Talk:Hillary Clinton/April 2015 move request/Archive

Structural comments
Comments regarding the structure of this move request can be added here. This section will then be collapsed once the move request is formally initiated, so that editors can focus on the merits of the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to preemptively mention that this is not "gaming the system" but simply looking for a new consensus. Unfortunately, even mentioning that in the nomination gets us into ugly discussion about wiki-minutia that should probably just be avoided. I am a little disheartened to see "don't move pages" used as a defense instead of a reasonable argument against the move (personal preference, it actually being common name, almost anything actually relating to the affirmative defense of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a name).


 * I would also strongly oppose trying to get a triumvirate of arbitrators to close (esp. in advance!) or setting a deadline. I proposed Republic of Kosovo -> Kosovo and it closed just fine with a normal administrator; the emotions involved in this move request should be child's play compared to that. Without any intent to disparage any previous group of admins, I have personally never seen a triumvirate actually work half as well as a single administrator, either a BDD type who typically participates in move discussions and can read consensus easily, or an expert administrator who's uninvolved with move requests who we recruit over at the administrator's noticeboard. Red Slash 19:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey bd2412   - I've taken a first glance at this. I'm curious whether it might be worth referencing previous discussions on this issue? I think just jumping into the question without at least giving a nod to some of the previous discussion might be viewed dubiously by some. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I actually made some mention of that in my Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale page when I started assembling that in 2013, although I did not make an in-depth analysis of them. There have been nine or ten depending how you count, but the first few do not appear to have been conducted through the WP:RM process, and several of the later efforts have been speedy-closed without going through a full discussion process. Consequently, there have been a much smaller number of discussions that have been fully developed, and the last close was controversial to say the least. bd2412  T 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. That seems reasonable. BTW, have you looked at the move log for HRC. I think HR has been the more stable name. Worth mentioning? NickCT (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More stable than what? It has been moved to other titles that were purely vandalism, but I know of no determination that was initially made as to what its title should be. bd2412  T 23:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming she announces her run for president in the next couple days, we should lead with anything official from her campaign that shows a preference of HC over HRC. That should be enough to dispel the myth she prefers to use her maiden name. From there, we need to back it up with examples of HC being the common name, preferably over a lengthy amount of time. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the last discussion there was some objection asserting that "high level sources" use Rodham. I think that we need to get statistics from sites like SSRN and JSTOR, which archive peer-reviewed academic papers (the highest-level source available) to determine if this is an accurate assertion. bd2412  T 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Without re-reading that discussion, I believe the high level sources referenced meant favoring use in newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. instead of other news sources like Fox News or CNN. And speaking of the last move request, we should conclude the nomination by linking to previous discussions and noting they have been closed as "no consensus" and a majority of users have actually supported the move. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to the sources, the close of the last RM stated that "scholarly secondary works are preferred", and I would like to show that those works have also tended to use "Hillary Clinton". With respect to previous discussions, I have written a sentence about that - please feel free to adjust as needed. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some basic information from washingtonpost.com and independent.co.uk as the WP (lol) was mentioned on the talk page and the independent was the first UK source I came to - and have also added references to official websites, twitter, facebook page and a facebook campaign page which I think is official but this may best be checked.  GregKaye 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Highest-level sources are reliable, reputable secondary source sources. For a biography, quality biographies should count very highly.  Hillary_Rodham_Clinton is already the list of most important sources actually judged relevant to the article.  List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton is another collection of the most important sources on how to introduce the subject at the top level.
 * The problem with newspapers and this person is that newspapers run ongoing conversations, and this person does not need constant re-introduction. Scholarly journal articles on Clinton don't sound mainstream.  Can you please provide some examples?  Raw data results make very poor evidence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a single biography of this person that does not refer to her at multiple points as "Hillary Clinton". Of course, I also have yet to see a quality biography of her husband that does not refer to him at some point as William Jefferson Clinton, nor an authoritative biography of the current president that does not refer to him at some point at Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., so that would debunk the notion that biographies are authoritative as determiners of a common name. With respect to peer-reviewed academic publications, SSRN and JSTOR return, for example titles like:
 * Ann McGinley, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law (June 2009)
 * Rachelle Janice Suissa, The Impact of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin on Female Voting Behavior in the 2008 Presidential Election: A Comparative Perspective, American Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper (2010)
 * Shawn J. Parry-Giles, Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics (February 2014, University of Illinois Press)
 * However, if we go down the path of "how many sources can you point to" we end up facing the Wyoming/Virginia problem, where you can prove that Wyoming has as many people as Virginia if, for every person I name from Virginia, you can name one from Wyoming, until we run out of time after each naming a few thousand people. If we disqualify raw data results like census numbers, then you could convince a neutral arbitrator that you have thereby proved that Wyoming and Virginia have an equal population. This would also deviate from one of our most standard practices in RM discussions - citing Google results and other search engine returns to demonstrate the relative commonality of use for a particular name. There is no reason to suspect the particular search engine results provided, or the trending proportionate increase that they reflect over the past year, in the use of "Hillary Clinton" as the default identifier for this subject. bd2412  T 00:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks bd2412 .  "refer to her" does not correspond with titling.  "Introduces" corresponds to titling.  Her husband?  "refer to" tests call up individual mentions buried in the text.  Have you read "First in His Class: A Biography Of Bill Clinton"?  How does it name by way of introduction the subject?  "refer to" ... "at some point" will pick up everything that anybody has ever called the subject, including silly and funny titles.  It is the point of a biography to collect these things.


