Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 19

Requested move 7
'''Note: In order to avoid any appearance of undue influence on the closing admin, a neutral and uninvolved three-administrator panel has been requested to close this discussion at the appropriate time. User:TParis, User:Adjwilley, and User:BrownHairedGirl have volunteered to serve on this panel. bd2412  T''' 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – I know this has been discussed before, but she has been radically de-Rodhamizng to the point were it rarely even brings up one interest point. 12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been researching this issue for several months, and have posted my findings with respect to a move rationale at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

31 March 2014

 * I opposed this back in 2007 but usage seems to have shifted since then. However, according to this New York Times article, Clinton still wasn't legally her name as of 1993.  Is it now?  —  AjaxSmack   02:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:COMMONNAME, her legal name doesn't matter. --12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done some research on this and found that in 2008, her name appeared on the primary ballot of every state in the U.S. to have a primary ballot as "Hillary Clinton"; state requirements vary, but generally prohibit candidates from using an alias or assumed name. bd2412  T 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * She's trying to coast into office on Bill's name unsigned comment by 69.140.53.10 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 04:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words... --B2C 01:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you want to say that, that's fine, but WP:CONCISE, if it means anything at all, means we go with "Hillary Clinton". Red Slash 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of disambiguation or conciseness - it's a question of "what is her name?" We don't title William Howard Taft's article as "William Taft", even though it's more concise; we use the name he used and was known by. We do not drop the initial "B." from the article Lyndon B. Johnson in the name of conciseness; the "B." is not a disambiguator, but an essential part of the name he chose to use. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - given the numbers of previous move this should be numbered "RM 8" for clarity. But support, it's evident that the middle/maiden name is less used in US sources than plain Hillary, and not used at all outside US. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The best, most reliable and reputably published biographies introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  We should be guided by our best sources.  They probably like to stick with including the "Rodham" because "Hillary Rodham" was a significant notable person, pre-clinton. The nom appeals to recentism. Recentism should be avoided. If she runs for 2016, there will be all sorts of excitement, but a reference work should remain steady. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, yours is a name I usually see and agree with on RMs/RfC etc, but in this case I'm wondering if "introduce" is relevant to titles. We too "introduce" with WP:FULLNAME in lede, as per normal, but in a title the way books "introduce" vs text body mentions doesn't apply. As for recentism, it may be true in US newsprint, but I don't think that applies outside US where Hillary Clinton has almost never been Rodham in Australian, UK or Indian sources In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, with regards to recentism, I think the solution is to look at the sources currently, explicitly, used to supply the core content in the article. I don't see the nationality of sources as being obviously relevant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Introduce" is relevant to titles because the title is not just url text, it is the big text that occurs at the top of the page (whether a screen, or a printed page, or equivalent audio version). On an exported PDF, the title is very large and often far separated from the lede by the infobox.


 * But more important is that the title should reflect how the subject is introduced in quality sources. Introduce, as in first mentions, and not repeated mention of the subject in the same document.  Repeated mentions will be shortened.  The title is is not a repeated mention.  To follow reliable source usage, you should look to biography title, which exist multiply in this case, or first mentions/introduction in other sorts of publications.


 * WP:COMMONNAME is the shortcut pointing to the policy section "Use commonly recognizable names", which is explained as meaning "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". Now, when referring to "reliable English-language sources", it follows that when they are multiple and varied, the more reliable, and the more reputable, should be weighed more highly.  In this article, the current most relaible and reputable sources for Wikipedia purposes are the hard cover printed, independently (of the subject) published biographies.  These favour "Hillary Rodham Clinton".


 * An important consideration is that Hillary Rodham was a notable subject pre-clinton.


 * What is the advantage of the shorter title, one that produces extra white space in the title line, that has no line-feed consequence on the standard output screen/page? I think none.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ballot papers are not suitable sources to use. The sources that should be used are independent biographies, and the independent biographies prefer HRC.
 * I have little affection for the subject, and no sense that one title is better for or preferred by (going forward) the subject. My concern is a trend by Wikipedians to look at bad sources for sourcing, ghits, ballots, etc, and away from good sources, academic style independent published biographies. Wikipedia should follow its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Won't any 'reliable source' reporting on the ballot itself use the name appearing on the ballot? Wouldn't a source reporting on the campaign announcement or the campaign ads where she so announces herself of necessity do the same? DeistCosmos (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We should ignore ballots and other primary sources in favour of reliable secondary sources. Independent reliable secondary sources may very well reflect particular primary sources, but even if so this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should stop being a tertiary source.  Do the authoritative, extensive biographies mention ballots' names?  If yes, follow the information in these biographies.  If not, then other sources do not indicate that ballots are of any importance, and so Wikipedia should not give them importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep as part of her name. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. There is no significant evidence that she is "de-Rodhamizing" it.  All Department of State documents used the full name, just like Senate documents before that and First Lady documents before that.  And in particular, the placeholder page at Simon & Schuster for her new memoir due out later this year uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a couple of days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. The fact this keeps being brought up here over and over and over and over again suggests to me, with all due respect, that some editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 10:48, March 31, 2014‎
 * So you're saying that NPR, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times are not "serious" media? Because they do not generally always refer to her as Rodham on first mention. Dezastru (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the reasons given every other time, as nothing has changed. I reverted this insipid nonsense yesterday, but disruptive IPs are apparently not easily swayed.  Once this closes as "no move" once again, I will head to the appropriate board and request a ban on future RMs.  6-12 months should do it. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm struggling to see the relevance of some of the arguments of those opposed. Particularly, referring to the "best, most reliable and reputably published biographies", the "serious media" and the "last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while". These arguments seem to contradict WP:COMMONNAME. That is, we don't use just the "best" or most serious sources for a person's name; we use the most common. And when people change their names, we can change our page titles to reflect that (as long as the change is reflected in the sources). -- Irn (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. There is no reason why she should be an exceptional case to have a less familiar article title. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Hillary Clinton is the WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Supported it last time, still support it now. "Rodham" is an unnecessary disambiguator, and she's most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As discussed last time around (and as is still the case now), usage is divided &mdash; there are sources that use the shorter form and sources that prefer the longer, and the latter includes what are arguably among the most significant: White House, US State Department, US Congress, Congressional biography, C-SPAN/C-SPAN Video, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's publishers, VoteSmart, Britannica, etc.
 * I should also note (again) that trying to compare the suitability of longer and shorter forms of a personal name by relying just on frequency stats can be tricky: even when the longer form is clearly preferred by a source, subsequent text may shorten it simply for brevity once the preferred name is established. (And with someone in the news there's also headlinese to consider.)
 * I'm afraid I see no new rationales advanced here that haven't already been considered in the previous unsuccessful move requests, and question the benefit of once again rehashing what's starting to look like a perennial proposal. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for the following reasons, which have not been presented or discussed previously:
 * First, per the subject's name appearing as "Hillary Clinton" on all United States Democratic Presidential Primary ballots in 2008, as demonstrated in the links and images below:
 * 2008 Alabama primary ballot
 * 2008 California primary ballot; another California primary ballot (in English and Chinese)
 * 2008 Delaware primary ballot
 * 2008 District of Columbia primary ballot
 * 2008 Florida primary ballot
 * 2008 Georgia primary ballot
 * 2008 Idaho primary ballot (cached version)
 * 2008 Indiana Democratic primary voting machine display
 * 2008 Illinois primary ballot;
 * 2008 Louisiana primary ballot
 * 2008 Massachusetts primary ballot
 * 2008 Michigan primary ballot
 * 2008 Missouri primary ballot
 * 2008 Montana Democratic primary ballot
 * 2008 Nebraska primary ballot
 * 2008 New Hampshire primary ballot
 * 2008 New York primary ballot
 * 2008 North Carolina primary ballot; another North Carolina primary ballot
 * 2008 Ohio primary ballot; another Ohio primary ballot
 * 2008 Oklahoma primary ballot
 * 2008 Oregon primary ballot; another Oregon primary ballot
 * 2008 Pennsylvania primary ballot
 * 2008 Puerto Rico primary ballot
 * 2008 Tennessee primary ballot
 * 2008 Texas primary ballot
 * 2008 Vermont primary ballot
 * 2008 Virginia primary ballot
 * 2008 Washington primary ballot
 * 2008 West Virginia primary ballot
 * 2008 Wisconsin primary ballot
 * 2008 Democrats Abroad primary ballot
 * Second, per the subject being officially introduced as "Hillary Clinton" in numerous venues, as seen in the following video clips:
 * 1:28 of this video of a voiceover of Gavin Newsom introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2007
 * 0:04 of this video of John Corzine endorsing "Hillary Clinton" in 2007
 * 1:40 of this video of Maya Angelou introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2008
 * 0:35 of this video of Meryl Streep introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2012
 * 2:42 of this video of Henry Kissinger introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2013
 * Also, here is a C-SPAN video clip identifying the Secretary of State as "HILLARY CLINTON".
 * Third, per the candidate's own identification as "Hillary Clinton" in campaign ads for "Hillary Clinton" which end with the subject herself stating, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message":
 * 2007 campaign ad: "Presents"
 * 2008 campaign ad: "3 AM"
 * 2008 campaign ad: "New beginning"
 * 2006 New York Senate campaign ad: "Standing Up For New York" (actually ends with "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm delighted to approve this message").
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 17:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the 2008 campaign, she was self-identifying as just "Hillary" most of the time, no other names necessary, and when not that, as "Hillary Clinton". And in ballot boxes, shorter names are probably considered an advantage.   However in 2006, when she was running for re-election as Senator and campaigning for other Democrats, she self-identified as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in a robocall that I got; I noted this at the time because the issue had already come up here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * bd2412: We've already discussed that usage is divided; simply introducing more specific instances that illustrate that fact is not really a new rationale. As for the specific themselves:
 * Regarding ballots: Yes, she did appear as "Hillary Clinton" in the 2008 Democratic Party primary election (which all of the linked and pictured ballots are from).  However, in her Senate ballots she appeared as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  See, for instance, the ballot for her 2006 Senate run.  Official election reports issued by the New York Board of Elections also refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for 2000 and 2006, as well as in their report for the special election of 2010.  Suffice it to say that she's run as both HC and HRC... and seemingly more often as HRC.
 * Regarding videos: I searched YouTube myself and immediately found many significant contrary results where she is introduced as HRC, such as:
 * 2008 Democratic Convention speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * 2004 Democractic Convention speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * Council on Foreign Relations speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * LGBT Speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * Internet Freedom speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * Special Operations Conference speech &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * Speech at the Armenian Embassy &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * Receiving Award of Merit from Yale &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (18:30)
 * NYU Commencement Address &mdash; introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" twice (0:30, 3:00)
 * Senate Election acceptance speech &mdash; "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
 * In both ballots and videos, clearly usage is divided, with HRC being frequently used. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Per BD2412. Clinton will run for president of the US in 2016 and this article should use the version that she tends to use for politics. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per past arguments. Huw states it well here. Omnedon (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that could persuade you that the page should be moved? bd2412  T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would require speculation. Above you say that you have provided reasons that have not been given before; but to me it seems that you have given another list of occurrences of the shorter name, not new reasons. The longer name is also used, and to my mind (for various reasons given in the past) is the appropriate name for the article. What would convince you of this? Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be convinced that a name is the common name of a subject if it can be shown to be used more broadly throughout reliable sources. Since our policies favor conciseness and consistency, a stronger showing of predominant use would be needed to support a longer version of an unambiguous human name. bd2412  T 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stronger than what? Both names are used, and plenty of examples of usage of the Rodham name have been given in past discussions. I see no evidence that anything has changed since last time. Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment even if rarely referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" nowadays, that doesn't necessarily reflect legal name. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The legal name is not a factor per WP:COMMONNAME. Try James Paul McCartney and George Roger Waters for example. We go by their common name, not their legal one. Also, Ringo Starr's legal name is Richard Starkey, but we use the common name. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:COMMONNAME, though my comment was just towards a previous user mentioning her legal name. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, I have heard of Hillary Clinton, before today I have never heard of this "Rodham." That's not how she is known, and is it just going to cause a lot of people to think they have found the wrong page. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Why is is necessary to have the article at Clinton's full name? We do not have Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or George H. W. Bush at their full names. Additionally, if we had people's articles all at their full names like this one, we'd have problems, such as articles named like Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfe­schlegelstein­hausenberger­dorffvoraltern­waren­gewissenhaft­schaferswessen­schafewaren­wohlgepflege­und­sorgfaltigkeit­beschutzen­von­angreifen­durch­ihrraubgierigfeinde­welyche­voraltern­zwolftausend­jahres­vorandieerscheinen­wander­ersteer­dem­enschderrassumschiff­gebrauchlicht­als­sein­ursprung­von­kraftgestart­sein­lange­fahrt­hinzwischen­sternartigraum­auf­der­suchenach­diestern­welche­gehabt­bewohnbar­planeten­kreise­drehen­sich­und­wohin­der­neurasse­von­verstandigmen­schlichkeit­konnte­fortplanzen­und­sicher­freuen­anlebens­langlich­freude­und­ruhe­mit­nicht­ein­furcht­vor­angreifen­von­anderer­intelligent­geschopfs­von­hinzwischensternartigraumhi, Senior. Epicgenius (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: because many significant, official, reliable sources refer to her that way, including the White House, Congress, State Department, Clinton Foundation, and numerous others (see above). No one's suggesting always using full names for titles; I do suggest it'd be wrong to retitle the article while usage remains split and while so many prominent sources continue to favor HRC.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that searching for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" produces 8,130,000 search results on Google. The search term "Hillary Clinton" produces 160,000,000 results on the same search engine. WP:COMMONNAME, dude.... Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And Obama produces a lot more results than Barack Obama... yet we use Barack Obama. See my comment above about the risks of relying solely on raw counts to compare longer and shorter forms of a personal name, dude... :)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The search term "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham produces 134 million results. BMK (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And Obama -Barack get 2.3 billion. See the problem?  Even recognizing Obama as the primary occupant of the term "Obama" (which he is) we still don't title the article that way.  Put simply: greater numbers for the shorter form in raw usage counts don't by themselves tell you what the preferred form of the name is.  The White House, for instance, uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the title and the lede, but then refers to her as Hillary, Secretary Clinton, or Hillary Clinton in the text.  (And again, for people in the news one must consider things like headlinese.)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? You don't see the difference?  We're trying to decide on "Hillary Rodham Clinton" versus "Hillary Clinton", so the search string "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham gives all instances of "Hillary Clinton" in which "Rodham" doesn't appear.  That's a result which can legitimately by compared to the result for "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  On the other hand, no one is trying to rename Barack Obama to "Obama", so the search string you suggest is not helpful, especially since a search on Obama -Barack will bring up all the rresults on his wife and children, but also every article which uses "President Obama" instead of "Barack Obama" or "President Barack Obama".  So the two examples, yours and mine, are not analogous is any way, since mine will only bring up instances of the specific phrase "Hillary Clinton". You've got to be careful when crafting search strings for comparison purposes. BMK (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. Of course the names aren't the same; rather, the comparison was simply meant to show that instances of a shorter form of a personal name are normally much more frequent that instances of a longer form.
