which use the really really complete name, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton: Based on these is it not fair to conclude that her common name is as likely to be "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? Especially if we discount search engine results as unreliable (in much the same way that Creationsists discount radiocarbon dating as unreliable). I note that in some such results "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" gets a number of results in proportion to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets to "Hillary Clinton" so it logically follows that "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is the actual common name, by such reason. Additionally we would be doing a great service by rescuing this name which has surely only been squelched by immoderate forces seeking to save space in headlines and bookjackets and such.... Pandeist (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture
 * National First Ladies Library.
 * this "Breaking News" website
 * Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton may both be more WP:OFFICIAL than Hillary Clinton, but neither meets WP:COMMONNAME better. --В²C ☎ 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But isn't "the more official, the more obscure, the better" the rule being advocated here? Pandeist (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did anyone say that? You do know that every New York Times article about her includes her full name. As do many, many other reliable, not the least bit obscure sources. Sarcasm, if that's what you intended, doesn't change that. Tvoz / talk 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Relative to most news sources, the NY Times tends to be anachronistic with their name usage. WP usage is more likely to reflect common usage typified by more generic sources like the Guardian and SF Chronicle. --В²C ☎ 06:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very convenient. So the NYT isn't obscure, but is anachronistic. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Where in any guidelines, policies, or even comments here about reliable sources does anyone say that we should be looking to "more generic" sources, whatever that means, than The New York Times? And how about AP, Washington Post, and LA Times? Are they obscure? anachronistic? unreliable? I've been working here for going on 9 years, and this is news to me, forgive the expression. Tvoz / talk 07:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)", with the parenthetical phrase linking to WP:SOURCES. That policy says "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." That prescription would seem to fit the New York Times, AP, Washington Post, LA Times, and Encyclopedia Britannica perfectly.--agr (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC).

Critical fault in proposal evidence
It looks like there's a significant technical fault in the nominator's search engine test results: they're done in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's instructions and show results that are badly inflated. Here's the guidance from WP:GOOGLETEST (emphasis mine):


 * In the case of Google, the hit count at the top of the page should not be reported at all . Rather the actual count of hits needed to reach the bottom of the last page of results should be reported. This should be done while logged off of Google and right after cookies are cleared to avoid additional inaccuracy caused by Google returning custom search results. ... Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands.

To be clear, this proposal's Google search results currently report only the inflated estimate from the top of the first page, not the more accurate hit count from the bottom of the last page as Wikipedia instructs. That being the case, I re-ran the newspaper tests using the guidance above, also adding the "pws=0" parameter to ensure the removal of search personalizations. I also included more of the top newspapers from the list. Here are the result counts as of this evening; for convenience, each URL loads the final page of Google results:

New York Times:
 * "Hillary Clinton"=681
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=572

Wall Street Journal:
 * "Hillary Clinton"=645
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=508

USA Today:
 * "Hillary Clinton"=670
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=554

Los Angeles Times
 * "Hillary Clinton"=632
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=652

I also checked out The Telegraph which the nominator cites:
 * "Hillary Clinton"=515
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=275

...as well as the Associated Press for good measure...
 * "Hillary Clinton"=202
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton"=202

Obviously these numbers are an extreme difference from the ratios presented by this proposal, with HC and HRC returning numbers that in most cases are comparable. I'm not sure what needs to happen at this point, but the likelihood that many participants will have considered the original widely-separated stats when forming their conclusions is troubling... ╠╣uw [ talk ] 03:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that these few newspapers, with a few hundred hits (which do, obviously tend to show predominant use of "Hillary Clinton"), played more of a role in the determination of participants than the sheer volume of hundreds of thousands to millions of hits on all major search engines, the 20-to-1 or more ration of search indicators on Google Trends, the obvious conciseness and recognizability advantages of a shorter title, and the general human experience of seeing and hearing the news every day. All of the numbers presented are linked, so any editor participating in the discussion had an immediate ability to inspect these assertions and see that they numbers are as reported. I am also leery of the timing of this post-hoc questioning of the evidence, and the overly dramatic assertion of a "critical fault" used in presenting it. It feels like a tactic, not a genuine concern. bd2412  T 03:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * after taking the newly disclosed facts into account i would like register my vehement opposition against this motion as the previous results apart from being inaccurate were also inflated and honestly seeing that the name Hillary rodham clinton is just as accurate as hillary clinton i fail to see any point in extening this argment or motion, Thus i hereby Oppso this motionCreator Xavier (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of this will surprise many of the opposers. We've said from the start that Google hits, and statistics in general, can easily be manipulated to whatever ends. This is a critical fault, but only one of many in this proposal. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're that concerned about it, we can start this RM all over without the specific claims addressed above. bd2412  T 03:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect the panel of closers is more than able to sort wheat from chaff. Considering the vast majority of move supporters have cited COMMONNAME and many used the proposer's flawed statistical analysis to justify such an assertion, an argument that the proposal's use of search engine results was badly mischaracterized colors the entire process. BusterD (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a second vote for starting this RM over? bd2412  T 04:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a question only reflects badly on User:BD2412, not those seriously discussing a subject matter. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a serious flaw, why not start over?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: In an abundance of caution, I have now polled all 93 supporters of the move to date, asking them to indicate whether the above contention changes their opinion. That should settle any question of whether the asserted methodology issue is an issue at all. I would allow at least 24 hours to give anyone who wants to respond the chance to do so. bd2412  T 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I object again, to User:BD2412 attempting to play both advocate of the proposal, and referee of the process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The approaching of all of one side to counter an argument fails Canvassing. Please notify all participants to ameliorate the error.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, the assertion (true or not) in the OP is that there was a "critical flaw" in the RM "proposed evidence". That would have only affected those who voted "Support". Those who voted "Oppose" did not rely on that particular "evidence" to make their decision, so there was no reason to alert them. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertion alleges that support !voters have been misled. Whether true or not, being misled is an embarrassment.  These !voters have declared a position, and normal behaviour is that anyone having declared a position will go to longer lengths to defend it than those previously uninvolved.  Therefore, the parties notified should be expected to defend their !vote.  A biased group has been asked to come back and say more.  This is a clear WP:CANVASSING violation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 93 edits to prove a point? BusterD (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when do we allow a zealous proponent of one side to re-canvass some people on their positions, without a modicum of discussion about whether that is a legitimate action? These folks may or may not have been following the discussion here (likely not, unless they have a whole lot of time on their hands), so this is skewed and gives an erroneous impression. And the answer is not to take it upon oneself to now canvass everyone else, nor is it reasonable or sane to start this RM over. This has taken a waste of time to all new heights. Tvoz / talk 05:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This type of behaviour has been a repeated occurrence, and it cannot be encouraged. I'm getting sick of it. Preempting good faith opposition through canvassing is a cheap tactic. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, if they weren't following the discussion, they obviously can peruse it before saying whether they are changing their !votes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, plenty of discussion has taken place on this page that could've influenced editors who !voted earlier, but no one has ever seen it fit to "notify" tens of editors to take part in any specific sections on this page other than this one. Nothing about this one is special, and nothing warrants canvassing of that sort. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed for me. I still support moving this article to Hillary Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My !vote (and the reasons for it) stand. The Google statistics are a relatively small part of the move request rationale, and they still would favor HC over HRC.  That said, I would also participate in a do-over if one occurs, but my !vote and rationale would be the same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope this had nothing to do with my !vote, Still support the move, Cheers. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate spam more than I care about whether the closer exhibits reading comprehension, so I specifically decline to indicate whether the above contention changes my opinion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now been asked about this comment in a more personal fashion on my talk page. All I can say is that my original comment above says nothing at all about search engine results. There shouldn't be any need to clarify anything here. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think accurate Google hit-counts are possible for numbers over 100 ever since Google massively changed its algorithms 5 years ago and also made it impossible to view all results (in fact, removing the vast majority of results from view). I think those hit-counts posted above are inaccurate. For instance, the New York Times has published far more articles that mention Hillary in the 33 years that she has been in the national public eye than are remotely reflected by those counts. What the WP:GOOGLETEST guidelines are for is for determining a subject's notability (as in for AfDs and such). This isn't an AfD. This posting seems to be a tempest in a teacup designed to disrupt the RM. Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * got the numbers wrong. He's going to the bottom of the last page and reading the number of results displayed. What he should be looking at is the total number of results found on all pages, shown at the top of the last page. For the NY Times, for example, HC has "Page 69 of about 208,000 results", and HRC has "Page 58 of about 33,800 results". Still Support.  --В²C ☎ 05:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * smfh....I had stated this the last move request, and showed that the last page of result count was actually far different from the results Google gave from the 1st page. In any case, the response so far has been very concerning. Just keep citing COMMONNAME without any real substance. Because, well, well, well, you have your mind made up or 'we don't call her that round here'. Dave Dial (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change whatsoever, still support. Any notion of this imaginative interpretation offering any critical anything is simply silliness. Pandeist (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change, support. BMK (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change, still support. Tiller54 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As before, I'm neutral. I do strongly oppose restarting this move request discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change, still support. Google hits were a small part of the reasoning. In any case, there's a critical fault in Huwmanbeing's critical fault objection. The procedure described in WP:GOOGLETEST is not cited to any source, and AFAIK, is not recommended by Google. It's anyone's guess what the numbers from the procedure mean. Darx9url (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Let's take a closer look at the evidence. raises a fair point in regard to the assessment method of the google stats. It would have been nice if the most distributed newspaper, the wsj, could have been presented first. It would also have been nice if a presentation had not been given as, to me, a seemingly begrudging "I also checked out The Telegraph which the nominator cites:". Please, for an international encyclopedia that is also read by the over two thirds of English speakers who do not live in the United States, the readership needs of non-Americans do matter. WE DO MATTER.

I presented what I considered to be good results from just two newspapers just to provide balance, I hoped balance. Huw, you presentation of 5 US newspapers and one US news agency does not do this.

I could have also presented information in regard to the newspaper that tops the List of newspapers in the world by circulation, the Times of India.