 * Are these peer reviewed academic publications in the article reference list or bibliography? Or worthy to be?  (we don't want anyone messing with references just to game a RM debate).


 * How many "can you point to" is not a game that does anybody credit. The most important ones are the most important.


 * Raw data should only be used if referred to by secondary sources. WP:NOR is an important policy.
 * The citing of google hits, long discredited at AfD, is a sign of the backwardness of RM. Similarly ngram data, especially when done clumsily, or with large smoothing factors can help or hurt the discussion.  Ngram data doesn't discriminate between introductions and incidental mentions, or between quality books and junk.


 * The data trends will reflect web-free sources most strongly. This article is about a 67-year-old woman from an historical context, and is not a news service for a candidate.


 * Thanks for the example peer-reviewed academic publications. Could these be added to List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the first two are either journal articles or conference papers (which are typically published in a journal of the conference). Hillary Clinton in the News has been published as a book, available on Amazon.com. There are, incidentally, a number of biographies that spell out "William Jefferson Clinton" in the title. Also, with respect to search engines, there is a degree to which the value of Google results can be questioned, but I think that it is significant that the same predominance is seen across search engines with materials of different quality - not just Google, but Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News (each of which limit their results to media with a certain degree of vetting beyond just being on the Internet), and search results for SSRN, JSTOR, and even internal searches for stories on Fox News, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. Of course, even naming entire venues can lead to the presentation of numbers from countless media outlets, again raising the Wyoming/Virginia problem. I should probably call that the Wyoming/California problem, but I live in Virginia and am partial to it. bd2412  T 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You mostly make sense, but seem to go a bit loopy on this Wyoming/Virginia problem. Non-primary sources, including Wyoming and Virginia, report for example populations of 62,448 and 8.3 million.  It is well within allowable WP:SYNTH to infer that Virginia has the larger population.  Your point in attempting to describe an appeal to ridicule through a clumsy attempt at proof by mathematical induction is not clear.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are comparable claims that could be made that don't involve populations. Heck, I could claim that "William Jefferson Clinton" is used as frequently as "Bill Clinton", and if we were merely to trade sources back and forth one at a time, I could find enough sources (including high-level sources) that use "William Jefferson Clinton" to insure that we could spend the seven days allotted for an RM stacking up an exactly equal number of thousands of sources each. If you wanted to prove to me that "Bill Clinton" was more commonly used than "William Jefferson Clinton", what evidence would you provide? bd2412  T 04:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is abhorrent. "William Jefferson Clinton" is not comparable. "Jefferson" is a middle name, whereas "Rodham" is part of her family name. Please do not conflate the two. It is very disrespectful. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is over-reaching quite a bit to say that something is "abhorrent" or "disrespectful" when we are talking about the name that the subject has suddenly begun using in the public sphere on a massive scale, a marked change from the situation that last time this matter was discussed. bd2412  T 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No such change occurred. Her main usage is of "Hillary" alone. Marketing jargon is not representative of reality, what a surprise. We can't title the article "Hillary", nor "Hillary Clinton". It is easier to have a shorter slogan, no? Abhorrent. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would take issue with your choice of words. "More commonly used"?  A better question is required.  I suggest: "More commonly used in reputable and authoritative sources to introduce the subject".  I would not use the word "prove".  See Proof (truth).  It is a technical defined word and is not well used loosely like that.