 * For example, even controlling for other people with the same surname, the president is referred to simply as "Obama" much more frequently than as "Barack Obama" in most sources – but we don't title based just on that. This is the case with most people: once the preferred form is established, it's normally shortened in references thereafter.  We see the same with Hillary: the White House, Congress, State Department, and various other significant sources all title and lead with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but then subsequently tend to refer to her as "Secretary Clinton", "Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary", etc.  If you were to just go on raw frequency stats in such sources, HRC might not rank highest &mdash; yet it's nonetheless preferred.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  16:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME - She's more widely known as Hillary Clinton..... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Huw. Though usage is mixed, the sheer number of quality and official sources describing her as HRC should put this debate to bed (again). Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Hillary Rodham Clinton is commonly referred to as such in most reliable sources. Whereas in most cases, such a "Rodham" would be dropped, in hers, it is usually retained. In fact, it may be a WP:BLP violation to excise the "Rodham", as she has purposely chosen to retain and use her maiden name. To drop it, in favour of her married name, perhaps defies the significance of her retaining it, that is, she is not owned by her husband, and that she retains her own name. Because of this, and because reliable sources tend to use the "Rodham", I think it is unacceptable to move the article to Hillary Clinton. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How has she "purposely chosen" to use a name that she purposely left out of tens of millions of primary election ballots in dozens of states? Does this sound like she is retaining and using it? Does this? bd2412  T 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that she hasn't used the "short form", however, she has also legally chosen to retain the "Rodham", and has also used the "Rodham", at least as much as solely the "Clinton". It hardly matters what is on the ballots, as it is quite possible that they dropped the "Rodham" for the sake of space, or for some other considering of which we are not aware. In fact, it is quite possible that the dropping of the "Rodham" from the ballots is some kind of systemic bias towards women who legally choose to retain their maiden names. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have actually looked into the ballot issue quite intensely, and found that every state leaves it up to the candidate how they want their name to be presented on the ballot, so long as they are using some form of their legal name, and that there are quite often names on the ballot (for this or other offices) that are much longer than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This is entirely the candidate's choice, and not one influenced by any consideration other than how the candidate wishes to present herself. bd2412  T 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, looking at your ballot images, I find it hard to believe that Biden variously chose Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Joe Biden, and "Joe" Biden (the ballot's quotes, not mine) to be on the ballots. And Richardson shows similar variations.  I believe what you are saying about your research, and I'm legitimately impressed by all the effort you put into this, but my guess is that in practice, somebody other than the candidate or any high campaign official is deciding on the names.  It might be the flunky who organizes the signature petition drives to get on the ballot in the first place, for example.  And in the case of that New Hampshire ballot with all the quoting of diminutive first names, it's clearly some style sheet on the part of the New Hampshire clerk's office that's prevailing, not the candidates' wishes.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * bd2412: Please note that Hillary has run for office as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as or more frequently than she has as "Hillary Clinton", as for the Senate. The dozens of ballots you cite are all from the same election.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, one of the things that I found most striking about Clinton and Obama was that they were the only candidates whose names appeared uniformly across all ballots on which they appeared. To me, this suggests a stronger hand at the top enforcing this conformity. Whether this is Clinton herself or a campaign director, we can't know, but I find it highly incongruous to think that the subject was somehow steamrolled into using this particular name against her will. I didn't check for all 50 states, but I looked up the election laws of about a dozen, and most specifically require that the actual candidate sign off on their candidacy filings, which include the name as it appears on the ballot. Moreover, the voiceovers for the campaign ads where she says "I'm Hillary Clinton" are her speaking in her own voice, and match the ballot presentation. Whatever else can be said, it is clear that the subject was at the very least allowing a concerted, multi-million dollar "Hillary Clinton" branding effort to go forward. As for her previous campaigns, note that the primary campaign is not one election, it is dozens of small elections across a wide range of different dates. As for the previous elections, do we have a ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race? There's a video of a campaign ad from 2006 where the subject says "I'm Hillary Clinton", so it seems that she was already identifying herself that way at that point. bd2412  T 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have the ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race &mdash; it identifies her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * Frankly it seems that both the HC and HRC forms are used, and that she's hasn't been overly discriminating between them. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, profiles her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2006 was eight years ago - that's a long time in politics (and on the Internet as well). We are not discussing what the article should have been called 8 years ago, we're discussing what it should be called now. BMK (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that both names have been used enhances the importance of other factors - for example, WP:CONCISE, which favors a shorter name between two equally informative possibilities. Here, it could be said that "Rodham" is the "and Providence Plantations" of Hillary Clinton. There is no other Hillary Clinton to confuse this subject with, so it is not needed for purposes of describing which Hillary Clinton is being referred to. Consistency is also an element of WP:TITLE, and as I point out on the subpage, Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form &lt;First name&gt; &lt;Last name&gt;" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). The vast majority of American names are first-and-last-name only, with use of maiden names being very rare. In light of the fact that several participants in this discussion have indicated that they have heard of "Hillary Clinton" but never "Rodham", we would also have to consider WP:SURPRISE for the average person who watches the Kardashians rather than MacNeil-Lehrer (or who lives in a country where the "Rodham" is rarely reported). The chance of a reader arriving at "Hillary Clinton" and being surprised that the topic is at that title, or wondering if they have reached the wrong article, seems to be far lower than the chance of a reader reacting that way to a title with "Rodham" in it. bd2412  T 12:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK & BD2412: And 2008 was six years ago, yet we have some pretty lengthy posts dealing with those primaries above. If others choose to bring up past election ballots (as BD2412 has), then in fairness we'll look at them all.
 * Nonetheless, I do agree that current usage is important... which is why I examined a number of the most significant reliable sources relevant to the individual, as they're shown today, to gauge the preferred form:
 * White House: HRC
 * Congress: HRC
 * State Department: HRC
 * Clinton Foundation: HRC
 * New York Times: HRC
 * Washington Post: HRC
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: HRC
 * Et cetera; more are linked elsewhere. Do all sources lead with HRC?  Of course not.  But many do, and those that do are among the most significant to this subject.
 * As for surprised reactions by readers coming across a page titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", is there any evidence that people arriving here don't know who they've found? It's true that another editor did suggest that people outside the US "never" know her as Rodham, but (as I linked elsewhere) various international and foreign media like the BBC, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. do in fact use HRC, so I have to question whether that's really so.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Huw, I entirely agree. She is referred to using several variations of her name, as people often are. But HRC is clearly the correct name for this article, for the reasons you and others have given in this discussion and in previous ones. I don't understand why we are going through this yet again. Omnedon (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And to BD2412 -- you say that "Rodham" is "rarely reported" in some countries. Where's the data that supports this? Omnedon (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perception can be about systemic bias, as this New York Times article, which was cited earlier, demonstrates. It is quite possible that she dropped the "Rodham" from ballots, merely so that she would not be perceived negatively, as she was in the past. I do not think it is right to continue this trend of systemic bias. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of speculation, and it seems to run against the persona of someone who thrusts themselves into the public spotlight at the highest levels. All we can know for sure is that the subject was in control of how her name appeared on the ballot and how she chose to announce her name in her own words in campaign ads, and that since 2006, she has done so as "Hillary Clinton". This also happens to coincide with how the vast majority of media outlets now report her name. bd2412  T 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * HRC is used by many media outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Huffington Post, etc. Certainly there are many that do not, but that's the point: usage is mixed.  As for the overall prevalence of shorter forms like Hillary Clinton (or increasingly even just Hillary), I certainly wouldn't argue that those do appear more frequently, but what of it?  Obama appears much more frequently than Barack Obama by volume, but despite Obama occupying that term we still redirect to the longer name.  In cases of comparing longer and shorter forms of personal names, particularly those that often appear in news pieces (see headlinese), one can't simply rely on raw usage counts like you could if you were (say) comparing two variant spellings.  That's why it's good to look to various other significant and reliable sources like the White House, Congress, State Department, Britannica, her own foundation, etc., all of which commonly favor HRC.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia already has a large problem with WP:Systemic bias. I do not think it is appropriate to take the patriarchal point of view that women are not entitled to use their own names. She has, throughout her career, made a conscious choice to have the "Rodham" known. Even if it is dropped in some instances, because of bad press and societal stigmas, it remains her name. It really seems unacceptable to be reducing her to an accessory of her husband, the former President Clinton. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "it is dropped" and her choosing to drop it. She also has the right, does she not, to choose to be known as "Hillary Clinton" if that is her wish. We are not mind-readers. We can't look at her ballot presentations and her "I'm Hillary Clinton" announcements and dismiss them as meaningless, although we can know fairly certainly that if she really wanted to continue using "Rodham" she could make sure that she uses it in her ads, on the ballot, and in many other venues. To presume otherwise suggests that women who choose to change their name, for whatever reason, are merely acting as weak-willed puppets of their circumstances, which certainly doesn't seem to describe this subject. I guess the question then becomes, at what point does a woman (or, really, any person) have the right to change their name without the choice being derided as "bad press and societal stigmas"? bd2412  T 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But, why did she choose to drop it? She has admitted in the past, as per that article, that she received terrible press with regard to her name in the Arkansas governor's election. In fact, to the point where, when Mr Clinton lost, his opponent said: "And my wife is 'Mrs. Frank White'." Knowing her past history, and the trouble she received because of retaining her name, knowing that the "Rodham" is used by a wide variety of reliable sources, and her self, I do not think it is appropriate to drop it in an effort to make the title more concise. If anything, this makes the title less concise, as it doesn't imply that she is the person that she is. "Hillary Clinton" can never truly describe who she is as a person. It is inappropriate to be saying that any woman who tries to retain their name, and enter politics, will be forced to drop it because people prefer a "shorter, more concise" name, despite the fact that this shorter name is ALWAYS the husband's name. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what conciseness is about, though. The elements of personal identity make an interesting philosophical question, but the question here is whether the title contains more information than necessary to inform the average reader of the subject of the article. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that anyone is going to see the title "Hillary Clinton" and wonder who the article is about. bd2412  T 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Conciseness is wrong if it is a WP:BLP violation. I think that dropping the Rodham, in this case, is a great harm to the person being described by the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP violation? Er, no. That's utterly ridiculous! I do wish people would stop throwing "BLP violation" around in situations where it clearly doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is a tough one. There are good arguments on both sides. WP:COMMONNAME is not decisive in this case because "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is commonly used as is "Hillary Clinton".  I typically say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and I was in the "oppose" camp when I came here.  Since the arguments are good on either side, I decided to look at her official website .  Since the arguments are sound either way, I think we go with her preference as expressed on her official website. I am One of Many (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongest Imaginable Support. If we go to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and search all the titles there (except for juvenile literature), we find "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 14 times, and "Hillary Clinton" 24 times.  This confirms my sense that she is primarily referred to as "Hillary Clinton" in the mainstream media.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONAME. To those of us not from the US, I think it is a matter of suprise that this is even in issue. Globally, I suspect there is precious little knowledge that "Rodham" is her middle name let alone any usage of it. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't her middle name. It is part of her last name, or could be called her "maiden name". Her middle name is Diane. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Outside the US we don't even know what it is, it's so rarely used. WP:COMMONNAME DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least it isn't Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. And while, we are at it, we should rename all of these articles too:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
 * Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors
 * List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that she isn't know that way outside the US. I'm British, and I know her that way. The BBC refers to her as such. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and due to the seeming lack of "Rodham" on ballots. Times change, Zaire is now Congo, Beyonce was Beyonce Knowles, etc.   Cdtew  (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Hillary Clinton" is for more common than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in relevant sources, e.g.,142M versus 5M hits on the web and 21,000 versus 2,330 hits in the news.  Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, common sense and WP:COMMONNAME Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Journalists and Wikipedians refer to her as Hillary Clinton. Article placement should reflect normal usage. &mdash; goethean 23:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the obvious reasons stated above (mostly WP:COMMONNAME). -- Visviva (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1 April 2014