Please note:
 * The Times of India was most recently noted to have a circulation of 3.3 million
 * The British tabloid, The Sun, was most recently noted to have a circulation of 2.5 million
 * The WSJ, in comparison, was most recently noted to have a circulation of 2.1 million

The Times of India
 * "hillary clinton" 53 pages of search results
 * "hillary rodham clinton" 28 pages of search results

Reuters
 * "hillary clinton"=440
 * "hillary rodham clinton"=179

Please remember Huw that, beyond interest in projects associated with Indiana and U.S. Counties, there is a world out here. In time and space there can be other perspectives to consider. GregKaye 06:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All references to processed data fails No_original_research and should be rejected for that reason. Wikipedia editorial decisions should rely on specific identified sources --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Makes no difference for me. My WP:COMMONNAME understanding is primarily based on Google NGram counts, which work very differently and also very clearly and consistently show HC leading by a wide and growing (as far as the data goes) margin. This also agrees with my personal experience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Objection The procedure (from WP:GOOGLETEST) that Huwmanbeing is using to generate hitcounts is deeply flawed. The procedure is not cited to anywhere, and is, in any case, designed for identifying sources for marginally notable people. As far as I can tell, the numbers generated are meaningless for this issue. Compare a search for 'Stephen King' to 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' Do you believe that the LA Times has as many articles about Stephen King, as about Hillary Clinton? I have tried with other names as well. It usually ends up with numbers between 500 to 600 for really famous people. Numbers start to drop for less famous people (see 'Dennis Prager', does the LA Times write about Dennis Prager about half as much as Hillary?) The numbers are only meaningful for marginally notable people e.g. Sarah Murnaghan. They tell you nothing about really famous people. Darx9url (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look: 'Stephen King', 'David Cameron', and 'Barack Obama' have similar numbers in the NY Times using the GOOGLETEST search, they must be equally notable. ;-) Darx9url (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Google is only one item I used in determining my position, and I always check myself... I'm not going to leave it to others and assume all their facts are on the straight and narrow. No change for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still support a move; still the most common name. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change in my position. As others have pointed out, the methodology used by ╠╣uw is dubious for this purpose and IMO the ngrams are actually much more telling (that is, the ngrams as interpreted by persons who have a clue about how to interpret such data). older ≠ wiser 11:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still support the move. Google is not the end-all-be-all, despite what they would hope. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change in my position. You eggheads need to get a life, the move is a no-brainer, any closer reviewing the weight of the arguments will see this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change, support 100% -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 13:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No change, I still support the move. While one set of numbers is different from another set, we're still talking about a majority of sources using "Hillary Clinton" without the Rodham, and that's with a method that I don't know is any more accurate than the first method while it only looks at a small subset of all available sources. It's pretty much a non-factor to me. Rockypedia (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pasting this here from my talk page where I was asked to comment (you all know that already) - I had made my comment there prior to this section being closed so I am adding it to the record after the fact. The section was too long for the mobile editor so I replied on my talk page. Google results do not affect my argument. I oppose restarting the RM, but in the event it is restarted anyway, I request that my "support" comment be copied and pasted without modification to the new discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ( original timestamp 07:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC) )
 * Same vote like almost everyone else. Like almost everyone else I did not rely on the given evidence, but made my own investigations.  Like almost everyone else I thank User:BD2412 for brining the matter to our attention in a neutral way.  Like, I suspect, almost everyone else, I think it's a shame that people can't walk away from these disputes once they have expressed their opinion.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Closing requirements
Discussion on how to close an anticipated contentious discussion are starting to pollute the main talk page. I think that should be avoided, as multiply tangential to discussions about edits to improve the article. Better to discuss here.

I suggest that a three person panel of admins to close the discussion might be nice. It ensures no gut reaction by a drive by impatient admin, not that this is commonly seen. Participants should not preclude the possibility that the discussion with be consensus-seeking. One side may largely persuade the other. In this case, the close may be trivial. Someone is suggesting that the hypothetical panel should be composed of RM-experienced closers. Ultimately, if the close is improper or otherwise poor, there is WP:MR. In general, the closing of RM discussions is in my opinion very good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A closing panel has been requested. bd2412  T 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the closing panel to take into consideration the reasoning and subsequent clear decision by last year's closing panel. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the closing panel to consider why the decision by last year's closing panel resolved nothing, and whether following the prevailing opinions of participants, as well as community consensus as reflected in policy, might have a much much better chance of resolving this issue. In particular, had the panel decided to move the article to Hillary Clinton, would there be any serious argument today, based in title policy, to move it to Hillary Rodham Clinton? What would that argument be? More commonly used? No. More recognizable? No. More concise? No. More Natural? Of course not. More precise? No. More consistent? No. Finally, perhaps the reason the opposition is so strident is because they, like those who opposed the Yoghurt→Yogurt move so stridently for so many years, know that if the proposed move succeeds, they will be left with nothing to seriously argue it should be moved back, so retaining the status quo is their only hope. Isn't the dearth of argument to reverse back to the status quo (if moved) the true indicator of lack of consensus for the status quo?  --В²C ☎ 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the closing panel to judge this proposal on arguments presented this time, not on history. Moriori (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'd ask the closing panel if they wanted milk and sugar with that. Otherwise I would echo the sentiment immediately above, but that's already been said.  Go on!  Get yourself a "cuppa" GregKaye 05:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)).


 * That's one thing I think is an iron-clad guarantee; if the closing admins make a bad (IMO, obviously) decision and move the article to HC, there will never be another RM to move it again to HRC, and that highlights the whys and the hows of why the two sides are so different. Support to move is an endless litany of nitpicky wiki-gnomish errata, while the opposition to the move generally revolves around the notion of "HRC is just as good, so why bother?"  It's like Hee-Haw vs. Woodstock, suits vs. tie-dyes...completely different outlooks on things. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of redirects, titles don't really matter, at all. This article could be at T10303055921A and would be "just as good" as the current title or the proposed title, as long as Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton both redirected to it. Unless, we're trying to convey something to our readers with our titles. If so, what is that? Then it starts to matter again, a little. The most obvious thing to convey with a title is "the name" of the subject of the article. Things get sticky when a subject has multiple names. But from the earliest days Wikipedians decided what to do in such cases - "use the name most commonly used to refer to the subject" to resolve them. Later that guidance was clarified to "use the name most commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the subject".  That clarification was intended to clarify that usage on Myspace (for example) was not to guide us. Now some try to interpret that far more strictly, giving weighty "scholarly" sources more weight. But that was never the intent, since the whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is to use the name most people will most readily recognize. And you don't accomplish that by looking at usage only specialists are likely to see. But that's really what is at stake here - not just the title of this article, but how we decide titles in such cases; what WP:COMMONNAME means. And that matters, not to our readers but to the way we make decisions on WP, because it affects how countless articles are titled. --В²C ☎ 23:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of redirects, titles don't really matter, at all... Then why are you wasting the community's time with this? Tarc (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Why are you? Keep reading. I answer why I'm involved here. Why are you? --В²C ☎ 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the renamers wish to do so just for the sake of doing so, not because HC is vastly different or preferable to HRC. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So now a proposed title has to be "vastly different or preferable" to the status quo title in order for the supporters to not be labeled as supporting "just for the sake of doing so"? Why do you hold this move proposal to a standard no other proposal needs to meet? No offense intended, but that doesn't sound like the real reason. Frankly, it smacks of quintessential rationalization obscuring a WP:JDLI motivation. I support this proposal for the same reason I support any title which is more likely to remain stable and unchallenged than the other for the foreseeable future - the one that meets the title WP:CRITERIA (policy) better than the other. In this case, far better. --В²C ☎ 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C: It's your opinion that your preferred form would be "unchallenged" if adopted, but I see no evidence whatsoever to support that – and considerable evidence to suggest it would be challenged. Though you may not admit it, both sides of this debate draw support from considerable evidence and reasonable arguments, so it seems very strange to suggest that all dispute will somehow evaporate if we just do as you wish. It's for cases like this that policy advises against flipping between controversial titles.  As Tarc rightly suggests, arguments and the resulting consensus should be particularly strong and clear to overcome that... and the breathtakingly large and contentious wall of text above dealing with extremely mixed usage of HC/HRC, mixed opinions on the weighting, interpretation, and application of various policies, etc. doesn't suggest to me that we're close to that.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc Re: ".. the renamers wish to do so just for the sake of doing so, not because HC is vastly different or preferable to HRC." IMO, no one is going to come to an article titled "Hillary Clinton" and think to themselves "that's odd" as I did and as people before me have also done.  However, people with any background knowledge on Wikipedia's guidance/policy on the use of most common name may consider it out of the ordinary to say the least. I am yet to see a p & g based support for the current title.  All I have seen is the mention of procedure related factors such as WP:TITLECHANGES.  However, I very strongly agree with you that we cant do things !just for the sake of doing so".  We have to have reasoned basis for doing so.  I have tried to establish a coherent rationale for a legitimate application of WP:SHOWCASE and/or a usage of WP:IAR just so as to potentially enable some kind of coherent opposition argument to make sense.  What policy based rationale is there for supporting the use of the HRC title - not objecting to the move - supporting the existing use?  GregKaye 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've started the analysis at to test your claim that "both sides of this debate draw support from considerable evidence and reasonable arguments", and, more particularly, how much each side draws support from policy. So far I don't see it (though I've only gotten through the first 10 or so oppose !votes). Help me out?  --В²C ☎ 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Section order request
Hi. For fairness wouldn't it be more logical to not have the 'Support' and 'Oppose' sections, but just let people add their comments when they arrive at the party, ah, I mean page? Although I haven't been involved very long in name change requests I haven't seen this form before. The 'Support' section, which people will read long before they even spot the 'Opposed' section well down the road, will likely become the length of a novella. Why not just toss the scorpions into the jar at the same time, which seems fairer somehow. Randy Kryn 2:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the typical layout for discussions that are expected to be lengthy so that it is easier for readers and the supervising administrators to see who has expressed what opinion. This was done at Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request, and is the format always used for RfA discussions (see, e.g., Requests for adminship/Jakec) and often for any other kind of proposal where the discussion is expected to be lengthy and involved (see, e.g., Village pump (proposals)). You can see from those discussions (and from a substantial number of unsuccessful RfA discussions) that this structure does not interfere with the ability of participants to register opposition. A good example of this is Requests for adminship/AlanM1, which had about as many participants as the last move discussion on this topic. The goal of this structure is to avoid confusing the discussion and impeding the community and the closers from seeing what is going on. bd2412  T 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the comment and the recent history. The unfairness comes from someone who's "undecided" coming in and reading the page from top to bottom and seeing all the 'Supports' before getting to the 'Opposed'. But I guess the closers know what to look for. It just all seems like a huge waste of time, but some editors seem to be gearing up for it. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 3:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Randy Kryn Although this is a conventional format I think that it is far from ideal. I don't know if you know but this RM was originally developed by a group including BD2412 and myself.  I had thought that it might have been good for there to be two sections of developed arguments at the beginning of the thread for and against but, to tell you the truth, I was so pissed off with various sniping on the main HRC talk page I could not be asked to take action.  I also consider that editors were previously overly preoccupied with threads like the No consensus topic that they didn't initiate to formulate a case.  I suggested that all the arguments might be grouped together but I am even more convinced now by bd2412's response in regarding the need to keep order than I was then.  All manner of editorial tactics have been, IMO, adopted and a lack of boundaries, I think, would have resulted in a state bordering chaos.  GregKaye 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