 * In deciding how to title the article, I would say: Start by looking at the sources that support the content.  What name do they use to introduce the subject.  Content editors have already chosen the best, best quality, and best representative sources, in choosing how to source the content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe I think it would be well to remember the content of WP:UCRN: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." Biographies are very simply not produced in very "prevalent" supply.  Public Libraries are in less use year by year and, with bookshops going the same way, people are less likely to see this content on the shelf.  Meanwhile the best, most reliable and reputably published sources of news information are prevalently broadcasting the self designation of "Hillary Clinton" far and wide. In all the coverage that I have heard I have not heard the name "Rodham" once.  The guideline explicitly mentions prevalence in the context of ascertaining a commonly recognised name from, with no special reverence to hierarchy, reliable English-language sources.  Surely this has to focus on the sources that have the actual ability to bring a name into common recognition.  GregKaye 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, that brings the question to the crux for me. Is Wikipedia like a tabloid, going by what is most commonly read, or is Wikipedia like an formal reference work, where the contents are scholarly.  If you have not heard "Rodham" once, then you have not read anything scholarly about her, certainly life whole-life-encompassing, and have not read the bibliography and reference list of the Wikipedia article.  If you have not heard "Rodham", then you have never read a biography on this subject.  If you have never read a biography on her, I suggest that you are not qualified to decide on the best title, or any other part of her biography.  It is true, and interesting, that there is a conflict between how the subject is introduced in the general media, and how the subject is introduced by the majority of the best quality sources.  It could be because the general media doesn't feel the need to re-introduce someone so well known.  She is probably the primary topic for simply "Hillary", but no formal work should use that as the top level title.
 * It is interesting that, as BD2412 points out, even the scholarly sources are trending somewhat to dropping the "Rodham", and the subject herself is using it barely at all recently. I may yet support the move, but the debate should play out properly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's make it a real one to one comparison, then. Suppose I were to assert that the WP:COMMONNAME-titles for Laura Bush and Elizabeth Dole (respectively, the next First Lady, and a woman who was a cabinet secretary, senator, and presidential candidate) are actually Laura Welch Bush and Elizabeth Hanford Dole. Both uses appear in some high-level biographies. Now, that comparison can't be abhorrent or disrespectful, since we are talking about family names in each. What evidence would I need to present to make that case, and if I were to enumerate a dozen or two dozen biographies showing that usage for each, what evidence would you look for to determine that those versions were not in fact the common names of the subjects? How might you compare these subjects to someone who unquestionably is commonly known with their family name, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg? bd2412  T 12:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For you to assert it with confidence, I would expect you to show that *most* high-level biographies, and scholarly works, both independent and non-independent, use that name in the title, or in the first introduction if not in the title. I would expect you to present a list of these sources, and some evidence or rationale for why the sources should be considered good sources.  If you could do this, then I would accept that the names are commonly recognised in quality sources as naming the subject, no other evidence would invalidate that, regardless of the existence of other commonly recognized names.  For Bush and Dole, I think you would fail; for Ginsberg, you would succeed.


 * The name Hillary Clinton is well recognizable in amongst the sources that cover her. However, Hillary Rodham Clinton is more commonly seen in these sources, if you weigh more highly the sources that Wikipedia considered more reliable.  Evidence of Wikipedia-judged reliability of sources is evidence in choices made in the article reference list.