 * Support - I've made my position clear on this. Nothing that needs to be trotted out again. Hillary Clinton is absolutely the common name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support . As noted by, "Rodham" is unnecessary disambiguation.  It doesn't make the title more recognizable nor conform to WP:CRITERIA better than the more concise title does in any way.  --B2C 00:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The idea that "common name" always prevails over accuracy and formality 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) and United States presidential election, 2012 (who says it with that word order?) and United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2008 (absolutely nobody says it like that) and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (several more concise forms of that get more Google hits) and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council (common use would use US and UN and omit other words) 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 but illustrations of where whole subject areas are exempt from "common name".  Another good example is that "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O" all get more Google 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 refered 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, and this should be such a case too.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where WP:COMMONNAME is usurped, it's for a good reason. What's the good reason here? BMK (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's the name she self-identifies as, especially in more formal settings (such as in the positions she holds, the books she authors, etc). WP believes in formal writing (no contractions, etc), why not here too?  WP believes in giving BLP subjects the benefit of the doubt in terms of controversial material; why not in naming too?  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK: It's also good to note that the longer form is favored by official sources from the White House, Congress, and the State Department, to papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, to HRC's own Clinton Foundation, to the Britannica, etc. (Links are earlier.)  It's not really a question of "usurping" common name; it's recognizing that common name is in fact divided, with many of the most significant sources preferring the longer form.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A very America-centric list of sources. She's a global figure: outside of the US no one knows who this "Rodham" person is. DeCausa (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please? BBC News (known for being quite international) titles her profile as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"   A quick Google search reveals similar usage elsewhere (e.g. The Telegraph, Le Monde, Die Welt, The Times of India, etc.)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Classic cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF, none of which have a clear, commonly, and widely used alternative like Hillary Clinton. In the case of Diana, Diana arguably requires disambiguation anyway.  The argument could be made for Princess Diana, and probably has.  But at least there a specific royalty naming convention to which that current title corresponds.  None such exists for this current title.   Descriptive titles like "United States presidential election, 2012 are handled differently altogether.  --B2C 01:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. "Boeing B-17" and "P-51 Mustang" are clear, commonly and widely-used alternatives, but every single military aircraft article uses the longer form.  Well, I'm saying this should be handled differently too.  It's the proper version of her name and the one she self-identifies with in formal writing situations, like what we do here.  It's the better choice.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving. Clearly Hillary Clinton is the WP:COMMON NAME, as this name now appears about 100 times as often in webhits generated in the past year. Also more WP:CONCISE, and more natural, precise, and consistent with names in general. In other words, the winner by every measure that WP:TITLE considers.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   01:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A Google News search and her official website do suggest the simpler name has become the common one. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. 'Hillary Clinton' is her common name and is more concise. The arguments cited against moving aren't convincing.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose By the same reasoning as has been stated over and over and over (8 times in fact) again, and sustained - this is her name, the name she uses most often, the name she chooses, the name serious reliable sources always use, her official name as Secy of State, Senator, etc. It is clear that this is one of the times that we should be following the same logic we employ at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - the name she used, not the name with the most Google hits (see Lady Di, for example.) And this being brought up again, a month after the last time, seems abusive to the process.  We are not supposed to lose a move attempt, or an AfD or anything like that and then turn around weeks later and try again. Further, as RGloucester and Wasted Time R say above, as a BLP we should respect the choice of the subject as we do regarding other facts. It is a conscious choice to use her full name officially, in her books, etc., and we should follow that as do most serious sources.  Finally - User:BD2412 says that he/she notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project", yet I was not notified -and the last time I looked I was the editor with third highest number of article edits, and I have weighed in on just about every one of the previous move attempts that lasted more than a day - I wonder if other editors who have previously opposed this move were similarly passed over.  I think this calls into question the nature of the canvass.  Tvoz / talk 04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is totally different in that Kennedy part of her life is key to her notability. --B2C 05:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but it is not why we name the article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. We name it that way because that is the name she used for the last 30 years of her life and the one that serious reliable sources use. If she didn't - if she used Jacqueline Onassis, and reliable sources did, "Kennedy" would not be in the name of the article despite it being the key to her notability. Tvoz / talk 05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. So let's say that "Hillary Clinton" is searched. Will it turn up a completely different person than if you searched "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? I'm not so sure about that. And that's not her full name. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is. Epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, and in accordance with WP:OFFICIALNAMES. (I wrote in support of this move in a previous discussion, and I was not notified either, so the suggestion that only those who previously opposed the move were not notified is erroneous.) Dezastru (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "only" - but on a very quick look I see at least 4 opposes from recent move attempts - including one (other than me) who commented extensively in the June 2013 attempt - who were not notified. I haven't looked at each one, and I'm not saying this was deliberate - I am saying that if you say you've notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project" then you ought to have done so, or the canvass is questionable. Tvoz / talk 05:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded in the discussion section. Cheers! bd2412  T 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support It seems to be the common name according to both the bulk of public coverage and how she refers to herself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as before. Clearly her WP:COMMONNAME around the world, despite what her "official name" or the name on her "official biographies" may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME  James ( T •  C ) • 10:08pm • 11:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * support per WP:CRITERIA, Article titles should be based on 5 criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness (specifically, "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."), and Consistency. Let's look at each of these:
 * Recognizability BD2412's excellent research on ballots, which allow very long names (as evidenced above), suggest that there is no question "Hilary Clinton" is considered more recognizable - when you put your name on a ballot this is a careful decision informed by research, and I have no doubt that the decision to leave out the Rodham was an explicit one. Thus, HC is at least as recognizable as HRC, and quite likely more recognizeable. The missives from non-American editors also suggest that Rodham is much less well known outside of the US, so we have to be sure we're not showing an American bias here.
 * Naturalness The search results above show that people are much more likely to search for HC than HRC. We see inverse results for other people with 3 names, whereby the 3-name is searched more often than the two-name, but that's not the case here. Winner for HC.
 * Precision HC is equally precise as HRC, there are no other HCs that we need to worry about. Equal here.
 * Conciseness HC is more concise than HRC, as it's NO LONGER THAN NECESSARY. Anyone who claims otherwise will not get a fair hearing from me. Winner for HC.
 * Consistency There are 4 articles with HC in the title, and 7 with HRC. Slight edge to HRC, but it's a bit trivial as this is the head article, so if renamed those others will be as well.
 * COMMONNAME has also been adequately demonstrated. Even if we call COMMONNAME a wash, which I'm willing to do, on all the other criteria HC is equal or better, so we should clearly rename.
 * Finally, to the person who said this could be a BLP violation, that is potentially the worst and most ridiculous invocation of BLP I've ever seen in my time here, ever, especially given the frequency to which HC refers to herself as HC. The worst. Drop the bullshit stick please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Consistency is more about having the same sort of title as comparable subjects. I note on the subpage that Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form &lt;First name&gt; &lt;Last name&gt;" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). bd2412  T 12:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rodham" is part of her last name. I do not know why this is hard to understand. I also have two "words" in my last name, each being a separate name. Hence, the present title does not deviate from "first name last name" conventions. "Diane" is her middle name. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why is the subject's name ever seen without the "Rodham"? Why would she ever announce herself as "Hillary Clinton" in an ad? This is really an anthroponymy question, since virtually all married women have a maiden name, and many retain their maiden name as part of their name, without it being considered part of their last name. Moreover, there are people like Madonna, Cher, and Björk, who have a last name, but don't even have that included in their article title because the average reader knows them by their mononym. bd2412  T 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not her "maiden name", which would only apply if she had actually changed her name and dropped the Rodham entirely. In fact, it is quite possible that her legal name is "Hillary Rodham", as that's what it apparently was at the time of her marriage, according to the New York Times article linked above. "Clinton" is used by societal convention, not through legality, as far as we know. In a way, it is like a courtesy title. Regardless, even if "Clinton" is legally part of her name, it is by definition part of her "last name", her "family name", because it is a "family name", and not a "given name", like "Diane", or "Hillary". RGloucester  — ☎ 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I've written many biographies where the article title is the common name and I lead off the article with the full name in text, which is by far our common and usual practice.  Its not that there's not a case for Rodham version here, its just much weaker as of 2014.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support By far "Hillary Clinton" is the more common name for her, and what she usually goes by. Even her official website doesn't include "Rodham".  TJ   Spyke   15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is factually incorrect. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the name used by her First Lady page and her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page.  If you are referring to http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/, that is a mostly empty site that has three speeches from early 2013 and seems to have been abandoned after that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:CONCISE, if nothing else. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE.--Wolbo (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Clinton Foundation website uses both names. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