1 year lock-in
I have no opinion on the issue itself at the moment, but in accordance with the close at Village Pump I request the RfC explicitly invite the closer to consider a 1-year lock-in against repeated move requests. And regardless of the RfC text, the discussion at Village Pump provides abundant basis for reasonable closer discretion in the matter. Alsee (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some question about what power admins have to impose moratoria absent consensus of the community in favor of that outcome. That said, I am not sure that this is the best place to discuss such a proposal, since the focus of this page should purely be on the question of whether the article should be renamed. bd2412  T 01:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any moratorium, I think, should be a question for the closer(s). It should be based upon discussion of a moratorium in the RM discussion.  I think there is no good reason to worry about it before starting the RM.  The question of a moratorium presumes a no consensus outcome, a presumption which is probably a bad thing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I supported a moratorium in the Village Pump discussion, but there was no consensus favoring one. I continue to support the idea, but would not impose my preference on the community unless consensus shifts in favor of it. bd2412  T 15:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus in the Village Pump discussion was clearly against any moratorium. An admin has no authority to go against community consensus in imposing a moratorium. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "Consensus in the Village Pump discussion was clearly against any moratorium" - That wasn't the closer's interpretation. NickCT (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the outcome. Consensus was against extending the previous moratorium. As I argued myself, the previous moratorium properly expired. However the close also stated "In addition, there is broad support in both "camps" that if a RM does take place then its result needs to be "locked in" for at least a year to prevent the issue being debated to death (with a year being repeatedly suggested)". Broad support in both camps. I am merely asserting it is within closer discretion to include a lock-in period. This move debate has clearly been a time-sink in the past, and it's going to get an extraordinarily thorough examination now. The closer may impose a lock-in, or decline to do so, after reviewing any pro and con arguments presented here and at village pump. The closer can consider any and all issues in selecting an expiration date, and I firmly submit "the day after the election" as an absolute maximum due to the possibility of needing to change this into a President Clinton page. Alsee (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that part of the close. I withdraw my assertion that there was no consensus. Certainly, once the page is moved, it will be both disruptive and futile for anyone to quickly propose moving it back. bd2412  T 22:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I see that closing statement now. I was going off my memory of the actual discussion and the votes for and against a future moratorium were, at best, evenly split. I realize that it isn't just a vote count, but I do question the closer's assertion that "there is broad support in both 'camps'" for a moratorium. That statement seems grossly inaccurate given the actual discussion that took place. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A moratorium (one year) and other procedural restrictions were established at the last RM. So, it is within the purview of a closing admin to institute a moratorium. (In that RM, closed 31 May 2014, the result was: No consensus, default to endorse, and procedural restrictions established: No further move request may be started until February 2015, and between February 2015 and February 2017, or the closure of the next valid move request, whichever is earlier, no move request is to be made unless it is at least 5,000 characters in length.) Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification: What I said in closing the discussion leading to this means no more than was written: There was broad support that if the discussion was reopened then it should settle the matter for some time – I did not say there was consensus for a moratorium nor that it was a requirement. I did recommend that the RM be structured around the idea that whatever its result should "stick" for a while because of that support and how acrimonious the dispute is – but that was the opinion of a long-standing member of the community with extensive dispute resolution experience and not a result of the close itself. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There have now been two widely publicized RMs with 2/3ish of those opining supporting a move. If we are going to (again) say that it shouldn't be moved, in defiance of our WP:COMMONNAME guideline and in defiance of a clear "majority" (if not "consensus"), then I'm not sure why that decision should be locked in at all. Someone (or some committee, whatever) is going to close the discussion and is either going to go with the supermajority or is going to exercise an admin supervote. The idea that, not only do they get an admin supervote, they get an irreversible admin supervote, seems a little off somehow. --B (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this RM is found to have found a consensus, I think the result should stick for two years. If no consensus, the result should stick for 1 year. From the time of posting of the the closing statement. Barring compelling new information.
 * The usual requirement is that RMs should not be repeated within 6 months. A longer time for this one is justified by the length and similarity of a long series of RMs. No consensus results are usually considered repeatedable in a shorter time, but the usual case involves a lack of attention and participation, which is not the case here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any moratorium should be at least until January 20, 2017. I don't understand why you believe a moratorium should end in the middle of next year, when the election campaign will heating up. Allowing another of these RMs would be a nightmare. SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SMP0328 is right. In either case, support a two year moratorium.  If HRC remains in the race.  In the absence of compelling new arguments.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a great deal of ambiguity in the phrase, "compelling new arguments". Consider, for example, that we do not know how she will choose to have her name presented in TV ads or on ballot lines. We could guess that she will use "Hillary Clinton" based on her having done so in the 2008 cycle, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL. It is entirely possible that she will decide she prefers "Rodham" in that venue, which would of course stir up a lot of interest in her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Since we do not, at this point, know what will happen with than, when it does happen it will be new information to consider. bd2412  T 03:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have always argued that how she presents herself in the latest campaign is a minor factor with respect to a biography of a very long life of notable coverage.  Presentation in a current campaign is not reliably sourced in secondary sources, and it is recentism.  TV ads and ballots are not suitable sourcing for anything in Wikipedia.  How she presents herself as President would be more compelling.  How post-failed-run new biographies present her would be more compelling.  In any case, Wikipedia is edited by humans, not algorithms, and a compelling new argument is always a good reason to overturn a past consensus.
 * My main intended point is that this RM appears to be a good and thorough discussion, it should be respected, and to agree with SMP0328 that a repeat during the last few months of the presidential campaigns sounds like poor timing for a hypothetical next RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is based entirely on the facts as they exist today. Opinions may differ on the importance of presentation in a current campaign, particularly if that campaign is the most significant event in the subject's life. bd2412  T 03:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article covers the totality of the subjects life, recentism of the subjects latest hurrah notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article at all on Susan Hutchinson, nor on Heidi Cruz or Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio. Being the wife of a governor or presidential candidate is not by itself grounds for notability, so we must weigh the relative notability of the activities of the subject, and how those have shaped the perception of their common name. bd2412  T 15:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Object to the "we". The relative weighting of the sectionized Hillary Rodham versus Hillary Rodham Clinton versus Hillary Clinton should be taken from reliable reputable sources that cover the subject's life in its entirety.  Decisions should be based on sources, not editors' impressions.  Editors are prone to recentism biases.  Wikipedia is not news, but an historiographical work.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton has been called Hillary Clinton by reliable sources since the 90s,, when she was a Senator from New York, and when she was Secretary of State. This is not a new thing, and not something that is going to dissipate in the future. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama recited their oaths of office as "William Jefferson Clinton" and "Barrack Hussein Obama", but that did not lead to their full names being the most commonly used reference. Of course, it is also worth noting that the President, once elected, is basically in permanent campaign mode until after the midterm of their second term (if they are reelected). In other words, she will be "Hillary Clinton" until 2022, and by then it will be a fairly permanent impression. A lot of things can be fought, but the rolling trend of history isn't one of them. bd2412  T 02:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's true. Our difference is in our perception of the use of the word "called" versus "titled"/"introduced".  There has been increased prevalence of dropping Rodham for many years, in usage, but overwhelmingly in biographical articles and books, the titling/introductions have retained the Rodham.  As does she, mostly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well never forget that biographers are salesmen just as much as any author. They write what they write because they hope to get accolades and awards, and to move books off the shelves and over to the cash register. Wikipedia does not suffer from such motivations. bd2412  T 04:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the outcome, that result should hold until December 2016. Rerunning this for the sixth or seventh time in the midst of the 2016 campaign would be disruptive drain on editors' time.  Justen (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose RM moratoriums for any length of time regardless of outcome, for any title. RM discussion moratoriums are contrary to how we develop consensus on Wikipedia. Details here: User:Born2cycle/FAQ. --В²C ☎ 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notifications Sent
For the record, User:BD2412 maintained a list of all past participants on this discussion. I have sent all those users notifications of this discussion. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, NickCT and BD2412. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just realize that we didn't notify projects. This is now done. bd2412  T 17:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Has an end date for this RM been determined? Tvoz / talk 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Requested moves is a highly automated process in this regard. Once a move request is made, that request is automatically added to the list of pending requests, and is moved down the list for seven days, until it enters the backlog. At that point, an administrator (or in this case, the requested three-admin panel) may close it, unless an editor chooses to relist it for another week by adding  before Calidum's timestamp in the initial request (at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton); User:Softlavender has suggested that the discussion be extended, but does not seem to have opted to actually relist the discussion. I have no interest in doing so myself, but I don't particularly care if others wish to do so. If nothing else happens, this discussion will enter the backlog at 14:43 (UTC) tomorrow.  bd2412  T 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, bd - that sounds like 10ish AM Monday EDT? Tvoz / talk 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on the closers (Callanecc, Mdann52, and Euryalus). I've sent them a message, to ask them what they've decided to do. At yet, they've not responded. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk-page about this Talk space move request
Shouldn't there be a Talk page where side discussion about this Move request can be handled? Like for RFA proposals/discussions which are held in Wikipedia-space, where it is helpful that there is a corresponding Wikipedia talk page where side discussions are okay and do not disrupt the main discussion of the proposal.