 * A critical difference between HRC and Bush & Dole is that Hillary Rodham (pre-Clinton) was notable. This is why scholarly biographical sources so consistently retain Rodham, whereas sources concerned only with non-complete biographical coverage, and common gossip sources, don't bother.


 * Why do sources not similarly drop Bade from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Day from Sandra Day O'Connor, even though neither Ruth Bader nor Sandra Day were notable? I guess it is because these other women are not subject to the same level of gossip in normally reasonable sources, or from saturation shallow coverage in the media that makes the longer name tedious to repeat week after week.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Joe, the reason is obvious, if speculative. The name "Clinton" has political cachet. Don't forget the common railing against Hillary for her apparent use of Bill to gain "power" during the 90s and early 2000s, riding on his supposed coattails. That type of misogyny is the origin of this mess. In the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor, there is no such concern, as they both reached more "elevated" positions than their husbands. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion, while academically fascinating, is of no immediate purpose to this draft, which is an effort by editors to collect the arguments and evidence favoring a move. You can more appropriately continue this discussion on either of your respective talk pages, or create a draft elsewhere for arguments in opposition to the proposal, or wait until the move request is formally launched and pick up the discussion in the discussion section of that page. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some debate above about whether Rodham is a middle name. It might be helpful to remind readers about this, possibly even in the move request: This means Rodham is both her maiden name (her previous surname when she was a maiden, that is, before she married) and one of her two current middle names. Note that it is traditional, and arguably more common altogether, for women to drop completely their maiden name after marrying. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * She was born Hillary Diane Rodham. Hillary was her first name, Diane her middle name and Rodham her surname. Socially, she would have been called Hillary or Miss Rodham.
 * When she married, she changed her name to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Hillary remained her first name and Diane remained a middle name. Rodham, her maiden name, became another a middle name, and Clinton became her surname. Socially, she would be called Hillary or Mrs Clinton. If she had chosen to use Rodham as part of her surname, and not a middle name, it would have been Mrs Rodham Clinton instead of Mrs Clinton.
 * My wife did the same, changing her surname to a middle name and adopting my surname. Ironically, I have a middle name and I use it professionally, to distinguish myself from other people in my profession who share my fairly common first name and fairly common last name. bd2412  T 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How interesting. On quite an unrelated note, I always find it fascinating that Americans initialise only their middle names. For example, William J. Clinton should be W. J. Clinton in the United Kingdom. Back to the Clinton at matter, though... 31.54.156.31 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe I hope, while we admittedly we have large contents on celebrity tittle tattle and such topics as professional wrestling, that no one here thinks that Wikipedia is like a tabloid. I hope we present an encyclopaedia inside and out.  That intends to present encyclopaedic verifiable contents that we draw from relatively reliable sources.  To clarify, I have certainly read about various contents that have referenced "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and taken plenty of interest in various documentaries.  At least in recent times, "In all the coverage that I have heard I have not heard the name "Rodham" once."
 * I had added text to the RM, which I have withdrawn, to say: "WP:UCRN clearly states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". In this text, the only issue presented is that a commonly recognisable name should be used and no preference is expressed in regard to any perceived hierarchy of sources. The prevalence of news output within the media must be taken into significant account in any estimation of WP:Recognizability."  Personally I think that this is a valid position but I think you make a fair point on regarding an importance of topic specific sources beyond, say, the Washington Post.  However I do not think that a presentation so as to say that biographies are the only credible source is relevant.  Broadsheet sources are not tabloids.
 * Personally I think that a valid argument for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be made on ethics. Although "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her name, this is not what she presents and is, I'm sure many would agree, likely to be due to very negative reception from some quarters in the U.S.
 * I have also added content on Naturalness which, thinking about it, may also be over done. The names Hillary and Clinton both appear in "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but I'm sure this point will be made.  GregKaye 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe I think that your argument relates to historically significant name and may have reasonable justification and, in absence of actual policy, may have justification on an IAR basis. In the meantime WP:UCRN has its own specific parameters.  GregKaye 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to naturalness, if you try having a ten-minute conversation with any person about this subject, and refer to her only as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for the duration of that discussion, it will quickly become clear that "Hillary Clinton" is more natural (contra "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"). bd2412  T 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Change 1
Can we change -


 * There have been a number of previous proposals to move this page as proposed ........ has continued to grow over time.