2 April 2014
(not Barack Hussein Obama), (not John Forbes Kerry), (not Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi) ...and yet: . It's not surprising, given that so many other profiles and articles about her in what are arguably the most relevant/significant reliable sources (White House, Congress, State Department, Britannica, etc.) prefer the HRC form. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Can't see why this isn't a textbook case of where to apply WP:COMMONNAME ("not necessarily ... the subject's 'official' name as an article title"). Also can't see how the fact that the "Rodham" part is a second last name and not a middle name would necessarily make a difference in applying WP:COMMONNAME. If it's significantly more common than the longer alternative, and is found also in high quality sources, and is demonstrably also acceptable to the BLP subject herself, then that's what to use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the life of me, I don't understand the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Maybe because people here are under 25 years old or something and haven't went through 20 years(1991-2011) of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" being mentioned every week on the news. Almost every time she was introduced at an event, or being referred to by the news anchor at the desk, she was referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". That is what she prefers to be referred to. So how is WP:COMMONNAME being used as a vote for just "Hillary Clinton"?
 * The Washington Post officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * The Washington Times officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Her official IMDB page refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Her PBS biography officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * She released her novel(Living History) as Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * Her official First Lady White House biography refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * She also signs all her official documents as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Perhaps the press has moved away from that lately and going with just Hillary Clinton, but for the vast majority of the last 30+ years, she has been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". So after thinking about it, I oppose the move. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should point out that here in Britain, she has never, ever been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (probably because the continued use of a woman's maiden name in this way is alien to us). The British media has always called her plain "Hillary Clinton". I suspect this also goes for many other countries. And COMMONNAME doesn't just apply to the country of origin. International figures have to be taken in an international context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The BBC is not British media? How about The Telegraph?  (See also Le Monde, Die Welt, etc.)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All the British articles you cite are profiles, so do include her full name. However, searching for her on their websites reveals rather a different story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, though HRC also appears in their news stories. As you say, it does seem that HRC is the preferred form for profiles or dedicated articles.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the context for those profiles is that they choose to head them with the full "official" name of the subject. But that is not Wikipedia policy. There is no way British media outlets habitually refer to her as "Rodham". Put BBC and "Hillary Clinton" into google and see what comes up. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no &mdash; "full official name" does not seem to be the BBC's policy at all: Profile: Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton),
 * 3,570,000 results for BBC Hillary Clinton v 681,000 for BBC Hillary Rodham Clinton of which, most likely, 225,000 appear because they call up that one profile page. It's surreal that this is even a topic of discussion. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do understand that many articles need to reflect internationally, but an American politician? If the vast majority of British press referred to Tony Blair as Tony Blair, but American and South American press referred to him as Anthony Charles Blair, should equal weight be given to American and South American press coverage? No. He is a British politician and the weight goes to how he is referred to in the UK. Same goes with HRC. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be true if she was overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country, but I'm guessing that the majority of support votes above are coming from Americans, which suggests she isn't. But I was merely refuting your comment that people commenting must either be very young or not have seen the media over the last twenty years - neither applies to me, and until the renaming discussions here I wasn't really aware that Americans did know her as Hillary Rodham Clinton, since we don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She is definitely, 100%, "overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country". Which is why I stated those using WP:COMMONNAME for the shortened "Hillary Clinton" must not have been paying attention to the news from 1991-2011. Her common name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ballots that are designed so they can take up as least of space as possible does not change that. Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is more common these days to find references to "Hillary Clinton" with no "Rodham" in sight, , but this was also true five years ago, , , , and ten years ago , , , . Also, about the name appearing on the ballot, I don't think saving space could possibly have anything to do with it. If you look at those ballots and the links to other ballots, there is plenty of room to include a much longer name. You mentioned "William "Bill" Richardson III" being on the ballot, but that name is long enough that if Clinton wanted to she could have fit two Rodhams on that ballot. I didn't base my vote on the name on the ballot, but it's a perfectly legitimate reason.    - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me also add that the people using the sample ballots as a reason for a name change are making a mistake. Do we have an article names Joseph R. Biden, Jr. or is our article names Joe Biden? Do we have an article named Christopher J. Dodd or is our article named Chris Dodd? Do we have an article named Dennis J. Kucinich or is it Dennis Kucinich? And finally, do we have an article named William "Bill" Richardson III or is our article named Bill Richardson? Sample ballots are proof of nothing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial: Or if ballots are used as proof, then we must remember that ballots show her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. As far as I can determine, she's run as or more frequently as HRC than as HC.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "She is definitely, 100%, 'overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country'." – Her home country being where? In Bizarro World?
 * "She is definitely, 100%, 'overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country'." – Her home country being where? In Bizarro World?


 * Dezastru (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You better check again Mister Mxyzptlk, and get out of Bizarro World yourself. Your chart just shows books with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton(with Rodham and any other honorific). In other words, the Hillary Clinton results you are pointing to INCLUDE the results with Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you want to see results that have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" compared to books that do not specifically mention Rodham but do have "Hillary Clinton", you have this. HillaryRodhamClintonBookSearch2.png Dave Dial (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave, you are totally misinterpreting your search. For one thing, these are verbatim text searches; the term (Hillary Clinton) looks for that term precisely as written. (There is a way to run wildcard searches, but you would need to include special operands for that.) Second, an Ngram search doesn't count the number of books in which a given phrase occurs; it counts the total number of times the phrase occurs across all the books in the research corpus (normalized by year). Think of the corpus as a library. An Ngram is searching for how many times a phrase occurs anywhere in the library, not how many books in the library contain the phrase. Third, the term ((Hillary Clinton) - (Rodham)) does not search for books that have "Hillary Clinton" but do not specifically mention "Rodham," as you think. The minus operand is not an exclusion command the way it would be in a regular Google web search (ie, it doesn't say, 'Count all of these excluding this'). It is a subtraction command. It says, 'Count all of these, count all of those, then find the difference.' When you use a subtraction operand in an Ngram search, as in ((A) - (B)), you are counting all the occurrences of phrase A, then counting all the occurrences of phrase B, and then calculating how much more frequently phrase A occurs than phrase B. (If the difference is a negative value, it means that phrase B occurs more often than phrase A does.) For your search to be a fair representation of the question we are interested in, you would need a subtraction operation for your upper plot as well. But you left that out, so your graph does not compare apples to apples.


 * We can actually investigate the question of how much more commonly "Hillary Clinton" occurs than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" with a single plot on the graph. The search term is ((Hillary Clinton) - (Hillary Rodham Clinton)).


 * That counts all the "Hillary Clinton" occurrences, then it counts all the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurrences, then it calculates the difference. The result shows that "Hillary Clinton" occurs more frequently than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" does, and that the disparity has been growing. Another way to look at this is to graph [((Hillary Clinton) / ((Hillary Clinton) + (Hillary Rodham Clinton))], which shows that of all the mentions of "Hillary Clinton" and of "Hillary Rodham Clinton," you find that most of the time the term being used is "Hillary Clinton." And you find that that proportion has been growing since at least 2002 (the ratio of "Hillary Clinton" to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was 60–40 in 1988; it was 72–28 in 2008). Dezastru (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the way I interpreted the directions here. I encourage others to read the page(especially the Ngram Compositions, and parentheses). In any case, as I've shown below, the search results are not accurate from Google Book. I have to believe that people will use common sense and realize that when journalists, authors and scholars refer to HRC, they almost always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton(excluding when they are addressing her directly, and use a variety of Secretary Clinton, Senator Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton). But when journalists, authors and scholars write about HRC, it is almost always as Hillary Rodham Clinton. They may use a Hillary Clinton in the headline, or after describing her as HRC, but she is well known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Overwhelming so. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: COMMONNAME does seem to apply (and it doesn't really matter anyway as long as all the redirects are in place) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per DD2K. If she is going to run, I would like to see what her campaign name is.==TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the deciding factor for me in deciding to support (my initial view was to oppose). Here is her official website if she decides to run Hillary Clinton. I am One of Many (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But bear in mind in 2008 her campaign frequently used "Hillary" alone as an ID, but of course that didn't mean she dropped the Rodham or the Clinton. Her name is what it has been for years, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as her books, her signature, and multiple official websites approved by her have it, and as User: RGloucester pointed out, we should respect her choice of name here, especially since it is the name used by all serious media outlets.  That some editors "never heard" of Rodham speaks, I guess, to their unfamiliarity with the subject.  I would never, ever, search for "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", and would find her if I searched on Kate Middleton - the far more common name. Yet we respect the formal name as our article name.  Here it is simpler - she indeed is known commonly with the Rodham, and if some reader doesn't know it, and searches on "Hillary Clinton", of course they'll land here. But it should not be the name of the article - we should not be eliminating her self-identification in favor of her husband's name. Tvoz / talk 01:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per current WP:COMMONNAME). Which could change again. Flatterworld (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:COMMONNAME. Kreznik (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