I am going to treat this new section now as a Talk-page, for the moment, and make a side discussion-type comment here, below. I don't mind, would be happy to see, if this were moved to any more proper location for a Talk-page type discussion. - do ncr  am  17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. We definitely need another place to have even more discussion about this, because so far it's only being discussed in about 3 or 4 places. We should setup a move request for deciding whether or not to move the discussion about the move request, and obviously that should also have its own talk page...
 * ...OR...
 * We could've kept all the discussion on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, because if we're honest all this bullshit is totally unnecessary and it really doesn't matter if the article is at Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton.  -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse Scjessey's rant. This move request is over a de minimis matter and expanding an additional forum is a very bad idea (no offense). SMP0328. (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what I've said all along; like diacritics and Style Battle wars, this is a pointless waste of time. The move-supporters are clocking in at ~60% at the moment, so they are still a ways under their numbers from the last RM, which did not go their way either. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, if we went by numbers, the article would have moved long ago. We (allegedly) go by weight of arguments... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We definitely have a gigantic "weight of arguments" on this matter, though we still have a long way to go before we get to the unadulterated glory that was the title discussion for Star Trek Into Darkness. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or we can move this to the Wikipedia namespace instead... Epic Genius (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice use of personal essay reference
Here is my side comment: There are a couple references in the discussion now to BornToCycle's personal "Yogurt Principle" essay (at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle). I want to say I appreciate mentioning and linking to that, even though I have disagreed with B2C in some past discussions and I think I do disagree with at least part of what the essay says. A couple others here, already familiar with the essay, commented negatively about it, like the essay doesn't apply. Okay. But, do let's appreciate it that this editor has taken the time to write a proper essay, and refers to it briefly. That is courteous and far better than an editor with a known viewpoint writing out pretty much the same opinion out again and again, with just small variations, in new discussions. (And wasn't there an wp:ANI proceeding recently about some newish editor pasting in their fairly long opinion in each of too many multiple discussions?) So, in favor of BornToCycle, I want to say I commend their having written the essay already, and I support others going and checking it out. I haven't read all the above discussion, and I could easily be missing some other good examples, but I am not offhand aware of any other editors' personal essays prepared that express their views relevant to this kind of article naming question. Thanks, B2C! cheers, -- do ncr  am  17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Any argument that relies on a personal essay will likely be discounted in the final analysis by the closing admins. This is another one of those editors who has spent an inordinate amount of time waging these sorts of pitched battles (see Talk: Sarah Jane Brown and archives, for one). Tarc (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ., when the linked essay is itself an argument that relies on policy why would it be discounted?   Arguments posted here that are based in policy are fully considered - why shouldn't arguments expressed in an essay? Would it make a difference if the essay was copy/pasted directly into the discussion?  --В²C ☎ 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We decide things based on existing policy and on guideliens agreed to by a consensus of the Wikipedia community. Your personal essay ain't that.  I'm off to enjoy a nice, tasty cup of yoghurt before bed, so toodle-loo. Tarc (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We decide things based on arguments that rely on policy and guidelines. My essay is exactly that. By the way, before Yoghurt was move to Yogurt I argued that once it was moved the controversy would be settled. That claim was challenged... how did I know? I said because there would be no policy-based argument to move it back, which was plainly evident before the move. And I was right. The situation is almost identical here. The only difference is what the policy argument is to move in the first place (at Yoghurt is was primarily ENGVAR; here it is primarily COMMONNAME plus CONCISE/PRECISION) - but the fact that there won't be any policy-based to move it back is just as plainly obvious. The HRC is more common than HC? That's never going to fly. That she prefers HRC? No policy cares about that. Even here in defending the status quo the strongest argument is that COMMONNAME is a wash, and so preference should split the difference. That might be strong enough to support a keep (it was last time), but it's clearly not strong enough to support a move. That's why a move here is justified by policy.  That's the essence of my argument. Doesn't matter if it's stated here or in an essay, though being documented in an essay shows that it's a generic/general argument, not one rationalized for this particular case.  --В²C ☎ 00:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yoghurt is not a living person. Yoghurt can't be POTUS. I can foresee circumstances that could definitely lead us back here, if the page were incorrectly moved. Dave Dial (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Every new biography about HRC, and important thing issued by HRC, will be a reason to move back to the subjects chosen and used name. When she is president, the current campaign will be a forgotten snippet.  In a campaign, every syllable, every second, that doesn't need to be there loses a fraction of the audience.  The current campaign is associated with an overwhelming amount of low level coverage, much of it in the form of anticipation.  There is good reason to think that the recentism bias won't last and HRC will remain named as she is in the bulk of the best, most reputable and authoritative sources.  Yogurt was moved back, not because of you interesting oblique observation, but because of the simplicity of WP:RETAIN.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course actual changes in the real world might give reason to change this title again. The Yogurt Principle applies only to the extent that nothing significant like that changes. Also, BLP makes this different from the specifics of the Yoghurt/Yogurt case, but it is irrelevant to the Yogurt Principle essay, which is not at all specific to Yogurt nor to the particular reasons that title was changed. I called it the Yogurt Principle only because it happened to be inspired by that particular case, but it's a very general principle with application in any situation where there are strong policy based reasons to move an article from A to B; and, if the article is moved to B, there will be no strong policy based reasons to move back from B to A (unless something external changes). The point is that if HRC is moved to HC today, tomorrow there will be no good policy-based reason to move it from HC back to HRC. Of course that may change 6 to 12 to 24 months or 10 years from now; but that's true in theory in any case. It's no reason not to move today. Biographies are specialty books, influencing only those studying the topic in particular. Usage in reliable news sources consumed by the public at large carries far more weight in determining common name. To apply recentism here is laughable. Neither the topic nor referring to her as Hillary Clinton is a brief fad. That doesn't mean usage won't shift; but now that usage has shifted to HC that's what we should reflect. If usage shifts back to HRC we should then change back. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Biographies are obviously relevant to biographies, and their influence is not only what you say. News sources, whether reliable or not, are biased to recent/current affairs, and with a little passage of time are properly labelled as primary sources, and are not to be relied upon in a tertiary source.  The  recentism argument is a reason to take automated source usage counting with a large grain of salt.  "Referring to her" does not speak to the question of titling.  "Titling" or "introducing" is what matters.  This article will continue to repeatedly refer to her in shortened forms even if it continues with the current title.  Yes, the dropping of Rodham is not a recent fad, but it is nearly only seen in publications focusing on recent affairs, not covering the subject in her lifetime entirety as does this biography.  The dropping of Rodham in the sub-articles may be reasonable, but is not reasonable for the full biography, and is not reasonable for the list of books article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about WP titles being based on usage in other "titling" and "introducing" contexts; WP titles reflect usage in common usage references to the topic in question. Our titles don't reflect how someone is formally introduced, it's about how someone is commonly called. Sometimes those two criteria yield the same result, but when they don't, like in this case, WP generally goes by common usage. That's what COMMONNAME is all about. I know you don't like that. It's not my personal first choice either. But soon after I got to WP many years ago I figured out that WP is different in that respect. That's why we have Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Betty Ford, Bono and Cher, not William Jefferson Clinton, Elizabeth Ann Ford, James Earl Carter, Paul David Hewson and Cherilyn Sarkisian.  --В²C ☎ 04:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The compromise, and quite an agreeable compromise it was, was to persist with the imperfect "COMMONNAME", avoid the English word "commonname", to explicitly refer to reliable sources, and to tie in the word recognizable. So the nuanced meaning is "commonly recognized when reading reliable sources".  It is most definitely not what most people would guess by "common usage", which mean the vernacular.


 * All of your examples are consistent. Betty Ford, I looked into.  Yes, her tombstone uses a long form, and that is interesting, but when you look at the exisitng references, especially eulogies, they do indeed use "Betty Ford".  In this respect, HRC is quite different.  She publishes under HRC, and is usually introduced as HRC (current campaign not included).  Other biographies usually introduce her as HRC, and when they don't, they are period-specific sub-biographies.  Betty Ford's biographies do not use her full name in titling/introduction.


 * And yes, it is always about titling or introductions. Otherwise, even "Hillary Clinton" would not be good enough, because no secondary source repeatedly uses both names in the same running text.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That compromise was among a few obsessive WP policy wonks. It hardly carries the weight of consensus. Look at the number of people who cite COMMONNAME implicitly if not directly in the support section of the !voting above. That's a much better indication of community consensus about COMMONNAME and what it means and how it applies. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Party-pooper
Please forgive me for being a party-pooper. I'm totally amazed that I had to page-down 54 times to reach the end of this discussion. I personally don't think it really matters that much which way this decision turns out. If Wikipedia editors spent this much time and energy working on issues like fact-checking and citation-research, there's no telling how much better Wikipedia would be! Scott P. (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This^^^^ -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eventually, this article will be renamed, after which no new editor will come along, feel that it's at the wrong title, and initiate a move discussion. We can't prohibit having these discussions, because the facts (new media coverage, usage by the subject, etc.) keep changing, so the question must always be evaluated under the facts existing at the time of the proposal. bd2412  T 19:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got that backwards. Within 5 minutes of being renamed, some new editor will come along, feel it's at the wrong title, and we'll be back here again with another 54 pages of "this tiny little difference means I win and you lose!"  crap we have now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is highly speculative. We know it happens now; we'll have to wait see what happens when the situation is reversed. bd2412  T 02:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 30+ oppose votes above indicate that it isn't speculative at all. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 39 is over 50 now is it? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are there "50+"? Also, why would the many oppose voters who oppose having the process (but not necessarily the outcome) waste their time initiating a new process when it is clear that there will routinely be an evidence-based two-to-one majority against moving the page away from "Hillary Clinton", until there is a substantial change in real-world circumstances? bd2412  T 12:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 39 > 0. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added this page to WP:MISC100; there are over 100 participants already, and it is on pace to reach 100 support votes (and ~50 oppose) by the close of discussion. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Scott P. isn't being a party pooper. This conversation is a little ludicrous, and it's good to acknowledge that.
 * The last time this question came up, an "admin panel" rejected the move, even after it was supported by >70% of respondents. Frankly, I think when you ignore a consensus like that (and I use the term "consensus" here in its "real world" form), you invite endless debate. NickCT (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To a degree, though, despite the length of the discussion and the occasional hiccups, this is a healthy process. Think about this, how often have you seen over 120 Wikipedians weigh in on an article title proposal? How often have you seen nearly 80 Wikipedians turn up to support a page move? bd2412  T 02:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree. There's a degree of health. The more eyes we get on questions like this the better (particularly on high visibility articles). And we succeeded in getting a lot of eyes for sure. That's impressive and good.
 * At the same time though, we shouldn't lose touch with slightly ludicrous nature of some of the discussions we get into. NickCT (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What the last RM showed was the exceeding weakness of the 70%'s position, if it was zeroed out by the 30%. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, then, if the closing panel were to find that the position of the 30% was now exceedingly weak in light of changed circumstances (such as the launch of the campaign primarily under the "Hillary Clinton" name), then they could find consensus to move the page even if 70% were opposed to the move. bd2412  T 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll guess we'll see in a week or so, eh? The funny thing there though is that if this closed as a finding of consensus to rename, those who opposed will just move on back to what they usually edit.  If it closes as no consensus and remains "HRC", I have no doubt at all that there will be screeching and hair-tearing and within days an Move Review filing.  If that fails, they will bide their time til the nanosecond that the next moratorium expires. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Because once the article is at HC there will be no strong policy-based reason to move it back to HRC. If you disagree, articulate what that reason would be. For an HRC to HC move basis in COMMONNAME is at best a wash. On all other criteria there's nothing. With respect to subject preference, also a wash. In the current HRC->HC direction however we have a multitude of strong arguments, mostly presented by the nom. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Because once the article is at HC there will be no strong policy-based reason to move it back to HRC..., just as there is no strong policy-based reason to move it from HRC to HC now either. You're on the cusp of a breakthrough here, Mr. b2c. Crack the door open a little wider and walk into the understanding where both article titles are pretty much even, and that being even, a move is pointless. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * bd2412 - I think you're trying to wrestle with jello here BD. You're unlikely to pin it, and you're probably going to get messy doing it.
 * Tarc's just a little bitter that his opinion is about to get "zeroed out". NickCT (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mr. Nick, you've already used that line before to further your battleground thetoric. Time for some new material. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - It seemed funnier the second time. And I'm not sure you have the morale authority to accuse others of WP:BATTLEgrounding. NickCT (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not, but I at least grew out of running around telling people "HE'S A BIG MEANIEHEAD" behind backs when I was, oh, 8 or so. Btw, I disabled the pings/reply notifier long ago, so, you can save yourself some typing. :) Tarc (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - "BIG MEANIEHEAD" seems like a mischaracterization (surprise) that ignores the subtleties of the analogy. I love how you go from being critcal of excessive pinging behaivior, to critizing someone for not pinging you in a conversation. That's consistent logic for you.
 * Regardless Tarc, despite the endless and tiring assumption of bad faith, I'm not trying to "abusively" ping you and I'm not saying things behind backs.
 * Now perhaps instead of saying that peoples' arguments have been simply been "zeroed out", you can address the central point of the argument? NickCT (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "What the last RM showed was the exceeding weakness of the 70%'s position, if it was zeroed out by the 30%". I think what you are doing here is that you are expressing a fair opinion (but in an assertive way) that a correct decision was made by the last admin panel. You are entitled to your opinion.  For whatever reason the last closing panel judged that "While a lot of evidence was presented on both sides, neither was able to establish that one version was in fact the common name (determined by prevalence in reliable sources)."  I cannot conceive that this now in any way applies and, as far as I see it, overwhelming evidence has been provided for common use.  In the previous close it was also interpreted to say that "WP:RS is clear that scholarly secondary works are preferred…note however that counter examples were provided in “support” arguments".  The, I think, centrally relevant issue of prevalence was only specifically mentioned a meagre 3 times in the entirety of the last RM and yet it has been extensively covered here.   made a 23:50, 29 April 2015 to which your attention seemed to focus on the first words and within the later content yet the heart issue of source reference is addressed.  While the last RM gave more attention to, for instance, conciseness, this one is focussed more on commonality of use and the issue of the effect of sources as factors regarding recognizability is being being addressed.  In the last RM a presentation was made as if to present the entity of biographical material as presenting the subject as HRC but this has here been presented as being far from the actual case.
 * in a literal sense I agree with when you say "I think when you ignore a consensus like that (and I use the term "consensus" here in its "real world" form), you invite endless debate" and while its fair to note that all you were doing was adding an observation I personally think that it is of great importance that, in the context of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, a strong stance is taken on the view that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Having said that it seems to me that the arguments that have least if any policy support are those who advocate the continued use of "Hillary Rodman Clinton".  GregKaye 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we actually going to reach the point that the move request is 50 times bigger than the article? Thank goodness it's only twice as large now. Anyway, let's get this RM over with and either move the article or not, based on the consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One the bright side, we're only half the size of Requests for comment/Muhammad images so far. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that the page only becomes known for its size and not for the antagonism of its content. GregKaye 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Greg, half of that is you making post after post after about perceived antagonism. Barring outright WP:NPA violations that can and should have gone to WP:ANI...if there were any of that sort, I do not recall...you've done just as much to perpetuate the antagonistic atmosphere as those who made the comments in the first place.  Don't even waste a byte replying to this, just drop it, for the sake of us all. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, pay no mind to biased critiques like these. You have been nothing but rational and considerate in your discourse here. Naturally, those who disagree with the direction the proof points will use what means they can to cloud the path to seeing the proof, and if the means available is provocation, they will provoke. Pandeist (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's an impediment to understanding this debate, it's its breathtakingly gargantuan size, and that's something we've all contributed to, to one degree or another. Please let's all just assuming good faith from our fellow editors.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As clearly so can you, I can reply to what I like. We can in no way WP:CRYSTALball to know what this page would have been like if I had not made various non partisan interjections in regard to issues such as disrespect and attack.  Others are free to disagree but I like to think that I have played a part in promoting a WP:CIVIL atmosphere on this page.  GregKaye 09:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict:, , and , please can the following response content please be submitted perhaps into the section on discussion.  Thanks GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * GregKaye: The proposal is closed. There's nothing to stop you from continuing the discussion here, outside the formal proposal, where others have the ability to respond to your points if they wish to do so, but understand that if you allow a single editor to keep adding arguments into a closed proposal then in fairness you'd need to grant all other editors that same privilege – and the proposal would never truly close.  (Believe me, I had a couple of follow-up posts I just missed making as well, but things have to end somewhere...)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Huw, Since you made your very belated objection and I made my brief and immediate reply I have, as I have been able, wanted to present a more complete response that went beyond your cherry picking of sources. There was a clear edit conflict here and fairness also covers right to reply.  If someone could now demonstrate that they had done hours of work on something so as to demonstrate edit conflict then I am sure that this would be fine as well.  You have made an objection and I have requested that my response be considered.  All editors can still make comment on material in the discussion.  There is no problem with this inclusion.   GregKaye 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since discussion is ongoing why was it closed? The seven days noted at WP:RM is a minimum, not a maximum. These discussions are usually closed when discussion ceases for a couple of days. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The writing on the Wall Street Journal