To


 * Title Stability - Dating back as far as 2007 there have been repeated efforts ending in "no consensus" to move this page as proposed ....... has continued to grow over time. The strong community preference should be acknowledged, so that this important article is less likely to be subjected to extended Requested Move discussions in future.

Main rationale is just to maintain formatting with the rest of the of the requested move, and to offer a little more information. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Change 2
Can we remove the tag next to http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ ? I understand why we're doing it, but it strikes me as perhaps a little obnoxious. NickCT (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we switch it for a around the part that is de-emphasized on the website.  bd2412  T 16:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'd probably just remove all the big/small tags all together. But this is really only a minor formatting suggestion. Don't feel strongly either way.... NickCT (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made those changes. I was just aware that editors on the article talk page had made selective reference to the small print text and wondered if this might be a way to secure content.  GregKaye 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of change for discussion
Shortly after the original drafting of this page and before, I believe, any proposal type content was added to this page, I removed the following content:


 * Conciseness/Preciseness: "Hillary Clinton" immediately and precisely identifies the subject.
 * Consistency: Presentation of only a first name and last name, even where a middle or maiden name exists, is more common with human names generally, and with informality of names of well-known figures like Bill Clinton.

I personally think that the most pertinent word here is identifies but know that editors have various interpretations on the application of guidelines. Consistency with use of a two section presentation of name seems to be, if anything, a reinforcement of UCRN. I'm dubious as to whether name should be chosen in connection to specific people like "William Jefferson .." or "Chelsea Victoria..". GregKaye 08:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think that these should remain in the proposal, even if the wording is tweaked, perhaps to remove the specific examples. Different editors may give different weight to elements of WP:AT, but we have indicated in the lede that editors who support the move but particularly disagree with the applicability of one element can state their disagreement with that element. With respect to WP:CONCISE, there are cases where it is arguable that an additional word is helpful in identifying an ambiguous subject, but there is no utility in "Rodham" for that purpose. It is comparable to the "and Providence Plantations" sometimes appended to Rhode Island; technically correct but not helpful in informing the reader that "Rhode Island" is the topic. As for consistency, I did a lengthy examination of this in my previous draft. Something like 90% of human names in Wikipedia present only the given name and surname of the subject (with or without a parenthetical). This is even more so for living married women in the United States. A more direct comparison might be Elizabeth Dole (not "Elizabeth Hanford Dole") and Laura Bush (not "Laura Welch Bush"), even though the longer forms can often be found in high-level biographies. bd2412  T 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly see no problem with the Bush and Dole examples or similar.
 * I wouldn't mind saying something like "Conciseness may be applied in cases where no clear argument for commonly recognizable name exists". For some editors I think there can be advantage that concise may not apply to cases such as James Clerk Maxwell and the like.  However, by this point, I don't really have any great objection here.  GregKaye 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that conciseness does not apply to James Clerk Maxwell, but that preciseness, naturalness, and recognizability do apply. "James Maxwell" is not precise because James Maxwell is the name of many people, so that title alone would not identify which James Maxwell we are talking about. We could have something like "James Maxwell (physicist)", but there's no need to do that when his middle name is recognizable. bd2412  T 22:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change 3
Suggest removal of the headings "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" so as to leave a single flow or survey response.