3 April 2014

 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, the ballots tell a convincing story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and Oppose. Really, it doesn't matter.  A redirect from the other alternative will be there.  I don't see general consequences from this discussion.  It doesn't matter.  Back away, everyone who cares.  I suggest the panel of three closers should agree to flip coins to "settle" it.  Honestly, a random choice is best, because it doesn't matter. -- do  ncr  am  02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering, do you think the outcome matters?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikipedia dispute resolution should include some random answer generator for matters that are otherwise too close to call or that don't much matter. WP:Random answer generator could save us all a lot of time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per COMMONNAME. Kennethaw88 • talk 02:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to look at book titles rather than book authors to help us name this Wikipedia article? That's why my support referenced only the titles at List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. There are lots of examples of book covers that list authors different from their Wikipedia article titles, e.g. Teresa Heinz. According to book cover design expert Derek Murphy, the considerations that go into creating an author name are kind of specialized. He writes: “How to create your author pen name? Try to start from your real name and make little changes. Maybe use your middle name, or initials, or a name that’s almost the same but a little cooler….”. Even if we just look at the "pro-Clinton" books at List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton, the choice seems clear. If people are concerned with self-identification, see newspaper op-eds that she has written like these under the name "Hillary Clinton": Et cetera. There are other op-eds under "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It's a mixed bag.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. Since graphics seem to be the order of the day in this RM, here are all the covers of the books she has published.    Every single one uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  Now what are you going to believe, the books that the author is personally involved in writing and supervising the publication and promotion of, or the ballots that some state clerks or campaign functionaries are involved in putting together?   Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Art of Smart Power" (July 18, 2012)
 * "Hillary Clinton: Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win" (June 19, 2012).
 * "America's Pacific Century" (October 11, 2011)
 * "Independence Day for South Sudan" (July 9, 2011).
 * "Clean stoves' would save lives, cut pollution" (May 6, 2011)
 * "The Balkans Deserve This" (May 30, 2010).
 * "A Partnership of Democracies" (June 4, 2010)
 * "Hillary Clinton: All Nations Must Play a Part in Afghanistan Mission" (December 4, 2009)
 * "A New Strategic and Economic Dialogue With China" (July 27, 2009).
 * User:Anythingyouwant, I'd be curious to know how many of those are intentional. As Mitt found out, when you publish an op-ed, you don't have full control over how it appears ("Let Detroit Go Bankrupt").  Many years ago I published an op-ed in Newsday and they liberally shortened, rewrote, and in one case seriously changed the meaning of, my original, all without telling me in advance.  Some of these Clinton bylines may be being cast into the house style of how they use her name, or the op-ed page may have its own style guide.  Or maybe she has been inconsistent.  When you look at official State Department documents over 2009-2013, the large large majority use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but I'm sure you can find some outliers.  To get the most recent usage, I looked at a bunch of press releases for events involving her since she left office, since I figure press releases are probably coming directly from her office or are rewrites of what comes from her office, and they seem  to use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", see for example this one just a few days ago and this one just a month old and this one and this one and this one and so forth.  My search was on "former secretary of state hillary" and then look for press releases within those hits.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * excuses excuses excuses... how many people read press releases? Also since when do we care what the official name of the subject is. You realize that WP:OFFICIALNAME is an essay, not a policy, right? It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that HC is more common than HRC, but EVEN if you contest that and call it a wash, HC is more concise, and more natural - both of these are covered by POLICY, not fuzzy preference. Clinton's preference has no bearing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan, think a little outside the box. Why shouldn't self-identification and preference have some bearing?  WP is so formal in other respects - no contractions in writing, always refer to people by last name, use more footnotes than a law review article, etc - that the common name obsession has always seemed out of place to me. And WP is so deferential to BLP subjects - any derogatory statements without strong sources get thrown out on sight, special procedures if subjects think they have had incorrect things written about them, etc - that again, not calling people by their preferred name seems wrong. Now in practice, self-identified name and common name line up at least 95% of the time - Bill Clinton will still be Bill Clinton, Ringo Starr will still be Ringo Starr, Cher will still be Cher - so it's not nearly as big a change as you might fear.  And why should conciseness be so important?  With web links, our redirects, and search predictive completions, nobody's every going to be typing out more than a few characters of any of these names.  Why not have correctness be more important than length?  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WTR, the NYT did not go so far as to change the presentation of Romney's name (e.g. to Willard). The op-eds I listed are from a wide cross-section of very reliable sources, and even if they all wanted to mess with her name (which is extremely unlikely), she could have easily insisted that they not. The only credible explanation is that she has more than one single preference as regards her name. That is very common. Some authors purposely use different versions of their name when writing in different categories. Millions of people use more formal versions for more formal settings.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WTR, so are you basically agreeing that, per our policies (excluding IAR), we would choose HC? But, we should ignore those, and choose HRC anyway because we have some vague sense that she prefers it for more formal occasions (one must admit the ballot evidence from 2008 is rather damning however)? I think this is a terrible article on which to make that stand. Take Ivory Coast instead - the government there has formally asked, on multiple occasions, that the country be called Cote d'Ivoire, and our government has complied for the most part - Cote d'Ivoire has official name and preferred name and name-most-used-by-official-government-sources in spades. I guarantee you at the UN our Ambassador doesn't go up and shake the hand of the delegate from Ivory Coast. And yet, that article was moved there. Or, try Cat Stevens or Myanmar, again much more obvious cases. If you want to change policy, do a REAL test case, where preferences of the entity have been made clear and have been done in writing, multiple times, and where the entity is CONSISTENT in their use of the new name. Then if you succeed, use it to change policy more broadly. But this one is much too muddy, its quite obvious to me that Clinton doesn't have strong feelings either way these days (otherwise the ballots in 2008 NEVER would have happened, her website NEVER would have happened, her op-eds NEVER would have happened - do you really believe a woman as powerful as HC would just let them misspell her name at the bottom of an op-ed? There are corrections, it's the web, but they didn't make the correction, so she DOESNT CARE enough). You talk about the obsession of commonname, but my argument holds even if commonname is a WASH - throw commonname out the window, call it a tie. HC still wins by a landslide based on OTHER WP:CRITERIA which consensus has deemed important.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan, to paraphrase a saying, you don't pick your test cases, they pick you. I mentioned to BD2412 that the best test case of all for naming people would have been Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali, because for several years a majority of people in the sports and news world kept using the old name, even though - or in many cases, because - he took great offense to it. Common name versus self-identification and BLP protection - what to do? I would have switched to Muhammad Ali right away.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose She obviously prefers the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are used by Reliable Sources. Note that "Rodham" is not a middle name; "Hillary Rodham" is her maiden name, the name under which she established her legal career, and the name she continued to use after marrying Bill Clinton, adding his name to hers only when he went into politics. She has used "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her name ever since, with the possible exception of the 2008 presidential election where she did call herself "Hillary Clinton" on occasion. There is no doubt in my mind that if she should be elected president, she would assume office as Hillary Rodham Clinton. IMO her article should be titled as is done for other high-level, potential-president American politicians. Every U.S. president that I could find is titled according to the name they themselves preferred - the name they ran under, and the name chose to be called when they assumed office. So their article may be titled with full name (William Howard Taft); name with middle initial (Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson); name without middle initial (Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan); or even by nickname (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter) when the person himself preferred it. I couldn't find a single case where some other name was used instead of the name the person himself preferred. Clinton isn't president yet, and she may never be. But she is a serious enough candidate that I think we should follow what appears to be the precedent for article titles for people at or near that level. Since both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are used by Reliable Sources, but she clearly prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton when the choice is up to her, I believe the article should remain titled as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So why is her site http://www.hillaryclinton.com/? http://www.hillaryrodhamclinton.com/ doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , Rodham may not be a middle name, but it's not a last name either. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and Rodham, like the maiden names of millions of American women, behaves for all intents and purposes like a middle name, even if on some legal document somewhere it's marked as a last name. If it disappears, it's behaving like a middle name, and if she erases it, she's treating it like one. Women who hyphenate like Jackie Joyner-Kersee don't EVER get rid of their maiden name. HC clearly doesn't care enough anymore to make a big deal of it either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not a last name. I never said it was; in fact I said (somewhere above) that is isn't. Her last name isn't "Rodham Clinton", it is "Clinton". Her alphabetized name is "Clinton, Hillary Rodham", not "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". But "Rodham" is also more than just a disposable middle name. "Rodham" is part of her name, just as the initial "F." is part of John F. Kennedy's name, or the name "Louis" is part of Robert Louis Stevenson's name. You wouldn't expect us to change the article about Robert Louis Stevenson to Robert Stevenson! We name articles according to the name that the subject uses and that Reliable Sources use. In the case of presidents, we use the name they take office under (even if it's Jimmy Carter). If this gets changed to Hillary Clinton, and she subsequently gets elected president, we are going to have to change it back to HRC. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose rehashing another useless lengthy bullshit argument when both names are equally common names and there are substantial reliable sources on both sides of the argument. either option works, no option is more important than the other, however no cogent argument overwhelmingly says "change the status quo". This is much ado about nothing, and who the fuck cares. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Try swearing more, it really helps people take you seriously. People obviously care if we have to keep having this discussion. And there's an argument about the shorter name being more appropriate per WP:CONCISE, which hasn't been refuted.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   16:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If "both names are equally common", shouldn't we go with the briefer version? The one without the unnecessary disambiguator? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * exactly. Strong evidence has been presented that the most COMMON name is indeed HC, but even if we say, no, that's a wash, as I pointed out above on every other WP:CRITERIA HC wins or ties over HRC. Arguments that she "obviously prefers" HRC must unfortunately fall on deaf ears, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever of that, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she doesn't have a strong preference one way or the other. In any case, what people prefer is IRRELEVANT here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What? She signs her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and she is almost always referred to in that manner in official biographies. Also, the press asked in 1993 and she specifically had her press secretary tell the press that is her preferred name. If she wanted to be just HC, she would just sign her name that way. In any case, it's not up to those who oppose a move to prove a negative. It's up to supporters to prove she prefers HC to HRC. Which clearly isn't the case. Does anyone really have any doubt that if she wins the 2016 election and becomes President Clinton45, she will be referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton? She was sworn in as US Secretary of State with a "I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, do solemnly swear..." Not "Hillary Clinton", not "Hillary Diane Clinton", and not "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton". Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * did you read the op-eds linked above? Those all have a by-line of HC. 1993 was LONG time ago, I think the evidence is all around us, through what she puts on her ballots to how she signs op-eds. I actually don't know what we will call her in 2016 - do you? Pollsters and political operatives will likely do research to let her know which name works better. Official biographies like this one are titled with a full and formal name, but again, that's not the name we use here. And, you're missing the point - we don't really care what someone prefers in almost all cases. I'm quite sure Cat Stevens would prefer that we call him something else, but alas, we don't. Kiev would prefer to be called Kyev, and I can list umpteen other examples. Preference is the weakest of the weak arguments that have been presented.  "I, William Jefferson Clinton, do solemnly swear", etc. WEAK!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving either to Hillary Clinton or to Hillary Diane Rodman Clinton but oppose leaving at Hillary Rodman Clinton. Nature abhors a vacuum, but what I abhor is a half-measure. Diane derives from the moon-goddess Diana the huntress, and is not less nor more her name than Rodman. Another question, if Rodman is simply part of an extended last name, why is she not referred to in any US official document anywhere ever as Senator Rodman Clinton or Secretary Rodman Clinton? Why instead is Rodman accorded the treatment of a functionally optional middle name, perhaps best to be used in the middle of nowhere, in the Middle Kingdom, in the middle of the night?? Riddle me that.... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update -- for purposes of the debate at hand, "Rodman" and "Rodham" = same difference. Where does any US document reference "Secretary Rodham Clinton" or "Senator Rodham Clinton"? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * DeistCosmos, your mockery of her, and of middle names in general, is unbecoming. But I assume your suggestion of "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" was intended to make an actual point. However, the suggestion is moot, because it is not generally used to describe her, either by herself or by Reliable Sources. We at Wikipedia are not tasked with trying to make up a name that we like or find logical; our job is to determine what her name is. There are only two possibilities that have enough usage to be valid choices: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton. There is no case at all for "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" (or for that matter for "Hillary R. Clinton") because those are not names that have been used about her or by her. Likewise, she has not chosen to use the two names as a double last name so that's not an option. It is very common for American women to drop their "given" middle name when they marry and use their maiden name instead; in fact that is what I have done. Then the woman's "common name" or "preferred name" is the one they prefer to use: "Mary Smith", or "Mary J. Smith", or "Mary Jones Smith" (just as men choose whether they want to be known as "John Kennedy" or "John F. Kennedy" or "John Fitzgerald Kennedy"). Hillary has chosen the "Mary Jones Smith" format for reasons that seem good to her, and that choice has been respected by many of the most reliable sources available to us, as well as in her official positions. We should respect it too. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No mockery intended, I just thought it was Rodman. Somebody pointed out otherwise, so I made clear that the distinction is of no moment. Somebody argued up the page somewhere that this was a compound surname so I want to see the references to Senator Rodham Clinton. Or to Senator Rodman Clinton even. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the entire page Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale I don't see one mention of how the subject herself wishes to be referred to in such a biographical nature. I would think we would at least consider what the subject prefers.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah - the move rationale is fully based on WP:CRITERIA and makes a compelling and indisputable case but we should chuck that all our for touchy-freely 'preference' which doesn't show up anywhere in policy. Sounds like a bad idea to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not make an undisputable case. In fact it shows great bias and does not at all seem neutral or present a balanced approach to the argument. It's, "this is my interpretation of our guidelines and policies and why I think the name should be changed". It really is all about what they think in one direction...to change the name. The problem is...it is her name and is pretty common for several decades. Now a few years since a website dropped the use of the maiden name we think that is justification?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck disputing it. I haven't seen anyone even make a valiant effort here. The most oppose has been able to muster is "she uses it on official documents" and "in 1993 she said she prefers it". weak weak weak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The official Whitehouse biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * The biographical directory of the U.S congress uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * The Clinton Library biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * The Clinton Foundation biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * The National Women's History Museum's biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * The PBS biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * IMDB is not a source I would use in an article but it does demonstrate just how common the full use of Hillary Rodham Clinton is.
 * The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and culture, published by The Central Arkansas Library System uses has a biography and uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
 * The Encyclopædia Britannica's biography uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, there's no point in getting into a pissing contest seeing who can dredge up more uses or more "official" of which version of the name. I think we can all agree that there are plenty of publications which include Rodham and plenty which exclude it. The question that policies are aiming to answer is what the person using Wikipedia is going to look for, and what they are going to expect to find. I think it is telling that there are people who have supported this move because they have 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. Lets be realists here - the name to use for maximum recognizability and minimum surprise is the one no one can say they don't recognize, which is Hillary Clinton.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually...it is the entire point. This isn't about what some random person reading the article will or will not recognize, its about the most common name in other biographical uses and whether the subject themselves identifies as one name or the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 certainly not a publicity house for political figures. We should reflect what people are likely to look for, and I posted a link above showing that people looking for the topic are about a hundred times as likely to look for "Hillary Clinton" than any other version of the name. If there is a policy that says that this is not what we should be doing, what policy is that? Not WP:TITLE or WP:OFFICIAL.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, regardless of why you perceive Wikipedia's existence to be about, this is not about the reader, it is about the subject. What are you saying? Do you think the reader's perception is more important than the accurate information? Sorry...but that doesn't fly at Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, WPGA2345. We should NOT "reflect what people are likely to look for". We should disseminate accurate information already published elsewhere.  And the presentation of the information should be guided by the sources. Yes, we should make it well accessible, but that is not an issue at hand here. We should not be supporting confirmation bias.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, you are both in luck because there are plenty of sources right on this page that meet WP:RS and that show that "Hillary Clinton" is therefore one accurate way to refer to the subject. Since we can all agree that both "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" can be verified as names used to refer to the subject, the tiebreaker is the set of rules at WP:TITLE, which actually favors recognizability, along with conciseness and consistency, all of which favor "Hillary Clinton." In fact, WP:BLP has a WP:PUBLICFIGURE rule that says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I don't think the subject in this case has such a dislike or she would not currently be using this version, but that just shows that the subject's preference really doesn't matter.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   00:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to User:Mark Miller.... MM: "The official Whitehouse biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton." ME: The White House Historical Association uses "Hillary Clinton" in their biography. MM: "The biographical directory of the U.S congress uses Hillary Rodham Clinton." ME: Nope it says "Clinton, Hillary Rodham" just like it also says "McCain, John Sidney". MM: "The Clinton Library biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton". ME: Actually, that link is ambiguous, as it also says "Biography -- Hillary R. Clinton". MM: "The Clinton Foundation biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton. ME: It's not so clear. MM: "The National Women's History Museum's biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton." ME: Okay, but the National Museum of American History does not. MM: "The PBS biography uses Hillary Rodham Clinton." ME: Okay, but C-Span begs to differ. MM: "IMDB is not a source I would use in an article but it does demonstrate just how common the full use of Hillary Rodham Clinton is." ME: No one disputes that it's common. One of the issues here is which name is more common. Google is probably better than Imdb for figuring that out. MM: "The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and culture, published by The Central Arkansas Library System uses has a biography and uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton." ME: So we should move the title to that? MM: "The Encyclopædia Britannica's biography uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton." ME: So we should move the title to that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't upset me if we did, but it also wouldn't upset me if it were just Hillary Clinton. I had supported the name once but feel that the subject herself seems to lean towards using the maiden name and most of the main biographical sites seem to use the "Rodham".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the Associated press came out with a story about two hours ago . I noticed that the title of the article is:"Hillary Clinton: Partisanship taking US backwards", but the first line of the article is "Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night...". It seems to me that the dropping off of the maiden name has been done to shorten the title of the article but they still refer to her using the maiden name. Looking a little further it seems to be very common in the media to shorten her name to "Hillary Clinton" and even to just "Clinton" in the titles but still use the maiden name in the article. Don't know how that effects this discussion...just something I noticed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that not precisely what we would do, then? Use "Hillary Clinton" in the title with a fuller name in the first sentence? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like to predict what we would do, but I would say we have no reason to shorten the name to save title space or for a brevity.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * oppose - officially she always seems to go by "Hillary Rodham Clinton" so that's what the title should be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