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: site:wsj.com "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are: In a search of site:wsj.com "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham" from a year ago gives first result:
 * 1) Index of pages related to "Hillary Clinton new line Former Secretary of State, United States of America". No mention of "Rodham" is made on the page
 * 2) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton and Democrats Aim to Buck History" and content: "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s", "Hillary Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation", "Mrs. Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s, "Mrs. Clinton’s, "Hillary Clinton, "Mrs. Clinton, "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s", "Hillary Rodham", "Mr. Clinton" and "Mrs. Clinton". (note that I could have opted not to have included refs. to "Mrs. Clinton" above)
 * 3) article with title: "With Eight Candidates In, Hillary Clinton Dominates Facebook Conversation, (which I take to be another indication that personal presentations such as facebook matter) and article with no reference to "Rodham"
 * 4) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton Backs Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants" and with no reference to "Rodham".
 * 1) blog with headline: "Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating and content with no reference to "Rodham"

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Signs of the New York Times

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: site:nytimes.com "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are:
 * 1) article with headline: "Iowans Unfazed by Criticism of Hillary Clinton", with content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton", "Mrs. Clinton’s", "Mrs. Clinton’s" and "Mrs. Clinton".
 * 2) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton Takes the Lead on Immigration" with content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 2 (photo and article text) and "Mrs. Clinton" × 9.
 * 3) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton Embraces a ‘Super PAC,’ Trying to Erode a Republican Edge" and content "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (photo and article text), "Mrs. Clinton" × 11, "Clinton campaign" × 2 and "Clinton loyalist" × 1.

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sent by The Telegraph

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: site:telegraph.co.uk "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are:
 * 1) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton campaign embraces 'unaccountable' big-money political donor system" and content: "Mrs Clinton" × 8, "Hillary Clinton" × 3, "Clinton" × 2 and "the Clintons" × 2
 * 2) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton backs path to US citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants" and content: "Mrs Clinton" ×, "Hillary Clinton" × 2 and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 1.
 * 3) article with headline: "No evidence Hillary Clinton was influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation" and content: "Hillary Clinton" × 4, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 2 and "Mrs Clinton" × 2.

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Submitted content into the Times of India

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are:
 * 1) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton dismisses claims Indian cash swayed her n-deal stance" and content: "Clinton" × 9, "Hillary Clinton" × 3 and "the Clintons" × 3
 * 2) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton’s announcement for 2016 presidential bid delayed" and content: "Hillary Clinton" × 6, "Clinton camp" × 1 and "the Clintons" × 1.
 * 3) article with headline: "Hillary Clinton, just an unrecognized burrito bowl fan" and content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 2, "Rodham Clinton" × 1 and "Mrs. Clinton" × 8.

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Associations of AP

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are:
 * 1) navigation page with title "Hillary Clinton" and Headline content: "Clinton" × ~11 and "Hillary Clinton" × 1; and descriptive content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 3.
 * 2) article/release with headline "CLINTON PUSHES IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL TO CAMPAIGN FOREFRONT" and content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 1 and "Clinton" × 11.
 * 3) article/release with headline: "LATEST GOP CAMPAIGNS FOR WHITE HOUSE STAR HILLARY CLINTON" and content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 1, "Hillary Clinton" × 1, "Clinton" × ~13 and "the Clintons" × 2.
 * 4) article/release with headline: "Raw: Hillary Clinton: Economy Has Stalled Out" and with content: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" × 1.

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

From Reuters' writers

 * ''See also:

I did a search on: site:reuter.com "Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton" OR "Rodham"

Results in sequence are:
 * 1) article/release with headline: "Hillary Clinton surprises with early attack on CEO pay" and content: "Hillary Clinton" × 2 and "Clinton" × ~8.
 * 2) article/release with headline: "Hillary Clinton woos technorati, draws comparison to Eleanor Roosevelt" and content: "Hillary Clinton" × 2 and "Clinton" × 5.
 * 3) video with titles: "Barack Obama" and "Obama: Hillary Clinton would be "an excellent president"" and content "Hillary Clinton" × 1.
 * 4) article/release with headline: "Boehner says Hillary Clinton should support White House on trade" and content: "Hillary Clinton" × 1 and "Clinton" × 2.

GregKaye 11:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please close this !vote
Either the page moves or it doesn't, so let's get on with it, and get it over with.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these RfC type thingies are open for a month. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you also think that this discussion should be relisted, then? bd2412  T 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be "officially" relisted (that's not a requirement of any kind), just left alone. The closers will close when they think the time is right. All three are capable editors, one is an arbitrator, one an arb clerk. Let them handle it, as appropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have not visited the Requests for Closure discussion recently, there is now some dispute there about whether we need to change the panel to make it more gender-diverse. bd2412  T 15:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Type thingy is the problem, isn't it? Given there's no basis for this type thingy, simply voiding it might be a good idea. μηδείς (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "no basis for this type thingy"? This is an RM filed completely in accordance with Requested moves. We have dozens of these every day. bd2412  T 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I was a little testes after I read the genital survey, hysterical even. My point was that the expression "type thingy" seems like a good metaphor for the entire proposal.  My remark was not meant personally. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think either view will get a bigger edge by dragging it out, but if people enjoy the suspense then sure let's leave it up in the air. This thing started on April 26.  Per WP:Requested moves, "Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'."  Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to strike your vote and move on if the debate no longer interests you. Otherwise, be patient; we don't work on a timetable here. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll just strike some IP votes and claim they're SPAs. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

- Anyone want to give rough thoughts on closure scheduling. We're obviously a little beyond the "seven day" norm; though I appreciate this entire RM is a little beyond the norm. I don't see the discussion above developing very much. It might be time to move forward. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * barring any sudden new direction in debate, will discuss with with the aim of a close by tomorrow. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm about tomorrow, and I'm looking through this now to start making sense of it all.... In any case, RM's are routinely left open for longer than 7 days, I don't see what harm a bit of extra time is likely to cause in this case - better to allow some extra time than rush with it. Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

By the numbers
Last Requested Move: 47/20/2 (support/oppose/neutral) 68.1% in favor of a rename