Many RMs incorporate survey and discussion into one. GregKaye 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would definitely strongly oppose this. I have closed hundreds of RMs and other discussions, and there is nothing more aggravating for an admin than a lengthy discussion where everything is jumbled together, and must be separated out just to determined how many people were on either side of the issue (much less what their relative arguments were). bd2412  T 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, compare the Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request with the follow-up Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request. If you were an admin trying to determine how much support each side had, which structure would make it easier for you to make that determination? This discussion could be as long or longer than that. Also, this structure makes it easier to weed out things like duplicate votes and people writing "support" when they mean "support not moving the page", and vice versa. bd2412  T 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. One thing I don't understand though is why discussion is placed after survey.  Perhaps the discussion can follow the proposal.  GregKaye 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason the survey comes before the discussion is that, for contentious issues, the discussion can sprout all sorts of lengthy tangential arguments that barely relate to the question at issue. Again, Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request is instructive. There is an orderly process, but if you look at the discussion, there are about a dozen different hatted diversions where people have raised issues about the mechanics of a potential close, about whether issues are relevant to the discussion, etc. During the discussion, those were generally not hatted, so the page was much longer. In an ideal world, the discussion would be a straightforward examination of policies and evidence, but it never turns out that way. By putting the survey first, we clear the air about what editors prefer with a thumbnail explanation of their reasoning, and then give those who wish to vent or argue at length (usually a small subset of the whole) the ability to do that without pushing the survey too far down the page. bd2412  T 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change 4
suggest adding text:


 * Naming conventions (people) presents as guideline: "The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known."

However, the mention of this content raised objection at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton "The section you quote is on patronymic-metronymic culture - that has nothing to do with the present situation - which is the biography of a woman not in patronymic-metronymic culture. Moreover, that "best known" links to AT - just goes back to the same need to review the hierarchy of sources for encyclopedic biography. Systemic bias as used in the last move close was about bias against women - not patromymic-metronymic culture."

I answered this at length in an edit at: 17:50, 18 April 2015 but an wondering whether any further content need be added by way of clarification.

GregKaye 08:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparative test
Since the utility of Google and Google news hits has been questioned, I performed a test wherein I compared Google results for another notable woman widely known by both her maiden and married name, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" gets 528,000 Google hits, while "Ruth Ginsburg gets 35,900 Google hits, and "Ruth Ginsburg" -Bader get's 26,100 Google hits. In additio n, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" gets 17,900 Google News hits, while "Ruth Ginsburg" gets 493 Google News hits, and "Ruth Ginsburg" -Bader 310 Google News hits. Based on these results, I am quite satisfied that Google accurately reflects the real-world common name proportion in both general sources and news sources. bd2412 T 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pity that more people don't subscribe to the lessons of Search_engine_test. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A search engine test is not a reliable source. Showing that a search engine test usually agrees with reliable sources does not make the search engines reliable sources. --|SmokeyJoe (talk)
 * Absent some reason to believe that the algorithm has a pretty serious flaw, a search engine test that shows one result being eight to ten times as common as another is hard to write off. A consistent trend of one name being several times more common in all major search engines with multiple kinds of databases (internet, books, news, even videos), is probably reliable to something like a 99.99999% confidence level. bd2412  T 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are basing your arguments on this, and are assuming that the results/algorithm are not flawed, you're looking with biased eyes. It's obvious, and amusing at the same time(99.99999% confidence level). Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion to draft arguments in favor of a possible proposed move. If you have information to add to that, please do; if not please find a more appropriate venue to comment. You are certainly free to create a draft page for counterarguments, but that is obviously not the purpose of this page. bd2412  T 02:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not your page, and I will comment where and when I like. Do not try to intimidate me. If you don't like that, please find another project to participate in. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to insist on being off-topic, then I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of continuing to interact with you. If you happen to have the search engine algorithms for all of the major search engines, and can point out some coding flaw that would cause them to show the results and trends discussed here, then you might have something relevant to add to the conversation. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - It's obvious huh? So obvious I guess that you're the only one who seems to be able to see it. Pray tell, how is this logic "obviously" flawed? NickCT (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will give that reasoning when the RM is proposed. I will say that it's obvious to one who has not already had their mind made up, just by looking at the results, not just numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'll just have look forward to hearing what I'm sure will be a stunningly logical and cogent argument. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Times of India
The Times of India is the most widely circulated English-language newspaper in the world. A search of articles from the archives of The Times of India returns dozens of articles that mention "Hillary Clinton" (including many that focus entirely on her), but only four articles that mention "Rodham". bd2412 T 21:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)