4 April 2014

 * Oppose It seems that the most serious biographical sources tend to favor "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and therefore, so should we. When there is a close balance between use of a briefer name and a fuller name in reliable sources, I think that Wikipedia should favor the fuller name as the title. In the end, though, it is no big deal.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONCISION, and, suggests we should favor the briefer name when there is a close balance. What policy basis is there to favor the fuller name?  Or is that simply what you prefer?  --B2C 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TITLECHANGES


 * So, since the article was stable and there is no real controversy or reason to change the article title other than varying opinion....I would support this RFC being closed as disruptive. Not that I am going to ask for it....just that I see this as a non issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Several editors in this discussion have given their testimony of the title as it stands being actually confusing to the man-on-the-street (especially if that street is in another country) who surely knows of Hillary Clinton, but is not familiar with a Rodham. So taking these testimonies in good faith, there is a reason grounded in sound policy right there -- don't use potentially unrecognizable names where clearly recognizable ones are available. And in this case, the more recognizable one (or possibly to some swaths of the world the only recognizable one) is, as well, the more concise, and the one by great leaps more likely to be actually sought. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know for sure that it is NOT a part of Wikipedia policy guidelines to exclude a name because several editors have expressed a concern that using her maiden name (which has been done for decades) is confusing. That is a matter of opinion and is not based in policy or guidelines. I see this as disruptive in that, per our guidelines, there was no good reason to begin this discussion...AGAIN, and as yet not one single editor has been able to explain why this discussion does not violate our guideline on disrupting the page by requesting a name change when the article has remained stable in that regard.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , meeting title policy better is a good reason to change a title, and, therefore, not a violation of WP:TITLECHANGES. I just wrote an essay about a title-policy-based argument that happens to apply perfectly here... WP:Concision razor.  --B2C 20:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if I argued any of that you might have a point, but since I didn't....you don't ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen many a move request brought with less reason being presented than this one without the legitimacy of the request itself being questioned. DeistCosmos (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - The trends seem to be quite clear in moving away from routine use of her middle name. There's no reason we shouldn't follow suit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the same trend you are. Can you demonstrate that as a fact or is this just your opinion?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, surprisingly enough there exists a Google tool which shows exactly this trend (I know it has been argued that instances of "Hillary Clinton" will include those with another name included, but subtracting all results including Rodham still results in a solid trend towards the shorter form -- one frankly unlikely to have been tempered in any respect by the presentation made in the 2008 campaign. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a Google Book tool. It only shows the reference to her in book form out of what has been scanned by Google which has had to remove a great many of their scans from a recent lawsuit they lost . There is a Google trend tool and oddly enough when you type in "Hillary" it auto fills "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As for the trends.... searching that tool with either name results in the exact same trend information. It isn't about the name...its about the person. What is Wikipedia's guideline on using Google trends for the basis of an argument for or against inclusion of material? I seem to remember that it is discouraged. Either because the trending stats as well as the "hits" stats are not encyclopedic and only shows social trends and we are more concerned with academic trends and mainstream resources.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As Mark Miller states, that is a Google book tool, and your search criteria is incorrect, as I've demonstrated in the above discussion concerning the book tool. The search should be these criteria. In any case, as Mark also states, those are books Google scanned + they had to remove a great many. Also claimed below is a link to Google Trends. Well Google Trends also has George Bush outpacing George W. Bush and Franklin Roosevelt outpacing Franklin D. Roosevelt. Shall we rename those articles too? The point is, many headlines use a shorter name, but when people talk or introduce the person the article is about, they almost always use the article name. George W. Bush. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Also, some have argued the average person doesn't know who "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is. That is pure poppycock. Even our Simple English article is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton. And while the French Wikipedia moved Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton in October 2013, the Polish Wikipedia title is still Hillary Rodham Clinton. Besides, she is an American politician and should not have her Family name stripped from her by some men who don't understand why she wants to use her chosen name. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, did someone put a gun to her head and force her to do all those ads where she says "I'm Hillary Clinton"? If anyone has stripped her family name from her, it's her. Also, if we are going to start looking at other Wikipedias, it looks like about 3/4 of them use only Hillary Clinton or the local language version of it. These include:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPGA2345 (talk • contribs)
 * The whole point was that it wasn't "unheard of" in other countries. Not that it was most common in foreign languages other than English. This is English Wikipedia and HRC is an American politician. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "English" doesn't mean "American" - there are more English speaking people outside the United States then there are inside it. It has been pointed out before that Hillary Clinton is an international figure.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But then again, there are more English speakers in the U.S. than there are people in all of the U.K. and Ireland combined. Epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are actually more English speakers just between India and Pakistan then there are in the United States. The largest circulating English-language newspaper in the world is the Times of India, which uses "Hillary Clinton" in its articles., , .    - WPGA2345 -     ☛   03:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to clarify that this is not her middle name. This is her family name, which she has purposefully retained. Calling it a 'middle name' is disgraceful, diminishes the importance of it, and goes against the principle that women have the right decided what their name is, and not merely become property of their husbands upon marriage. We don't ever refer to the last names of men as their 'middle names', even if they have a double-barrelled name, like I do. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! I couldn't for the life of me figure what was behind the concern to keep Rodham, despite it's lack of use. Now I understand. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. While the "Rodham" version is widely used, the version without seems to be even more widely used (per above sources).  Finally, the notion that removing it would be a BLP violation when even the subject of the article commonly uses the short version is frankly bizarre.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME is all well and good, but it doesn't really point to one or the other name in this case, because usage is clearly quite mixed. I say the name that has been used for so many years should be kept.  Also per Wasted Time R and Huw above. —Torchiest talkedits 10:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually is what we are supposed to do in a case where it cannot be shown or demonstrated that one is preferred over another and yes...I think that is where we are.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment the reliability of sources and what the subject is most widely known as are separate things. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

6 April 2014

 * Oppose. Both names are commonly used. HRC is the name she has expressly said she prefers. Whenever we can do so without affecting the utility of the encyclopedia we should title a biography with the subject's preferred name. It's the human, respectful thing. Doing so in this case will not negatively affect the reader experience, so in this case we should do it. Doing otherwise - disregarding the subject's naming preference in deference to a trivial wiki-rule - diminishes the encyclopedia. This is an IAR argument.


 * Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate it if the closers would bear in mind that IAR is policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the closers can do that. The voters can say that they agree that WP:OFFICIAL supports the move, but still oppose because IAR. Even admins could vote in the discussion and say that. But if the closers can just say IAR because they don't like the way a particular rule will apply, then we might as well not have discussions, and only have administrators decide what they like best. Also, do we really know the preference here, as of today? We know what preference the article subject expressed 15-20 years ago, but we have all seen circumstances here where a person's preference has changed over time. We have to wonder, what does this announcement have to say about such a change in this person's preference?   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the closers should IAR and close this discussion against consensus. I'm just asking that they do not disregard my !vote on the basis that it contradicts WP:COMMONNAME. As for Clinton's preference: I'd rather we didn't guess at that. We have her explicit statement and should rely on that - not our own tea-leaf reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that the closers don't disregard any !vote in this discussion, nor do I think that it would be allowable for them to. As for Clinton's preference, saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for president," and "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message" is a pretty explicit statement all its own isn't it? (She actually started using "I'm Hillary Clinton" to describe herself in 2006, it seems.) But under WP:OFFICIAL, it doesn't seem that this carries a lot of weight no matter what we think her preference is these days.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   05:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it you've never closed a discussion before. It is not only allowable....it is the very way closings are done. Closing admin routinely dismiss or ignore comments and !votes that make no sense, argue from a personal point or have no basis in policy, guidelines etc.. Also, no, just because she ends an ad with a statement is NOT an explicit statement. Such a statement would be: "I do not go by the name ________". Or "I go be the name________". But I wouldn't worry about the closing admin. I believe this may be closed by a three admin panel and if not the one volunteering admin for closing is someone I trust to find the accurate consensus, whatever it turns out to be.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if Clinton really cared, her website and campaign messages and buttons and twitter handle and ballots and op-eds would all be HRC. They don't so the obviously doesn't care enough to make a significant effort to distance herself from HC. IAR is a fine argument to make but be careful, yet claiming IAR you are also admitting that per policy/guidelines the other side is ahead, so you have to make a case that the encyclopedia is significantly better. IMHO you failed to make this point through the weak 'I think she kinda prefers' argument, the fact that she herself has used HC on multiple occasions makes your argument rather moot - in any case the wiki is not for her, it's for our readers, and more readers will recognize HC and search for HC, this has been demonstrated in spades.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Clinton's preference: Wasted Time R answers your claims well in the next comment. How would the encyclopedia be better if we - where we can without diminishing the encyclopedia - titled BLPs with the subject's preferred name? An encyclopedia that takes into account the dignity of its subjects is a better encyclopedia. If we adopt the position that our BLP subject's preference is irrelevant, we would be a psychopathic institution. Your claim that either name would pose a problem for anyone looking for the article is simply absurd. There is no down side to naming the article HRC. The down side to calling it HC is it is disrespectful to our BLP subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the only absurd thing here is suggesting that us using a name regularly and in the main used by reliable sources, including high quality RS, as well as a name that Clinton herself ran for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES under is somehow disrespectful. It's comedy to say this is disrespectful - was she being disrespectful of herself when she ran for president? Was she being disrespectful of herself when she signed her tag line as HC? It's absurd absurd absurd to claim this. With Cote d'Ivoire you may have a case, the country has regularly asked to be called Cote D'Ivoire and as far as I can tell they have never joined an international organization as Ivory Coast - but Wikipedia in its wisdom, after many years at Côte d'Ivoire, moved the article to Ivory Coast. We should do the same for this one - the constant barrage of move requests suggests the title isn't stable, once moved it will remain there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you think it is absurd to take account of our subjects' dignity - you argued ad nauseam in support of the sexist, demeaning title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and didn't get it when everybody complained about you moving women authors out of the category "American authors". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)In formal settings, such as official documents she released as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and the books she has published, she has always used "Hillary Rodham Clinton". She has a new memoir coming out later this year, and if the placeholder page at the publisher is any indication, it will be by "Hillary Rodham Clinton" too. Does the full name mean something to her? Yes, it reflects how she sees her identity as a married woman. Is she perfectly consistent about using it? No. Did she switch to the shorter form when she ran for president? Yes; it fits better on a button. Did she switch to the shorter form for Twitter? Yes; it fits better in that form too. Does she make a big fuss if people use the shorter form? No; she is, after all, a politician, and her job is to maximize support, not alienate people unnecessarily. Now note that the search issue is irrelevant - nobody has any trouble finding this article no matter what title it is on (this morning somebody mentioned something to me about a baroness that they had met in London; I was able to find her article easily even though it was under the non-quite-concise title of "First name last name, Baroness last name of the house name"). At the end of the day, to me, the key is that WP is a formal publication. Our articles have the look and feel of scholarly journals - formal writing style, lots of text and footnotes, few illustrations - not the look and feel of glossy magazines or modern websites - casual writing style, lots of illustrations, some text, no footnotes. Therefore in cases like this where there are a lot of uses of both, we should be more predisposed to use the formal name, especially since it better represents how she identifies herself. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are different categories of formality. Writing an op-ed, and announcing candidacy for POTUS, are a type of formal event no less than writing a book.  I think HC/HRC likes having two different name formats that she can use when she likes.  Alas, there's only one Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. With a little software support we could alternate the title back and forth from one day to the next.  In fact, that could solve a lot of naming disputes here.  And there is precedent in co-headlining concert tours featuring artists of equal stature:  A opens for B one night, then B opens for A the next night.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "At the end of the day, to me, the key is that WP is a formal publication." Well, that's swell. But we do have a formal policy on whether to use official names for article titles. The WP:COMMONNAME policy says that Wikipedia prefers common names over official names. Please don't confuse Wikipedia's preference for a formal style of writing with a preference for using formal or official names as article titles. Dezastru (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing them. But all sorts of projects have been granted exemptions from absolute applications of the common name and conciseness policies.  All royalty and peerage articles are exempt, military aircraft are exempt, election articles are exempt, articles about ambassadorial positions are exempt, several articles about U.S. presidents are exempt, articles about laws are exempt (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when everyone says either "Obamacare" or "ACA"!), and so on and on.  Those exemptions all come from people agreeing that correctness or formality or self-identification or some other criteria needed more weight than pure common name and conciseness.  And my point is that this article also merits such an exemption.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WTR: I think that's well-stated, and would agree that it seems quite justified in this case. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposition of moving it back and forth is intriguing -- shall we, then, not start by moving it forth? DeistCosmos (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if they ignored all rules, they would move the article. The policy based reasons discussed here all point to keeping the article named "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We can throw out all the WP:COMMONNAME support votes, because it has been proven in this RFC that it does not apply. Also, we can throw out all "ballots", political advertisments, and the like. They do not apply here. The strongest, and only as far as I can see, policy argument is WP:CONCISE. But that does not outweigh the fact that this article has been named "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for years, and has been stable. Admins only have to look at WP:TITLECHANGES and follow the policy based instructions there.
 * And Concise is not a good enough reason to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, with so much opposition. Why not move Philip Seymour Hoffman to Phillip Hoffman? John Wayne Gacy to John Gacey? Mark David Chapman to Mark Chapman? Do actors, serial killers and assassins have more right to take up precious characters in a title than the former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State? Concise doesn't apply here either. The example of Rhode Island or the record albulm do not apply to this discussion or article. So with the results from Google books shown to be inaccurate(at best), and WP:COMMONNAME a wash(at best), there is no significant policy based reason to move this article. Dave Dial (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it say something, that the examples you come up with are either disambiguation pages (Phillip Hoffman, Mark Chapman) or people who are virtually never, ever referred to without the full name (John Wayne Gacy)?   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, and am glad you pointed that out. It shows the system here works and WP:CONCISE is not a reason to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". Look at the names in the disambiguation pages. Philip Hoffman (Broadway actor)(no article, how many characters in THAT title?). Mark Lindsay Chapman(Who?). Mark Chapman (broadcaster). Mark Chapman (cricketer). All with as many, or more, characters than this article. Dave Dial (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , your argument fails at the gate. There is no question that the topic of this article is primary for the concise form in question, Hillary Clinton.  The concise title already redirects here - it's a settled issue.   In contrast, there is plenty of question about that issue for each of the concise forms in your example.  In fact, none of the concise forms (sans middle name) redirect to the corresponding article.    Therefore, each of them require disambiguation, and natural disambiguation with middle name is usually preferred to parenthetic disambiguation in the case of people who are well known by their full names.  But in this case the Rodham middle name is quintessential unnecessary disambiguation .  --B2C 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay John Gacy redirects to John Wayne Gacy, but as has been noted, that person is virtually unknown without the middle name. JG/JWG is not a situation of having two names used about equally in reliable sources, where the WP:Concision razor (a new essay written by Yours Truly) would be appropriate to use; but in the case of HC/HRC it is.   --B2C 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really the policy, is it? Perhaps if the article was already titled "Hillary Clinton" and editors wanted to move it to "Hillary Rodham Clinton", that would be a policy reason to keep the article name as Hillary Clinton. Heck, I might even vote for it to stay that way. If that were the case. Maybe. But that's not the case. The article is named Hillary Rodham Clinton. There are no policy reasons given in this move discussion that support a move of the page. Not WP:COMMONNAME and not WP:CONCISE. If one reads the Concise policy it states:
 * "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area."
 * It then goes on to list two examples. The first lists the official name of Rhode Island, which is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I think we can all agree that everyone knows the State Rhode Island, but nobody outside of that State(except perhaps some Government functionaries) has ever heard of the official name. That does not apply here. Almost everyone has heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton. That has been demonstrated here on this page succinctly. Besides, Rodham is not the same as adding "State of * and Providence Plantations" to an article title, and this article was created in 2001(That's almost 14 years!) and has been stable ever since. Also, the number of page views the article has been steadily and overwhelmingly more that the redirect page of "Hillary Clinton". It's not even close. The other example in the policy WP:CONCISE points to Fiona Apple's 1999 album which consists of 90 words and 444 characters. I think we can all agree that doesn't apply here either. And WP:TITLECHANGES is clear here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the vast majority of comments attempting to counter the move or "throw out" rationales for the move come from the same half dozen or so editors, while the number of editors voting in support of the move is the most I have ever seen for a move request, outside of the Chelsea Manning situation. There were also a lot of oppose votes there, passionately argued at some length. It is actually really an amazing thing to see this many Wikipedia editors come out in support of a move. By the way, pageviews are meaningless where anyone following the redirect will count for a pageview for both the redirect and the article, and anyone typing "Hillary Clinton" into Google will be given this page, even if they never heard of or wanted anything more than "Hillary Clinton." The fact that some people have not heard of any other version is a serious recognizability issue which, for utility purposes, should override any matter of personal preference by editors who like the current title but would recognize the title if it was just "Hillary Clinton."   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP:CONCISE is policy (part of WP:AT), and the examples there are meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive in terms of covering every type of situation. In fact, an example where the shorter one is also preferable per WP:COMMONNAME (Rhode Island) is probably not a good example - thanks for bringing that to our attention.  But let's not misunderstand.  We are to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic".  There is no question that in this case HC and HRC both identify the topic spectacularly well.  That's not an issue.  Therefore the only way to balance the "identify the topic" consideration with brevity is to choose the shorter one.  That's HC, clearly.  That's policy.  --B2C 05:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will say this...it is simply NOT something one can demonstrate that "some people have not heard of any other version" with one name or the other. It is a false argument because of how impossible it is to argue or prove, one way or the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could simply ask people. If somebody tells you they've not heard your version, you could assume them to be telling the truth about that. Or perhaps people have "heard" both versions, but one being simpler and more common in the construction of names might have been the only one they remembered. For people born in, for example, 1991, they were nine when she ceased to be first lady (and became simply one amongst a hundred senators), and were sixteen when they likely heard the first thing out of her mouth, that being "I'm Hillary Clinton" -- so it is quite possible that a great proportion of the under-twenty-three set has had exactly this experience. Somebody turning twenty later this year could have been six in 2001 and thirteen in 2007. DeistCosmos (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd line of discussion. Both clearly meet the recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA.  Neither meets it demonstrably and significantly better.  This is obvious.  Whether anyone has not heard of one or the other is not an issue.  There is no point in asking people.  With respect to recognizability, and WP:COMMONNAME, we have a tie. Equally absurd would be any discussion which one meets WP:CONCISION better.  Clearly that is the shorter one.   This is the only strong policy-based argument favoring either title, and it favors Hillary Clinton.   --B2C 16:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