This Requested Move: 88/51/6 (support/oppose/neutral) 60.7% in favor of a rename

Interesting to note that support has actually dropped a fair bit since the last discussion. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, support has nearly doubled. It's just that oppose has grown more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Were talking about the overall numbers, Sherlock. Participation is up all-around, over 70 more participants thus far, but a greater number of them are opposing.  Only time will tell, but it is hard to envision this being closed in favor of a rename if the supports have seen a double-digit % drop since the last go-round. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, there's no need to belittle another editor. Jonathunder (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc please either say what you mean or take it with good grace if someone picks up on meaning. Please let's all refrain from hostility.  GregKaye 14:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. Tarc: Actually, I am. You are talking about percentages (and now even percentages of percentages). Anyways, we don't do snout-counting, but pretend the that closers carefully evaluate the quality of the arguments, weight them with respect to policies, and then do what they want anyways. Then we rake them over red-hot coals until they are thoroughly burned (out) and start again ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was pretty clear in pointing out the dropoff. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If we were going by numbers here instead of strength of arguments, 88/(88+51) is over 63%. When's the last time a presidential candidate got 63%? Looks to me like James Monroe in 1820.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The neutral votes get their say, too. And funny, but I don't see much correlation between electing the leader of the free world vs. titling a wiki page on a volunteer encyclopedia project. RMs, AfDs, etc...aren't headcounts, but the tallies do play a small bit of importance in any of these.  The point is, the last time around the discussion failed even though it was 70-30, as the for-and-against arguments were deemed offsetting.  Unless the arguments this time around are substantially different and/or weaker, or the admin panel has a radically different mindset from the last one, then what a by-the-numbers looky-seeshows is that consensus has decreased since the last round.  If the purposeof these RMs is to find consensus, then it has thus far failed to materialize. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the "for" arguments are much stronger here. This is primarily due to a much stronger opening rationale, and the explicit support for that rationale.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been a lot of changes in the year very notably in search results:
 * "Hillary Clinton" got "About 399,000 results" in News 01/05/2013 - 30/04/2014
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" got "About 13,700 results" in News 01/05/2013 - 30/04/2014
 * 29:1 ratio in favour of Hillary Clinton


 * "Hillary Clinton" got "About 2,840,000 results" in News 01/05/2014 - 30/04/2015
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" got "About 34,700 results" in News 01/05/2014 - 30/04/2015
 * 81:1 ratio in favour of Hillary Clinton
 * Also we are in the beginning phase of the Ready For Hillary Clinton for President 2016 campaign and it is not surprising that there is increased interest in the page. It is also very understandable that editors that come directly to the page may be the ones that are more favourably disposed to the subject.  As much as we may consider the significance of !votes, the important thing is the arguments presented.  GregKaye 15:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * News hits do not exist in a vacuum, you still have to examine the totality of name usage for the entire breadth of her career; when that is done, they aren't that far off, which is why both sides have a fair claim to the wp:commonname argument. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If we go to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and search all the adult book titles there, we find "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 18 times, and "Hillary Clinton" (or "Hillary and Bill Clinton") 27 times. This confirms my sense that she is primarily referred to as "Hillary Clinton" in the mainstream of book authors and book readers. I admit that it was 14 to 24 books last time, but it's still a landslide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you include books for young readers, however, it's a wash. Jonathunder (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I was just looking at books for general audiences, which are much more relevant here (cf. Simple English Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 90/54/7, support has now dropped to 59.6%, traditionally regarded as an "F". Tarc (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some would argue it's a majority, others would argue it's a poor grade, et cetera. There are various ways of looking at it. But in my opinion, there is no way that 90/54/7 can be regarded as consensus in any way, given the huge amount of discussion and the application of various policies in various ways. If this was a straight-up majority vote, all you need is more than 50%; but it's most definitely not. We have no consensus here. Omnedon (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think 90-54 is a blowout landslide, and the evidence presented only makes it more so. Shall we have a survey about the result of the survey?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But again, you're viewing this as a simple vote. It's not. Consensus is more complicated than raw numbers. And if you're suggesting that there is no strong evidence on the oppose side... Well, wow. Omnedon (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm not concerned about the !voting totals, sex/location/age of !voters or sex/location/age of the closers. What I am concerned about is the policy. There is no doubt, even you must admit, that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her common name. The fact that 'Hillary Clinton' may have more Google hits doesn't eliminate the fact that HRC is the common name of HRC. Also, even those who support the move have said her common name up until 2008 or so was HRC, but that HC has surpassed that. Even if that were true(and I don't necessarily totally agree with that), we have policies that state the totality of a persons public life determines a common name. So the past 8 years don't overrule the other 35. Even if there wasn't a Google to refer to, that time still existed. And then we have CONCISE which states a family name of living person should not be removed for conciseness. Those who argue that Rodham isn't her family name are way off, and show that they have no clue to the subjects preferences. Which, btw, is also a policy based consideration. Add to that our TITLECHANGES policy, which states controversial articles should not be moved if they are stable(HRC has been at HRC since 2001), how can anyone believe that a page move would be within policy? Even if the !vote totals were 80-20, policy would still prevent a page move. A majority of !voters can change Wikipedia policies, but they cannot override Wikipedia policies. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "There is no doubt, even you must admit, that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' is her common name." No, I don't believe it is.  It is one of the primary names she uses, but that's another question.  I explained my position together with my !vote, so it's useless to re-hash it again now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If we have an absence of consensus as to which policies apply and what weight various factors have in the application of those policies, then what is needed is an RfC (not on the name of this particular article, but on the policies at issue). bd2412  T 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What we have here is, failure to develop consensus to move this article. Omnedon (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Omnedon, but the ball is not in our court, so let's stop swinging racquets.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You see consensus on this page? Seriously? Omnedon (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. But I did last time too.  Clearly there are strong majorities both times, and the consistency of that majority-support is telling.  Consensus does not mean majority and it does not mean unanimity, and it most certainly does not mean a minority is entitled to prevail every time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But when no consensus exists to perform a move, then by policy, it is not moved. That's not the minority prevailing. That's consensus not developing. Omnedon (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, we agree that "when no consensus exists to perform a move, then by policy, it is not moved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, I was responding to BD2412 in terms of the scope of the issue. I see the issue being here at this page, not with policies. Applying policies in various ways is not a new phenomenon. Here at this particular article we have an exceptional situation. Omnedon (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are, however, a number of policy questions that need to be examined. It has been proposed, for example, that usage by biographers and by other encyclopedias should be weighed more heavily than usage in other reliable sources, and that search engine returns should be discounted accordingly. There is a question of whether to give more weight to a name as used most prominently in an official capacity, or to a name used most prominently in a populist endeavor like a political campaign. I believe that these are propositions that should be considered by the community so that we can get a more definitive sense of what sources and uses should count the most heavily. I also think, quite frankly, that we should take into account the tendency of both political figures and news and media publishers to angle their coverage so as to meet marketing and public relations agendas as much as to provide unbiased information (although I am confident that this happens on both sides of this particular issue). bd2412  T 16:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding that marvellous thing, consensus:

In the context that an editor said on this page in regard to the last !vote, I said that, Nothing has changed. WP:CONSENSUS works, or should work, regardless of !vote. Nothing has changed. Consensus is only here "as the best method to achieve our (that's Wikipedia's) goals." The two admins and the experienced closer are here to weigh arguments not votes. If it were down to votes why would we need three of them. Policy and guideline need to be applied in legitimate ways on legitimate arguments without editors here trying to turn any screw. All I hope is that the trio enjoy all the shenanigans, the antics and the drama but, bottom line, it should always be the arguments that "count". Given the current state of politics there will be a larger number of people with various forms of interest in Hillary Clinton gravitating to this page. !Votes can go a number of ways and it appears they do. I, like I imagine many of the editors here, am still waiting to hear the name Rodham mentioned on the news and yet still people vote in the way that they do. GregKaye 19:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Frankly, I think when you ignore a consensus like that (and I use the term "consensus" here in its "real world" form), you invite endless debate",
 * "I personally think that it is of great importance that, in the context of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, a strong stance is taken on the view that Wikipedia is not a democracy."
 * Maybe you aren't looking at the right news? In the NYT, for example, all HRC news is compiled on this topic page. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And the very first story on that page, from just today: "Editorial commends Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton".... and yes, the NYT tends to reference her with the Rodham. Looking deeper into their pieces they tend to thereafter reference her as "Mrs. Clinton this" and "Mrs. Clinton that." Talk about patronization!! Pandeist (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Grey Lady has long had a more formal style with regard to names than do most newspapers in the U.S. It's not patronization, but it's also not Wikipedia's style. Jonathunder (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. We too refer to her subsequently in a shorter form, depending on the chronology, and no one has suggested that we change that. We are talking about the title of this biography and that is analogous to the first mention in every Times article, which always is her actual name, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Tvoz / talk 05:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It very much is Wikipedia's style. We should always strive to be more like the NY Times and less like Reddit. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Tvoz/Tarc: Quite so. Also it's not just The Times, it's many other sources like the Associated Press, LA Times, etc.  The high frequency of "Rodhams" I was seeing in results (even in searches when I didn't search for "Rodham" at all and instead just looked for "Hillary") is what convinced me that there had to be something badly amiss with the proposal's numbers and that they needed to be re-examined.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - re "WP:NOTDEMOCRACY" - Your point was appreciated. At the end of the day though, WP sorta is a democracy, in that few things that have consistent overwhelming support get overruled for long. Ultimately I think that might be a good thing. Unless you want to argue that WP should be a dictatorship.
 * - If your original point was that this poll only achieved a clear majority (with a mere 35% opposing), while the last poll achieved an overwhelming majority (with a mere 28% opposing), then I guess I have to agree with you. You and yours find yourself in a slightly larger small minority.
 * - Great. So like the NYTimes, let's use HC in the title. And HRC on the first line. I'm with that. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - No, Nick, article headlines are not analogous to biography titles - the Times' topic profile is much more to the point. Tvoz / talk 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm.... I don't know. Some of the NYT topic profiles are clearly inconsistent with naming conventions on WP (e.g. ). But perhaps that's just other stuff). NickCT (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is precisely what I said it was (it does help to read what people actually say as opposed to what you think they say), that overall, support has dropped since the last Requested Move discussion. The purpose of these sorts of discussions is to find consensus.  If last year's discussion found no consensus to move, and this year's discussion trends even further away from consensus to move, then the result of the current discussion should be the same as the last time.  The community is split on this issue, and a split means the status quo remains.  Very simple to understand; what you keep getting tripped up on is arguing that last year's RM discussion was closed wrongly, and that this year's RM is to "Right that Great Wrong".  That's not how it works.  Bush Jr. beat Al Gore, Tom Brady didn't cheat to defeat the Colts, Ned Stark got his head lopped off, and Forrest Gump bested Pulp Fiction for Best Picture.  No amount of arguing will change what happened in the past.  Exist in the now. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Part of existing in the now is recognizing and correcting the mistakes of the past.
 * "split" is curious way to describe a poll that had obtained a super majority.
 * And regardless Tarc, sorta humorous how you go from dismissing the importance of the numbers to wanting to emphasize that your position gained the slightest amount of numerical traction. You have any more inconsistencies for us? NickCT (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this back and forth could go on forever. bd2412  T 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Is that a subtle way of saying "Shut it and wait for the closers"? Ok ok. Point taken. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, my comment you link in no way implies a dismissal of numbers. What I said in that comment is that the supporters-of-a-rename argument is so weak that even large numerical advantage cannot overcome the inherent weakness of the argument itself.  Again, and I'll repeat this simply; last year's Rm failed to find consensus despite having a large numerical advantage.  The arguments are still largely the same this year, yet the % of support has dropped.  Thus there is no other logical conclusion to draw from this other than that there is still no consensus on the matter.  Can I enlighten you on this point further, or is this sufficient? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" is a wikiword with Wikimeanings. For reasons I don't agree with, but understand, it's now largely independent of any numbers (as it was last year). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re "enlighten"- As much as I enjoy exploring your double-think, perhaps it's best that we expend our efforts elsewhere and let the dust here settle? NickCT (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Capitulation accepted. ;) Tarc (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NickCT (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about winning and, however consensus is at this time viewed, the world will keep spinning. I still don't understand the motivation behind the objections but such is life. GregKaye 17:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hillary got 14,4000,000 (14 million 400 thousand) google news hits. Fourteen million more news hits than "Hillary Clinton".  Suggest we snow close this as a move to Hillary. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a procedural matter, we can't do that because Hillary is occupied, and no one has proposed what to do with the existing occupant of that title. bd2412  T 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you read irony if I didn't fear you might cause a thermonuclear explosion by doing so. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your desire to prevent a thermonuclear explosion, iron is not fissile. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Things just got a little geeky up in here. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Random note for the interested Hillary Clinton has 3782 pages that link and Hillary Rodham Clinton has 4259 pages that link as of 5/8/15 BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of those, 2,239 links to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" are in article space, including several hundred links that are merely transclusions from templates; and 2,308 links to "Hillary Clinton" are in article space. bd2412  T 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