7 April 2014

 * Oppose. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she prefers.  Adopting her husband's name was only for political expediency, so he would be reelected in Arkansas.  For want of a better word, it is her "slave name".  If you change this, you will also have to consider moving "Chelsea Manning" back to "Bradley Manning, on the basis that the U.S. military system will only deliver mail to that name. —Neotarf (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And we have a winner for most irrational reason to oppose the move. It somehow manages to be utterly false (she's never stated a preference for HRC over HC, especially considering she ran for president under the latter) and manages to compare a woman voluntarily taking her husband's last name to the the systematic enslavement of millions. Congrats. Let's just shut the whole debate down now.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   15:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a discussion about this debate at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 160. Responding to comments that dropping "Rodham" would be misogyny and that it is only being proposed because Wikipedia is a "boy's club", Jimbo said:
 * "I tend to agree with this point. It seems that all available evidence is that in this particular case it doesn't matter from the perspective of search engines being able to direct people appropriately.  It probably does matter from the perspective of understanding - it's an important part of her public persona that she has chosen to keep her birth name in this fashion.  (Naming conventions are changing, and she's an important catalyst in that.)  And it certainly matters from a BLP perspective - and that's true even though it is a relatively minor matter.--Jimbo Wales 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"
 * --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. So I guess the Cat Stevens article will forthwith become the "Yusuf Islam" article. Since the subject of that BLP has expressed a clear preference for the latter name, search engines can direct readers to the correct place, and keeping the current name of Cat Stevens could be considered a form of bias from an organization composed of individuals who are for the most part not Muslim. Dezastru (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Misogyny? Children in the United States are typically given the surnames of their fathers only because in old England children were considered to be the property of their father. It is no sign of respect to treat a woman as though she remains the property of her father and has to be stamped with his last name even if she herself decides not to use it in her most high profile activities. At this point, not moving the page would appear to be some kind of capitulation to archaic PC societal constraint.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In old England, a girl was the property of her father and used his last name until she married, when she became the property of her husband and took his last name. That's ancient history. We are not in old England now; women are nobody's property, and women have the ability to choose what name they want to be known by. Their name is not dictated by their father, their husband, the courts, or Wikipedia. THAT would be misogyny. The issue here is not her husband's name as Hot Stop claimed; she took her husband's name voluntarily (if possibly reluctantly) and she has used it ever since. Nobody is trying to take away the "Clinton" part of her name. The issue is her birth name, which obviously means a lot to her and which she has clung to throughout her adult life (with a few exceptions which don't alter the basic pattern that she calls herself Hillary Rodham Clinton). Why are you guys trying to delete her birth name, deprive her of her choice of name, based on a few Google counts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were trying to avoid depriving her of her birth name, wouldn't we need to go to the thousands of Wikipedia articles where she is referred to as "Hillary Clinton" and change those, too? For example, where it says in Curt Schilling that Schilling "criticized then-presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Clinton (D) for her comments criticizing the war in Iraq"?   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Wikipedia has never been 100%, encyclopedia-wide consistent about what things or people are called. We are talking about the name of her main article, where you guys (I use the word "guys" advisedly) are claiming that you know, better than she does, what her name is or should be. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does no-one find it worth noting that Wikipedia's Founder believes this move proposal to have implications of WP:Systemic bias as well as BLP issues? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, why? But have no fear, he says he's contacting "her people" via the we're-the-people-that-matter network to find out what she wants us to do. No indication he's contacting Yusuf Islam's "people" to get instructions from him though. Funny that. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo heard back from "her people". So this should settle the question of whether she really has a preference, or if her preference might have changed. "'To your question, 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' would be the preference.' is the response.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)'" --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rodham didn't invent itself. It's her name and she uses it. Dropping it is her choice, not WP's.  It does less harm to call her by the name she uses for herself per Chelsea.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Her common name is Hillary Clinton, and it has been since at least her 2008 run for president. Orser67 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I am an anonymous user, but one who contributes regularly to Wikipedia and chooses not to have an account (I would feel an obligation to spend too much time on the website). I am from the United Kingdom, where my personal experience, at least in the past ten years or so, has been that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' is exceptionally rare. It appears as if quite a few users are using arguments of 'misogyny', which is, at least in my opinion, a little far-fetched. I think most agree that 'Hillary Clinton' is the common name. Some have doubts, though, about what Mrs Clinton prefers. Unlike the Bradley Manning situation, I do not think one could claim that Mrs Clinton finds the use of 'Hillary Clinton' offensive in any way. If she had a meaningful personal preference for including Rodham (which does function merely as a middle name, whatever its origins), then she would ensure that all her material uses Rodham. Since this does not happen, and she regularly uses 'Hillary Clinton', we are violating WP:NPOV and WP:V by speculating on her personal feelings. For this reason, it seems most natural for the article to be renamed to Mrs Clinton's common name, which is 'Hillary Clinton'. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to recap here, in addition to HRC's press secretary stating in 1993 that "Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the First Lady's name all along, since 1982", when asked what name the First Lady wish to be addressed by. Plus the fact she became a notable person as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the scores of official biographies titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the millions of times she has been referred to by the media as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the 10's of thousands of times she has signed documents as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the various books she has written as an author by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", we now have word from Clinton's people in 2014 that she wishes to be referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", via Jimbo. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:BLP, and WP:Commonname. Per above Dave Dial link, she prefers the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it's a common name for this subject, so there is no reason not to use it as this article title, and good reason, per human dignity (as honored in BLP policy) to go with the subject's preference. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)  In addition, deference to the long-term title also gives reason to oppose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%2C%20hillary%20rodham%20clinton&cmpt=q --12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Meaningless. When you type "Hillary" into the Google search box, it prefills the "Clinton" and lets you click that, so of course no one is going to type anything longer than that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about her appearance as "Hillary Clinton" on the primary ballots, and in campaign ads stating "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message"? bd2412  T 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One wonders why Google does not prompt the user to enter "Hillary Rodham Clinton", if that is the more commonly used name. &mdash; goethean 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else see any other famous Hillary Clinton in the search results? Epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: per Canvassing, I have notified all relevant Wikiprojects, and all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project, other than those who have already weighed in here, or are currently blocked. In light of the previous issue arising from a contentious non-admin closure, I have also requested a three-administrator panel to oversee and close this discussion. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No...you didn't.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BD2412, but you didn't notify me. I'm deeply hurt. Dezastru (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I didn't need to - here you are! bd2412  T 04:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you did not notify "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project". Tvoz / talk 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies to both of you. In order to avoid sending a notice to anyone who had already weighed in on the conversation, I filtered out names of editors that already appeared on this talk page. Unfortunately, this was too broad a brush, as it caught some people who had commented in other discussions on this page, but not in this one. For the record, this notice went to 33 of the 46 editors who had previously participated in these discussions. Of those 33 editors, 16 had previously opposed the move and 17 had previously supported it, which roughly reflects total participation in the previous discussions (a substantial number of the remaining editors who have previously opposed this move had already weighed in on this discussion before I got here, and obviously did not require a notification). I have now rectified this error, and in an abundance of caution, I have now notified every registered editor who (so far as I can determine) has ever participated in a move discussion on this topic prior to this one (except for two - Kauffner, and GoodDay - who are currently indef-banned). I have also included a few editors who have previously commented on one or more proposed moves without having specifically registered support or opposition. Cheers! bd2412  T 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only did you NOT notify other editors who previously discussed this, you deleted your user Talk page and moved it without providing links. I don't remember which Admin warned you, but you were warned on your last move request to wait 6 months before starting a new one, or you would be blocked for disruptive editing. Now those warnings are gone from your user Talk page, with no mention of HRC. Now it's barely 1 month later and here we are again. With you so obsessed with this that your edits on this page take up swaths of sections. This move request should be closed. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have me confused with someone else. You can search through the history of this talk page, and all of the previous discussions, and you will see that I have never started a move request with respect to this article. I have never received any warning from any admin, on my talk page or anywhere else, relating to any proposed move of this page. Furthermore, I didn't start the current move request. An anon IP did; I merely supported the move, and provided a detailed rationale in support of it. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struck the accusations, because now I am not sure. My apologies. Dave Dial (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. These discussions can get heated. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree, however, that I have gotten very involved in this discussion. I have said everything I wanted to say, and will leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. What?  I still have half a bowl of popcorn left.  Now what?  --B2C 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've also brought up another move discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't think you should have waited until this one is settled? I do. Tvoz / talk 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: In a past discussion User:Dezastru had provided us with the following table of search results. If we ask nicely, maybe User:Dezastru could update his research to the current state? There are news cites where a really comprehensive search could be done to show which was used more, and by how much, over the last year, year before that, year before that, back to 2007.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPGA2345 (talk • contribs)
 * I would, but my library has since eliminated access to that search service (budget cuts). However, the searches were run only a year ago. It's unlikely there was a huge change in the pattern since then. (If anything, the number of HC counts relative to HRC counts has probably grown even more.) Dezastru (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those results are definitely skewed. I searched for ""Hillary Clinton" -Wikipedia -Rodham" in books and the first book title was "HRC", where the author constantly refers to Mrs. Clinton as Hillary Rodham Clinton. The 2nd book was titled "The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power". Inside that book the author also constantly refers to Mrs. Clinton as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I stopped researching after that. If anything, it shows these search results the Supports are pointing to mean absolutely nothing. Those using WP:COMMONNAME are actually in favor of keeping the article as currently titled, based on the facts presented here on this page. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a more inquisitive search and found that just within the past 48 hours the following news stories have published in media outlets large and small that mention "Hillary Clinton" but make no mention at all of "Rodham," not in an introductory sentence, or even in a caption or a footnote. If excluding the "Rodham" is a mistake, then a lot of major news organizations, including CNN, Fox News, CBS News, etc., are being surprisingly sloppy. Digging deeper, it seems, uncovers the common use of "Hillary Clinton" without anything appended to it.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton: Media Promotes ‘Double Standard’ for Women, ABC News
 * Ex-CIA boss Morell gives unorthodox reasons for omitting key Benghazi details Fox News
 * Hillary Clinton to return to Arkansas days in speech to education group, CNN
 * Clinton and Lagarde on their future as world leaders, CBS News
 * Hillary Blasts Putin, The Daily Beast
 * Hillary Clinton Decries Partisanship, US News
 * Clinton coy on 2016, but walks the walk, MSNBC
 * Hillary Clinton Explains How To Navigate Public Life Buzzfeed
 * Poll: Hillary Clinton winning Catholics, Protestants, and 36% of evangelicals, Washington Examiner
 * Lobbyists kick in for Ready for Hillary, Politico
 * MSNBC loves Hillary Clinton, Chicago-Sun-Times
 * Gibbs, Hillary Question Survival of Obamacare Employer Mandate, Newsmax
 * Clinton, Lagarde Target Glass Ceiling for Women Worldwide, Bloomberg Businessweek
 * Clinton Praises Social Media as Way to Fight Corruption, NBC News
 * Leahy questions advice to Clinton on 'Cuban Twitter' program, The Hill
 * Bill Clinton on Jimmy Kimmel: ‘most days, I don’t miss’ White House, Washington Post
 * All-Star Panel: Future of ObamaCare mandates? Fox News
 * “Rude, dismissive and brusk!” Why Zionist leader Mort Klein is still fuming at Christie (and us), Salon
 * For Scott Brown, a possible third test against a woman, Boston Globe
 * White House 2016: Pins and needles without a point, Kansas City Star
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPGA2345 (talk • contribs)
 * Let's try to keep the long "discussions" in the Discussion section. In any case, I can make a long list to, but of reliable sources addressing Hillary Rodham Clinton as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night that excessive partisanship flowing through the nation's political system is causing the U.S. to march "backwards instead of forward", Associated Press via Yahoo News
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton has helped to announce a new campaign that aims to harness science CBS News New York
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton wasted no words about how women in public life are portrayed: There is a double standard,and the media are at fault. USA Today
 * The prospective candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush are spurring talk of dynasties., Los Angeles Times
 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, regarded as the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, The Boston Globe
 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver a keynote address next Tuesday at Marketo's 2014 Marketing Nation Summit, The San Francisco Business Times
 * Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Burmese pro-democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi have dinner in Yangon, Myanmar, in 2011, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
 * As secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed for many such programs around the world, noting the success of social media in organizing protests in Egypt and Tunisia New York Times
 * Neither former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton nor John Kerry, the current occupant of the office, was aware of ZunZuneo, CBS Washington DC
 * And so on and so on and so on. Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there's no point in getting into a pissing contest over who can show the most sources using one form or the other. We all know that there are probably a million sources that use only "Hillary Clinton" a million that use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - including, at various times, Clinton herself. This is why other policies become the tiebreakers, policies like recognizability and conciseness. I really haven't seen any dispute here about those policies applying.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikisource uses Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. --71.59.58.63 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wolfram Alpha uses Hillary Clinton. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NNDB uses Hillary Clinton. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
Given my experience with previous contentious discussions (particularly the Chelsea Manning situation), I think it would be prudent to edit-protect this page for the duration of this discussion, to prevent IP edits and newly-created SPAs from jumping in with unconstructive comments. Would anyone object to that? Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was an IP address with about 10 lifetime edits that started RM8! And another IP address who started RM7.  Who may or may not be the same and may or may not be a real editor.  I think the taint you want to prevent is already there.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned about comments like the IP who popped in to say "She's trying to coast into office on Bill's name"; whether true or not, this is irrelevant to the discussion and aimed to provoke an off-topic response. Further issues along these lines may not arise at all, but I have seen them come up in high-profile move discussions more than once. bd2412  T 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-discussion analysis by community
For the record, Jimbo conveyed a message from the Clinton people at 22:46, 7 April 2014 over at his talk page, and I responded there at 01:17, 8 April 2014. Then this discussion was closed at 01:19, 8 April 2014. I hope that my comment of 01:17 is considered here, if anything else at Jimbo's talk page is considered here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted.--v/r - TP 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a response to Anythingyouwant and not to be cute or anything but please consider my response to them as well as it does have some pertinent information I think should be weighed with their response to Jimbo.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, here is a Google Ngram for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, which shows the former as more common, especially since 2000. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh........It's as if nobody else reads the discussions here. That has already been shown to be a false comparison. Your search is for Hillary Clinton, and returns all results with Hillary Clinton, even the results WITH "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the main reference, compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you want to measure results that specifically match "Hillary Clinton" without mention of Rodham and compare it to results that specifically show results with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the search looks like this. Which, of course, shows the exact opposite of your claim. HRC overwhelmingly outnumbers HC-R. Dave Dial (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of you is doing the N-Gram correctly. The key is simplicity.  See here and click "Search Lots of Books".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from a non!voter in this discussion: GabeMc's ngram was correct. (As was Anythingyouwant's.) @User:DD2K: an ngram only returns results for the exact phrase entered. So a search for "Hillary Clinton" does not return results for "Hillary Rodham Clinton," "Hillary R. Clinton," "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton," etc. DD2K - your ngram is confusing, as it is comparing a single ngram ("Hillary Rodham Clinton"), with a combined ngram (the ngram for "Hillary Clinton" minus the ngram for "Rodham"). They can't easily be compared. (And in fact, it shows that instances of "Hillary Clinton" have exceeded instances of "Rodham" since 2005, (see here) which I suspect is not what you intended to show.) See this explanation from Google. Dohn joe (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's confusing. Why do they have parenthesis and subtractions-, with instructions, if they don't mean anything? In any case, I rather just point to the searches used as proof that Hillary Clinton was used more on books than HRC. When you search "Hillary Clinton" -Wikipedia -Rodham in Google Books, the results are not correct. The books definitely address HRC as HRC. The first book given in the results is titled HRC. The 2nd book addresses the subject as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" over and over. So how can we rely on any results coming from these searches without checking them? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The subtraction sign does do something, but it subtracts one ngram from another, not one term from a search. Dohn joe (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dohn joe, thanks for reinforcing what I explained above (under the 2 April 2014 subheading). Some here, Dave among them, still don't seem to grasp how Ngrams work. Ngrams are counts of the number of times an exact phrase has appeared. The + and - operands can be used to perform mathematical calculations on those counts. That's how the results of a subtraction operation with Ngrams can produce a negative result, as shown on the Y-axis (for an example of this, check out Google's basic info page on Ngrams - search the page for the word Sasquatch). If Ngrams worked the way Dave thinks (that is, if the minus symbol worked as a search exclusion command rather than as a numerical subtraction operand), negative results wouldn't be possible! The Ngrams data clearly show that the term "Hillary Clinton" is more common than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". But whatever the outcome of this RFC on the article title, how Ngram calculations work is an important point that everyone needs to understand for future reference. Dezastru (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree that when possible we should consider the wishes of the subject of a BLP, especially when WP:COMMONNAME does not clearly favor either name.  When I supported the name change it was because I thought it was now Hillary Rodham Clinton's preferred name based on her website.  After Jimbo's reported communication, I no longer believe that. So, if the discussion were still open, I would have changed from support  to oppose. I am One of Many (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. Can others clarify if this is a common feeling now?--v/r - TP 00:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be difficult to say for sure. Many on Jimbo's talk page are actually offended that he even asked her and are stating outright that if any admin closing this thread take that into consideration they will be violating policy and guidelines. Of course the only thing I feel should be considered is that if she has made it clear her preference is HRC, then that, at the very least, counters everyone's argument that she prefers or wants to be called HC.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I am asking. Has her people's comments to Jimbo changed anyone else opinion as it has I am One of Many's.--v/r - TP 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't !vote (I just made a comment and was watching the discussion), but I would have !voted in support with that information, given that WP:COMMONNAME wasn't that strongly in favor of HC. (Although I'm not totally comfortable with Jimbo's using his connections in this manner and part of me wants to ignore it for that reason.) -- Irn (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not inclined to consider flipping. But I'll ask again right now if someone would please tell us whether the subject of the BLP expressed to Jimbo Wales a general preference about how she wants to be publicly known, versus a mere preference about how this Wikipedia article should be named.  I have asked twice at Jimbo's talk page.  As things stand, I would just go with what reliable sources say about prevalent use, and with what reliable sources say about her own use of her name, which together strongly support the move.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but no one supporting the move actually said she prefers HC over HRC. The argument is that she has, on different occasions, used both names, so while she may favor one she isn't opposed to the other. I don't think the comments made to Jimbo should have any bearing, since it's an obvious attempt by those opposing the move (not Jimbo himself) to undermine consensus here, where it seems a strong majority feel HC is the more common name.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "An obvious attempt by those opposing to undermine consensus" not only lumps all opposers together, it is also a questionable statement. In any case, there was no consensus -- clearly. HC may be commonly-used, but there's far more involved than just that, as also must be clear. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to lump all opposers together, but the post in that thread is a clear attempt to either canvass or have Jimbo personally intervene. I also doubt there's no consensus.  This discussion isn't a vote per se, but when 70 percent of commenters say they support the move, consensus seems pretty clear.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   02:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A big majority of editors can change policy, perhaps, but they cannot override policy. There are swaths of votes from supporters that are not supported by the facts/policy. And after all, it's up to those wanting to change a long standing title to make a solid case for a move based on policy. Not on those who want to keep an article "as is". Dave Dial (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most supporters argued HC is the more common name than HRC. Others also argued its more concise. Both of those are criteria included in our policy on article titles.  So how is that not supported by policy?    Hot Stop     (Edits)   03:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because HC is not a more common name than HRC. It's one thing to make a claim, it's a whole other thing to also prove that claim. Which was not done here. Since when does posting pictures of ballots overrule the facts? Are ballots a reliable source? Or political ads? Both are designed by either political operatives or government functionaries. If one is honest with themselves, they would have to admit that HRC has been the overwhelming way the subject of this article has been addressed the past 30+ years. And concise isn't a policy for moving an article that has been named and stable for 13 years. What possible difference does it make if the article is titled HRC or HC with redirects going to the article anyway? That's where WP:TITLECHANGES should be used. Which is policy. So yea, I don't see any policy reason for moving the article. But that's not my job. Fortunately. And in the end, it's not going to effect anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , why do you keep ignoring WP:CONCISION? It is policy.  And better adherence with title policy is a good reason to change a title, so the WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply in such a case.  There can be no better reason to change a title than to bring it in better complicance with policy.  In this case HC will comply just as well as HRC on recognizability, precision, consistency, and naturalness.  We can pick nits, but there really is no strong case clearly favoring either on any of those four criteria.  However, with respect to concision there is absolutely no question.  This proposed move clearly brings this title into better adherence with policy.  Frankly, it's so clear, there really shouldn't be any discussion about it.  If this isn't a slam dunk, no title choice is.  --B2C 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit summary was the most ridiculous, community consensus decision making model incompatible statement I have ever seen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except you just made the point yourself. You just admitted there is no strong case to move this article, except(in your opinion) WP:CONCISE. Why would we move an article that has been stable for 13 years based on that? I've seen a few editors point to concise, but it's not a reason for a move. It's a reason for article creation. And WP:TITLECHANGES 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." After all, we are not going around and trying to change the Franklin D. Roosevelt article to FDR just to be concise, right? There should be another reason other than that for moving a stable article. In any case, the discussion is moot now, and I'm off to bed. I have to get up in 4 hours. Dave Dial (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial: I agree &mdash; even if we accept that conciseness favors the proposed change (which I question, given that conciseness is different than mere brevity), that by itself seems an insufficient basis to change a title that's been so stable for so long... and of course per WP:TITLECHANGES, it's doubly inadvisable if the title we're changing it to is controversial, which the avalanche of divided discussion above strongly suggests is the case here.