By the facts
WP:WIKINOTVOTE - we don't making decisions by counting votes on WP. We do look at facts.

For many similar title disputes the defenders of the status quo would hang on for years, at each turn with enough numbers to reasonably claim a lack of consensus. And in each case the title would remain controversial, until it was finally moved. Then we confirmed in each case that the proposed title truly did have consensus support, because the controversy was finally resolved by the fact that before the move there were compelling policy-based reasons to move; but not after each article was moved to the respective proposed titles. Examples of this include but are not limited to:


 * Chicago, Illinois → Chicago
 * San Francisco, California → San Francisco
 * Seattle, Washington → Seattle
 * Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas
 * Boston, Massachusetts → Boston
 * Napoleon I → Napoleon
 * H0 scale → HO scale
 * Yoghurt → Yogurt
 * Public House → Pub
 * Independence Day (film) → Independence Day (1996 film)
 * Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben
 * Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast
 * Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé
 * Victoria of the United Kingdom → Queen Victoria

Of course it may be true that in the case a move to HC will not resolve this controversy, but history suggests it will. And we can always revisit in the unlikely event it doesn't. But if we leave it at HRC a revisit (and revisit and revisit...) is guaranteed. --В²C ☎ 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "There was no consensus to move, but move it anyway and I think people might not care then." That might work for yogurt, but not for the biography of a living person who maintains her maiden name as part of her identity (and is frequently and commonly referred to using that identity).  Oh, and that same person could potentially be the President-elect of the United States next year.  Justen (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the worst reason, ever, to move a BLP -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Title rules are no different for BLPs than any other title. We move based on consensus, which is supposed to be based on usage in reliable sources, not at all on subject's own personal preference. Not even for a LP. --В²C ☎
 * Exactly. We don't move based on: "Fuck it. Since there are more people supporting the move, let's just move it and maybe those opposed to the move will give up when they figure out it'll never get moved back." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "It's not a vote" has been my premise the entire time; if it was a vote, this would have been moved ages ago. Harping on NOTAVOTE harms your cause, b2c, it doesn't help it at all.  The admission that you will be tendentious and disruptive revisit (and revisit and revisit... until you get your way is certainly grounds for a topic ban, though. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc, do you have to belittle everyone who has a different viewpoint to yours in such a petty way? Your behaviour has been disgraceful throughout. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your bias is showing, Luke, as you aren't looking at it objectively. We have an individual here who threatens to file move request after move request because he does not like the result.  THAT is belittling and condescending of the entire project. Tarc (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not answered the question "" I agree with   "Your behaviour has been disgraceful throughout."  You are quite entitled to raise your points but, as far as I have seen, you have been a major contributor to the unpleasantness on this page.  Please, think about this.  Wikipedia honestly does not need it.  GregKaye 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if other editors try to make a WP:POINT, Luke is saying to maintain WP:Civility. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being disingenuous or are not as bright as I assumed you were, . I'm not threatening anything. I'm predicting that others will file move request after move request because the policy-based reasons for moving are so blatant here. It's as predictable as snow in Alaska. When I made a similar prediction at Yoghurt, there too I was accused of threatening personally to carry the torch. Totally missing the point. Perhaps intentionally? Once this article is moved (and it is only a matter of time - not a threat; a prediction), I'm sure I'll be using this case as an example in some similar case, and predicting lack of conflict resolution until the title changed, and there too I will be accused of threatening "to file move request after move request" allegedly because I "do not like the result". The only result I like is stability and resolved conflicts. See my user page and FAQ. I'm quite open about this. --В²C ☎ 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In your opinion there is a policy-based reason to move it; many feel equally about the opposite side of the coin, that policy supports staying put. Hence the lack of consensus thus far, and if history holds, the lack of consensus following this discussion.  You think you're right, I think I'm right, but you have no respect at all for the Wikipedia community in these sorts of discussions, you only care about being right.  That's the difference here, is that I wouldn't dream of filing a move review or god forbid another RM back to HRC in a year or two. Tarc (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, apparently we can rule out disingenuousness. I'm not going to file a move review. I'm not going to file any RMs.  I'm predicting (with very high confidence) that there will be a lot of interest to do so, and somebody (not me) eventually will. Now I'm not always right. I thought the Great Compromise on US Cities (all cities except those on the AP list are at city, state) would not last, but it did. And I might be wrong here too. But I doubt it. And you can believe what you want, but the plain facts are that nobody opposing this move has pointed to anything in title policy that clearly supports HRC over HC; while most of the move supporters have pointed at a number of policies that they believe clearly support HC over HRC. You can deny that, but you can't dispute it with facts, because there are no facts that contradict what I just said. It's not a matter of opinion. And that's why this will not get resolved until the article is at HC. If you can't see that, don't blame the messenger. --В²C ☎ 23:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. History repeats itself.

In that case the article was not moved for another two years, but it has been stable for the four years since. What will it be this time? Will the panel have the wisdom to see consensus through the fog? Or we'll have to go through all this again in 6 months or a year or two? Remember, measly Yoghurt went through 8 rounds in as many years. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, you're crossing the line here in attacking the intelligence of other editors. Omnedon (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think I was serious about that maybe your intelligence really deserves questioning. < Is that REALLY necessary?  --В²C ☎ 01:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C, when you say things, one presumes you are serious. Do not attack the intelligence of other editors. Full stop. Omnedon (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These walls of text are giant exercises in false dichotomy; just because an editor's opinion was affirmed in one discussion does not grant that editor some form of wiki-papal infallibility when it comes to other discussions. It is mind-boggling how someone can argue that an article title isn't "stable" until he "wins" the discussion, that if it doesn't go his way the title is considered "unstable" due to the fact that he or a cohort will just nominate it again.  It's like saying "I'll stop hitting you if you agree to stay on the ground". Tarc (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't know why you're making this so personal. It has nothing to do with me, or with me winning. These are observations. There is a certain type of situation that this article fits perfectly: the title is controversial because a proposed title is believed by a majority of participants to be favored by title policy better than the current title. Basically, the situation only appears about even if you given the current title some weight for being the current title. Without that the scales clearly favor the proposed title. This is not opinion. Look at the arguments. Much of the opposition concedes the current title is not favored by policy, but add that the proposed title is not sufficiently favored to warrant a change. But that argument ignores the cost of the controversy itself, which would be almost certainly eliminated with a title change. In this case the controversy would be eliminated because nobody believes title policy clearly favors HRC over HC. They  might clearly prefer HRC over HC, and genuinely believe it's a "better" title because the subject prefers it (or whatever), but these reasons to favor HRC over HC are simply not policy based. There is just no way around that fact. Opposers have had plenty of time to present policy based reasons to favor HRC over HC, but failed to do so. There can be only one reason for this: there are no such reasons. Therefore, if this article is moved to HC, the controversy will be resolved, instantly, and probably forever. Mark my words. --В²C ☎ 01:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is only "controversial" in the same way diacritics are controversial, or dashes vs. hyphens are controversial; these weird formatting/MoS wars that furious wiki-gnomes stake their lives upon changing and winning. Many, many opposers have given policy-based reasons why HRC is the more acceptable title, and I am quite confident that our closing 3-person panel will read them, even if you refrain from doing so.  Finally, the controversy could also be resolved, instantly and forever, if you just dropped the WP:STICK and moved on. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc, You say that ""It's not a vote" has been my premise the entire time" and yet you initiated the entire and, arguably, pointless thread titled By the numbers. I am not the only one here that thinks that you argue just because you can.  GregKaye 04:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Then you quite spectacularly failed to understand whet was being said. The purpose of showing the numbers of the last RM and this RM wad to demonstrate how the support had dropped over time, that there is less clear consensus on the matter now than before. If the purpose of these discussions is to take a measure of the community consensus,  then the supporters have likely failed,  but ar wont know for sure until the panel fives into the actual text. The numbers are a guide, not a rulestick. Tarc (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc *sigh*, and you have completely missed the point that ".., support has nearly doubled. It's just that oppose has grown more". There are also a number of possible explanations for this.  We are in a time of election when we might, arguably, expect more Clinton supporters to visit the page.  Strangely, on a visit to see the 5000 most accessed pages at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages we find "Bill Clinton" ranked at 430 and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" ranked at 609.  I would speculate that a possible contributory factor to  this is that we have got the wrong name.  Search on clinton and you will (I did) not find the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article in the first 20 search pages and I think that this is very likely to be a Wikipedia deficiency that perhaps we can look into.  Search on hillary clinton and, unusually for a Wikipedia article, the subject's article does not appear above news results and does not even come first place in the listing.  This is not good for the democratic nomination.  However the article, due to the political climate may be getting more traffic than last year and, another difference, is that, on this occasion, the article displays a banner giving notice of the name change debate.  I would speculate that people interested in Hillary might go straight for the news while those also interested in the Hillary campaign, persona etc. would progress to the article.
 * I am honestly a well intentioned editor that just wants us to get things right. I have not spectacularly failed at anything.  GregKaye 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The close is imminent, we're well past the point where Walls o' Text are of value (i.e. I have no interest in reading any of that). If no consensus was found the last time around, then that should be the finding this time around too as support for the rename has dropped markedly since then.  It's not complicated. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc I was trying to talk with you. Please consider that not every edit on Wikipedia is made for the sake of argument.  GregKaye 17:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Survey was closed on May 7. Can this page be full-protected while the panel deliberates?
Can this page please be full-protected while the panel deliberates? People are adding posts to the survey area, and arguing ad nauseum in the discussion area, and in general its distracting and annoying and the page should be full-protected IMO. How can we expect the panel to make an analysis and decision when squabbling is still ongoing? Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they deliberating it? And yes, I agree it should be protected. Nothing new is being discussed at this point. Calidum T&#124;C 01:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was closed when I made my original comment. I didn't intend for it to come across as sarcastic as it did. Calidum T&#124;C 03:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the merits of the requested move, I disagree with both these editors. However, I agree that full page protection of this sub-talkpage would best serve the community here. This discussion is over and is being closed. Nobody's interest is being served by folks beating this dead horse further while closers are doing their job. BusterD (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have requested temporary full protection pending the final decision by the closure team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it by seconds. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:RFPP has refused to full-protect the page (even though as of now there have been 64 new comments added to both the Discussion and the Survey in the 17 hours since the Survey was closed with a purple box) -- on the grounds that Mdann52 couldn't edit it if they did . or, could you please full protect this page until you post your result? That way watchers (and you) do not have to be distracted by endlessly repetitive squabbling before your conclusions are posted. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded, as per the world will keep spinning. GregKaye 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Softlavender also thank you for raising of the issue of edits to the closed discussion. As far as I have seen edits have primarily been made to the section proposing a  and are consist of various editors confirmations of support.  I would suggest that a preceding caption could be added to these edits so as to indicate that they were added following the close of the discussion.  I do not consider these edits to be continuation of discussion but as confirmations of previously stated positions.  These edits are presented as follows, , , , , ,  and an "adding attribution to closer" edit , by editors: Bkonrad, Creator Xavier, Muboshgu, Milowent, Rockypedia, Ivanvector, and Rich Farmbrough


 * An edit that I think might be removed as per WP:POINT and WP:SOAP is this by EricCable.


 * I would be quite happy to leave it to panel members such as to decide what to do with these edits, whether to leave it, to add a heading or to take stronger action such as collapsing or removing content.  However, I do not personally see anything overtly disruptive in these arguably orderly additions.  GregKaye 05:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact I couldn't edit the page directly isn't as immediate an issue as it seems - as I could always get someone to copy it across for me, or transclude from a subpage. The main reason I added the template was to try and slow down discussion at least, to allow me to go through it all and start drawing conclusions. I have yet to hear from the rest of the panel, but they seem to be doing the same. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the panel need only deliberate over rather than protect the page from further edits? Or did I miss something? &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  02:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Normally in such a situation in addition to closing the discussion there is a big official explanation from the panel explaining what's going on (the discussion is closed while the panel studies the discussion and formulates its decision), and the closing starts at the top of the proposal and encompasses all of the extended discussion. That's usually enough to curtail any further substantive discussion about the proposal. That wasn't the case here so discussion has continued, with many, including contributors to this section, not realizing there has even been a sort-of unexplained closing of sorts of some of the discussion. We don't even know that all members of the panel have even engaged. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what is, indeed, happening with the closing panel? One of the three hasn't edited in three or four days — perhaps he is in intensive deliberation?  It would just be useful for the restless masses to know that something is being done, rather than feeling as though such a, err, boisterous discussion might have fallen through the cracks.  Justen (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time we has such a discussion, I believe the closing panel took over a week to provide their determination. Of course, having a panel slows things down considerably, as each panel member must have the opportunity to weigh in on each point under consideration. bd2412  T 01:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit like waiting for a Supreme Court decision. The difference being that normally a SCOTUS ruling is definitive for at least ten years or so. In this case, if it doesn't go a certain way we can be reasonably sure the voting and arguing will resume in a much shorter time frame. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen anything like this situation. One of the panel members closed some of the discussion and made an informal and non-committal comment in the edit summary. Total crickets from him and the rest of the panel since. Yeah, it can take a week. Once they start. --В²C ☎ 20:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "Total crickets". Yes. The silence deafens. - Comments on when we can expect to hear back? NickCT (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How much WP:RM/WP:AT experience do these panelists have? Editors without much RM/AT experience often don't know much about how titles are decided on WP. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This was addressed by the volunteers at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. bd2412  T 21:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So the self-characterizations of RM closing experience are "a lot", no comment, and "not a heap". --В²C ☎ 22:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of them is an arbitrator, one is an arb clerk, one is an experienced non-administrator closer. That's a well-balanced and respectable panel. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like someone is already trying to craft their Move Review. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just say WT:RM is probably a better place to recruit a panel of RM closing specialists. --В²C ☎ 00:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or we could say that it's a rare requested move which has acquired such an esteemed panel of well-qualified, community-trusted and historically neutral closers. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever encountered any of them in any title discussion, not as closers nor as participants. Doesn't mean they're not qualified, but does make me wonder if they have enough experience with title decisions in particular to be qualified. It's not rocket science, but, a controversial RM proposal is quite different from your run-of-the-mill WP dispute.  --В²C ☎ 01:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer endeavor, and that we asked for, and got, volunteers for this panel. We can't force closers to volunteer to close a discussion. Given that the closers of this discussion are going to be criticized no matter how they call it, we should be grateful to have a panel at all. bd2412 T 01:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your questions. I'm reading through the material, but given the contentiousness of the topic ( and some competing priorities) it will take a little while. No view on page protection either way - I'm presently reviewing the discussion from the last diff at closing. Re an earlier comment on Australians having an instinctive bias - have to say the Clinton campaign and what to call Mrs Clinton are not even vaguely topics of conversation down here. So (hopefully) I am approaching this discussion without a cultural bias. I have experience in dispute resolution and some in requested moves, sufficient I think to be on the closing panel here. But obviously other views are welcome on my or anyone else's fitness for the role. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Readers can get to the article by either title, so there's no pressing need for speed in rendering a decision, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that you (plural) have rambled on for 118 pages (according to print preview). It takes a long time to simply read 85,000 words.  Longer still to break those words down into thematic groups and examine the quantity and quality of arguments surrounding each.  If the result were obvious, one might render a verdict quickly, but I don't think this is obvious.  It's amazing that any group of people willingly wants to review all of this.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Is one month pending for the close reasonable?
Callanecc, Euryalus, and Mdann52: Is one month pending for the close reasonable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Boy that is a long time. I guess it's showing the thought and effort it takes on this one. They want to get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you can't reach agreement after reviewing the discussion for a couple of weeks, then the verdict is clearly "no consensus." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's consensus about that. Obviously there is not a clear consensus yet among the closers, but that is a matter distinct from whether there was a consensus (clear or not) among the 150 editors who opined.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that this is a volunteer project. I'm sure they'll wrap it up when they can, there is no hurry, esp as both names will take oe to the same article anyways. This has always been one large boondoggle. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * All three editors have been active in Wikipedia so I am guessing that external circumstances may not be getting in the way as was the case in regard to one of the closers of the previous RM. GregKaye 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary inquiry: must the closers unanimously reach a decision or can they reach a decision with one of them dissenting? SMP0328. (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A good question. Personally I'd feel that if all 3 are in agreement with one another, that will cement the decision more firmly against future RM filings, while 2-1 might open the door to another filing. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, unanimity would be nice, but it would have been nice at this page as well. Frankly, if two of the three perceive consensus for a move, and the article is accordingly moved, then that would pretty much close the door to another filing, because these filings have consistently shown that only a minority have supported the present title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, though, and as support for a move has actually dropped, percentage-wise, since the last RM, so I'd be surprised to see the current RM closed in support of a move. If it does, c'est la vie.  Keep in mind that some in the support-of-a-rename side are extremely fanatic about article titles, and have promised to file and re-file and re-file until they get their way, while no such mindset exists in the keep-as-is camp.  If, IMO against all odds and common sense, the article is moved to Hillary Clinton, I rather doubt there would ever be a filing to move it back. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has promised to "file and re-file and re-file", . I can't speak for others, but what I have said is the same thing I said at Yoghurt/Yogurt: Because there are strong policy-based reasons to move, and there won't be nearly as strong policy-based reasons to move back once it is moved, others (not me) will "file and re-file and re-file".  It's not a promise.  It's a prediction. A pretty obvious one.  --В²C ☎ 20:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec] Just curious, AYW - "if two of the three perceive consensus for against a move, and the article is accordingly not moved, then [would] that would pretty much close the door to another filing"? If not, why not? As for the timing - patience is a virtue they say, and I'm guessing the number of people "confused" by the present (correct) title is minuscule if at all, so there is not and never has been, any rush. Tvoz / talk 20:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A consistent majority would have much more reason to re-file than a consistent minority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Other articles that were proposed to be moved
Thank you closers for the above close.

On the four other articles that were proposed to be moved:


 * (1) Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
 * (2) Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors → Hillary Clinton awards and honors
 * (3) List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
 * (4) Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Political positions of Hillary Clinton

I support (1), (2) and (4) per consistency with the main article. I oppose (3) as the books by all include "Rodham" and the majority of books about include "Rodham" if they use her name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would move them all. The "Books" title should not hinge on what name is used in the books, but on what is most convenient to search for. As it stands, it is the longest of all the titles relating to this subject. bd2412  T 14:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur 100% with User:SmokeyJoe. For the record, I've begun an RFC at Talk:Hillary Clinton intended to measure consensus on a move moratorium until after the election. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with . Let's just move the uncontroversial three and put #3 to an RM. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We deliberately didn't include these in the closure as we felt they weren't discussed enough for us to judge a consensus on this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood and appreciated. I'm just saying per this discussion, and WP:COMMON sense since the "base" article has changed, consensus supports moving 1, 2 and 4. --В²C ☎ 20:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To verify there is no controversy about moving 1, 2 and 4, I've asked on each of the corresponding talk pages whether there is any objection to moving. There's no hurry. After a few days with no objections they can be just moved as uncontroversial. If there are objections, we can start RMs. Hopefully unnecessary. I'll start an RM for 3 if nobody else has (haven't checked). --В²C ☎ 20:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --В²C ☎ 20:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think moving (1), (2), and (4) now is pretty uncontroversial, given that the main article is now there. (3) is a harder case, since she does write books under HRC. A full RfC discussion on proposal (3) is probably warranted. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The others seem fine now, but the books page really should stay as is - she authored all of her books under the name Hillary Rodham Clinton. Please do not direct the Rfc discussion here, this page is topheavy and takes a long time to load even with a good laptop. Randy Kryn 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kudos
That was a impressive close! So was the extensive Notes section. This is exemplary of how it should be done, in complex, controversial, high-profile cases. Bravo! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)