I also agree that (despite assertions to the contrary by some) common name does not clearly support Hillary Clinton. Some raw frequency counts may support HC, but that's different from saying that reliable sources overall support HC. Per WP:UCN, there are various measures beyond mere search engine tests that help us choose among alternative names:
 * Other encyclopedias, for instance, 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. What form do quality encyclopedias like the Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book prefer?  HRC.
 * We can also look to usage by major bodies, like the White House, Congress, and State Department, all of which are quite relevant to this subject... and all of which favor HRC.

Put simply, usage is divided. Are there sources that use HC? Of course. But while many of the most significant and relevant reliable sources (from major encyclopedias to various major media outlets to the US government to the Clinton Foundation itself to her own office) favor HRC, I don't think one can make a sufficiently clear case for HC. At best it's divided &mdash; and relying on divided usage to change a stable article title to a controversial alternative seems ill-advised. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. We do not change article titles just to be MORE concise. There has to be a reason to accompany that policy. It's not as if the article name was "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, Former First Lady of the United States". That is an article name that WP:CONCISE would apply to. That's pretty clear by the examples given in the policy. I don't think supporters can say "Move, because WP:COMMONNAME", fail to prove that her common name is HC, so have the article moved anyway just to shorten a long standing, stable title. If it's ruled that we have to move articles to shorter titles, for no other reason than to be concise, then we should start moving whole swaths of articles. Starting with Diana, Princess of Wales, Frances Shand Kydd and John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Because, well WP:CONCISE! Dave Dial (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , we DO change articles just be MORE concise all the time. "Unnecessary disambiguation" is a phrase that refers to an argument frequently cited in RM discussions, and is often the only argument cited, for changing titles, and it's entirely about making the given title more concise. Some people, perhaps most notably, object to that characterization in cases like this because they say (for example) the "Rodham" part is not disambiguation at all, and therefore it can't be unnecessary disambiguation.  But that misses the point.  If there was, say, a very famous Academy Award actress of the Merryl Streep caliber named Hillary Clinton, then this political subject would likely not be the primary use, and "Hillary Clinton" would have to be disambiguated.  In that case, disambiguation would be necessary, and Rodham would be appropriate.  That's why when the need to disambiguate does not exist, including what would be a reasonable disambiguator in the title (in this case Rodham) is referred to as "unnecessary disambiguation".  That reference does not infer that those supporting the inclusion of the part in question are arguing it needs to be there for disambiguation.  Their reasons might be entirely different, but it's still "unnecessary disambiguation".   It's another way of arguing WP:CONCISION.As to the comparison to FDR/Franklin D. Roosevelt, while he was and is frequently referred to as FDR, the argument cannot be made that use of FDR is as commonly used as is Franklin D. Roosevelt; not in reliable sources.  In informal contexts one might just FDR without ever using the full name, but not in reliable sources.  However, reliable sources do refer to Hillary Clinton without the Rodham all the time.  That's the distinction.  That's why usage in reliable sources is so important to WP:COMMONNAME...  it rules out FDR as a title, but not Hillary Clinton.  As to this title being "stable", as a few have claimed, the plethora of challenges in its history causes me to beg to differ.  A stable title is, well, Yogurt.  But that was not always the case.  While at Yoghurt, that article too had a long history of strong policy-based challenges to its title that never-the-less failed, including challenges that succeeded and then were reversed, just as HRC has. There the policy-based argument for moving was based on first use (WP:RETAIN;  here it's WP:CONCISE.  There it was argued, for years, that the only way to stabilize the title is to move it to one that doesn't have a policy-based argument to change it.  In that case that was Yogurt, and that has turned out to be true.  There is no policy-based argument to change it, and so there has not been a single challenge since it was moved.  The same will happen here.  If the article is moved to HC, there will be no policy-based argument to move it to HRC or anything else, so then, finally, it will be stable.  But it's certainly not stable now!  --B2C 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, why are you dragging my name into this? I have not participated in this "post-discussion discussion", because I respect the fact that the discussion is closed, and because no one here has anything new to say. At least you did summarize my opinion correctly: "Rodham" is not disambiguation, any more than the middle initial is disambiguation in the names Dwight D. Eisenhower or Lyndon B. Johnson. It is simply part of their name. You then proceed to (I think) agree with me that "Rodham" is not a form of disambiguation - necessary or unnecessary. It's just part of her name. In my opinion, a NECESSARY part, just as the middle initial "D." is a necessary part of the name Dwight D. Eisenhower. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, in the real world, this article title has indeed been stable for many years. In the nine years that I've been involved with it, I can't recall ever seeing a regular reader complain  about or disagree with the title.  That includes non-WP-familiar IP addresses posting on the talk page, comments left via the Article Feedback Tool, people who've written news stories or blog entries about the article, and people I've talked to about the article in real life.  It's only among Wikipedia editors that the article title has caused anyone any upset.  That isn't always the case (I've seen some regular readers complain about article titles in nationality-related naming disputes), and it tells me we don't have a real issue here with stability.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C: Unsuccessful attempts to change an article title do not make it unstable. As for your claims (which you've regularly raised in various discussions on other topics) that everything will suddenly fall quiet if we just make the change you prefer, you're certainly welcome to that opinion, but I see no reason to share it.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for dragging you into this, ; I just wanted to substantiate that I was not making a strawman argument regarding the rebuttal to "unnecessary disambiguation" ("it's not disambiguation") that I was making. See also:  WP:UNDAB., the move log history of this article  shows moves in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2013.  That 2013 move, by the way, was the result of an RM decision (yes, it was later reversed in a review that could have easily gone either way).  That, on top of the history of this being RM #8 makes the claim that this title is "stable" highly dubious.  But, besides title instability, the other reason WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply here is because the proposal is based on a good reason: better compliance with title policy. My position here has nothing to do with my personal preferences.  I couldn't care less about whether this article title is HC or HRC.  What I do care about is title stability, and I've observed title policy compliance is the bedrock of title stability. For years people at what was then Talk:Yoghurt mistook my involvement there as fighting for a particular preference.  Not at all.  What I saw there is what I see here: years of title controversy including eight RM discussions that would be easily resolved by moving the article to the title that complies better with title policy.  In that case, Yoghurt vs. Yogurt, the underlying issue was English variety - and the longstanding relevant policy was to resolve conflicts about variety by WP:RETAINing (or restoring) the original variety, which in that case was "Yogurt".  I saw that that policy-based argument favored Yogurt, and, once moved, there would be no policy-based argument to return the article to "Yoghurt".  I kept pointing this out  , stating repeatedly that once the title was changed peace would break out, but those opposed to the proposed move dismissed my points as "opinion", without addressing the reasons for my making that prediction (which turned out to be accurate), just as you're doing here. So, here we have only one policy-based argument that clearly favors one of the two choices - WP:CONCISION favors "Hillary Clinton" (yes, concision is not only about brevity, but brevity is a key component, the other being comprehensiveness, and, in the context of titles based on usage in reliable sources, Hillary Clinton is more than sufficiently comprehensive - there is no basis at WP:AT or any other policy to favor HRC over HC to increase comprehensiveness), and, once the article is moved, there will be no policy-based argument to return to "Hillary Rodham Clinton", unless usage in reliable sources radically changes.  How this argument is particularly salient in a situation of repeated RMs is explained in general at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Anyway, I am clearly on the record in the Talk:Yogurt archives about my prediction for title stability there, once the proposed move occurred, and now I'm on the record about that here.  --B2C 17:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, you do have a personal preference: the shortening of titles despite reasons to the contrary, which is not Wikipedia policy. This is a stable article title. That some people keep challenging it is irrelevant. Omnedon (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONCISION is policy.
 * Brevity is fundamental to concision, and it clearly favors Hillary Clinton over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 * Comphenesiveness is also fundamental to concision, but in the context of topic identification by titles, Hillary Rodham Clinton is no more comprehensive than is Hillary Clinton - they obviously both refer to the exact same topic. It's true that HRC says more about the topic than does HC, but saying stuff about topics is the purpose of the article body, not the article title (unless saying it is necessary for disambiguation).
 * There is no policy-based reason (i.e., no good reason) to include Rodham in this title. Not WP:AT.  Not WP:COMMONNAME.  Not WP:BLP.  None of those polices, nor any other, provides grounds to include Rodham in the title, given that HC is clearly used at least as commonly as HRC in reliable sources to refer to this topic.
 * If the article is moved to Hillary Clinton, there will be no policy-based argument to move it back to Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you disagree, please tell us what that policy-based argument would be.
 * That so many people keep challenging it is relevant, because it indicates the current title is inconsistent with policy. Many titles that are repeatedly challenged, like Chelsea Manning as well as Yogurt - cease being controversial once the title is changed to be in better compliance with policy.
 * Brevity, as a key component of WP:CONCISION, has always been part of WP title policy, long before I got involved, and for very good reasons. Chief among them is that it settles disputes exactly like this one.
 * --B2C 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Concision is a policy. It is not the only one. There are various reasons why it is at the current title; they are given in the discussion on this page. The quantity of challenges says nothing about the quality of those challenges. And brevity is not about to settle this dispute. Omnedon (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty of WP:JDLI reasons given in the discussion in support of the current title.  But if any of the arguments strongly supports HRC and is well grounded in policy, I missed it. SmokeyJoe, for example, argues that HRC is better supported by "the best" sources; but there is no policy basis for determining WP:COMMONNAME based on SmokeyJoe's notion of "the best" sources. Others argue that she uses HRC more than HC, and her representatives have stated they prefer HRC. Even if true, these are not policy-based reasons to go with HRC.  That is, WP:AT, WP:BLP nor any other policy even hints that we should choose titles based on BLP subject preference.The strongest argument, perhaps, is that the two choices are about equal in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, and so the title should not be changed per WP:TITLECHANGES.  But this argument ignores WP:CONCISION, and does not answer my question - it's clearly not a policy-based reason that could be used to argue for moving to HRC once this article is moved to HC. I repeat, unless I'm missing something, there is no policy-based argument favoring HRC over HC; but there clearly is a policy-based reason favoring HC over HRC (better compliance with WP:CONCISION).  Yes, there are considerations other WP:CONCISION when choosing titles - of course.  But in this case, none of those other considerations favor either title; that's why concision is especially important here.  --B2C 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, as you have done many times in the past, you are applying JDLI to those with whom you disagree. Yes, there are good reasons for the current title, not merely JDLI ones. This has been discussed over and over (and over). Omnedon (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with people, I evaluate arguments. And, to be fair, JDLI arguments have been made in favor of the move as well. For example, "I have never heard of this "Rodham"". The difference is that there is also a strong policy-based argument favoring HC, but none (that I know of) favoring HRC. So both have JDLI arguments favoring them, but only HC has a strong policy-based argument favoring it, so far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Whether there are "good" reasons to support HRC is irrelevant to title decisions, unless they are policy-based, or strong enough to invoke IAR.  If they are policy based, what is the policy and what is the argument?  As far as I know, nobody has argued the arguments favoring HRC are good and strong enough to invoke IAR.  Nobody has cited a single policy that favors HRC over HC, much less explain how it does that. If I'm wrong about that (and I'm not dismissing that possibility) it should be trivial to correct - by citing the policy and providing or referencing the explanation.   --B2C 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't disagree with people? What an absurd statement. And here is another of your tactics: insist that someone summarize the discussion for you and answer your questions, and claim default victory if not. Again, absurd. Omnedon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a difference between you and me, I suppose. You agree or disagree with people; I agree or disagree with arguments. And you apparently see my disagreements with arguments as disagreements with people.   That explains why you seem to get so personal about this stuff. I'm not asking anyone to summarize the discussion.  I'm asking someone to cite the policy that has been argued to favor HRC over HC.  Is it really asking for too much?  I also asked for references to the explanation of how that policy favors HRC over HC, but I can find it myself, if someone cites the policy in the same way it is used in the explanation. I just searched for Omnedon in the entire closed discussion. Not a single reference to any policy in anything you said.  You did indicate you agreed with Huwmanbeing a couple of times. So I searched for all of his comments in the closed discussion too.  Huw correctly and repeatedly notes that "usage is divided", effectively rebutting the common name argument favoring the move. But he makes no policy-based argument favoring HRC over HC.  And neither you nor he offers any rebuttal to the CONCISION argument favoring HC. Now, after the discussion was closed, Huw did finally address the concision argument.  He says that "[conciseness] by itself seems an insufficient basis to change a title that's been so stable for so long".  But he doesn't say why... why a policy-based reason supporting a proposed title is "insufficient basis to change", especially when neither he nor anyone else can offer a policy-based reason supporting the current title.  --B2C 21:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, you deliberately misunderstand. Let me state it this way: it's very obvious that you frequently disagree with people. This is what has gotten you in trouble on Wikipedia several times: your attitudes toward people. As for the discussion here, I was not a big participant in it; others had much more to say and I chose to agree with them rather than try and re-state what they said. If you read through it you will find the arguments. They are all there. If you choose not to see them, do not blame me. Omnedon (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read through it countless times. I can't find a single strong argument opposing the move that is based on any particular policy.  I can't prove it doesn't exist - but if my claim were not true, it would be trivial and practically effortless to disprove, taking much less time and energy than you've expended on any one of your comments in this discussion.   Simply cite the policy you believe is the basis for a strong argument favoring HRC over HC that was presented in the closed discussion. You can't do it because it's simply not there.  --B2C 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And here you are once again telling people what to do rather than discussing. You never learn, do you? Omnedon (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Don't you recognize a rhetorical question?  What I'm saying with the rhetorical question in bold above in our discussion is that you (and everyone else) can't cite the policy you believe is the basis for a strong argument favoring HRC over HC that was presented in the closed discussion because it doesn't exist.  Are you going to discuss that, or continue to dodge?  --B2C 00:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are trolling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh really? And what have I said that you believe is not really my position - that I'm just saying it to elicit response from others?  You know that's what trolling is, don't you? Since you too can't cite the policy you believe is the basis for a strong argument favoring HRC over HC that was presented in the closed discussion, you strengthen my point:  because it doesn't exist.  --B2C 02:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe: Agreed. B2C, hectoring other editors into re-entering the debate (or baiting them by saying their positions are baseless dodges unless they choose to personally refute your strident claims) is unhelpful.  You've already made your position clear, and others have done the same, at length.  I suggest leaving it at that.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't change my vote one bit, but if this contact is used as a reason for overriding broadly majoritarian sensibilities regarding commonality, that essentially raises the question, does Wikipedia bow before the tyranny of the most strident minority in service to the powerful and well-connected (perhaps, at least, if they're of the correct politics)? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Since my response to Hot Stop was deleted in the above discussion (I had the window open over breakfast and didn't even realized the discussion was closing), I would like to reintroduce the material here about what Hillary has said about her own name. Hillary's early work, when she first became notable, was done as "Hillary Rodham", but she began using her husband's name on the advice of political advisers after her husband lost an election. After her husband won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary told the press corps that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Jimbo has now contacted her office and confirmed that this is indeed her current preference. —Neotarf (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When two names of a BLP are both commonly used by reliable sources, the personal preference of the subject is not a tie-breaker, per policy.  Making subjective judgements about the "quality" of the reliable sources and going with the more common usage in the "higher quality" sources is also not a tie-breaker, per policy.    The policy-based tie-breaker is looking at any WP:CRITERIA by which a significant distinction can be made.  In this case that's WP:CONCISION.   --B2C 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to invent a notion of "tie-breaking"? Making subjective judgements about the "quality", and relevance, the reliable sources is something that all good editors do.  Your mission to relegate subjective decision making in favour of algorithmic rules is to dumb down the project and is incompatible with how Wikipedia came to be what it is.  If there is anything to be said about "tie-breaking", it is TITLECHANGES, or WP:RETAIN.  In short, stick with the first version unless there is consensus otherwise.


 * NB. HC is less concise because it conveys considerably less information, by ignoring a substantial fraction of the topic associated with the name Rodham and not with the name Clinton.  Concision is about efficient communication of information, if you remove information for brevity, you are not necessarily improving concision,   And also, nobody has yet given a reason why it is desirable for a sort title (less than one line in title font on the standard output) to be even shorter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Like SmokeyJoe said. The argument against concision deciding this is that the two forms of the name are not equivalent:  the longer form emphasizes her independent identity in addition to her married identity and the shorter form does not.  For a number of years after becoming married she did not use "Clinton" at all, in part to keep their professional lives separate, in part 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, but she made clear once she reached the White House that she preferred the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" form.  The point is that the "Rodham" isn't just filler to make the name longer; it's there for a reason.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe: Yeah, I've also been concerned about the push from some quarters toward more mechanical and exceptionless article titling; it seems to subordinate things like sensible judgment, community decision-making, etc. to mere rigid policy, which IMHO is not good for the project. That's not to say policy is unimportant &mdash; it's very important, and we must give a lot of deference to it, but (as incidents like the Sarah Jane Brown discussion demonstrate) we can't expect strict policy alone to sensibly cover every single case.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , it is true that "we can't expect strict policy alone to sensibly cover every single case". Of course.  That's why we have WP:IAR. But, because policy is very important (as you say), you need to have good reason to invoke IAR, and you need to be clear and explicit about it.  IAR should not be argued implicitly in RM discussions as if WP:AT and particularly WP:CRITERIA do not exist. But in most cases, there is no good reason to invoke IAR - policy indicates a good title, usually the best possible title. In this particular case, there is no serious problem with either the current or proposed title.  Both meet the WP:CRITERIA more than adequately, and there are no special extenuating reasons to prefer one over the other that would justify applying IAR.  But one clearly meets WP:CONCISION better than the other, and that's the only policy-based distinction that can be made, so that's the one we should choose.  and, the argument against concision deciding this is that the two forms of the name are not equivalent?  Because the longer form emphasizes her independent identity in addition to her married identity and the shorter form does not?  Well, first of all, this the first time I've seen this counter-argument offered, despite concision being argued from the beginning of the discussion.  That said, that distinction between the two titles cannot be denied.  It is of course true that HRC conveys the subject's independent identity via her maiden name as well as her married name, while HC does not.  But so what?  Are article titles supposed to convey such information about the subject?  Since when?   I'm sorry, but I don't know of any precedent for putting such a burden on a mere title, much less any actual policy or guideline stating this.  Do you?  This counter-argument strikes me as contrived rationalization to defend one's personal preference cobbled together specially for this one case, not an argument regularly used in a multitude of situations, like WP:UNDAB and WP:Concision razor are.  --B2C 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C: I understand you feel that there's no reason "to prefer one over the other that would justify applying IAR," and in this case I don't suggest we necessarily need to apply IAR. I, for one, believe that our choice of what usage is preferable here can be made through a consideration of the evidence within the framework of policies and guidelines &mdash; for instance, WP:COMMONNAME: The common name policy, which relates to the criterion of naturalness, does not rest simply on frequency counts and ngrams; it encourages editors to consider how names are used in various kinds of reliable souces to gauge which alternative is preferable for our BLP.  For example, it recommends "quality encyclopedias" as a helpful gauge... and checking sources like the Britannica and World Book, we see they prefer HRC.  The policy also recommends considering the usage of various major organizations – and one can't get much more significant (and indeed directly relevant to the subject) than the White House, the US Congress, the Library of Congress, the US State Department...  all of which prefer HRC.  (Following bd2412's lead, I could fill this page with links to every one of the 235 Senate bills she helped to sponsor &mdash; every one of which are listed at Thomas using "Rodham" &mdash; but I don't think that's necessary to make the point.)  Suffice it to say that consideration of such sources has already made what I consider to be a strong and defensible case for HRC as the common name, regardless of what overall raw frequency counts might indicate.  (This also means that concision is not the only relevant differentiator, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.)  That said, I do also accept that there are further favorable points in support of HRC, including MelanieN's regarding the significance of the maiden name and concerns of possible systematic bias, Jimbo Wales' regarding Hillary's own preference for HRC and the appropriateness of considering that in our BLPs, and others.  Such considerations may indeed venture into IAR territory, and if so, then that's fine.  As we've learned elsewhere, it can be proper and indeed desirable to consider factors beyond what a rigid reading of policy might dictate.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  23:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C, there are many examples of where we use a fuller and more accurate title even in the face of conciser alternatives. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis could be more concisely located at "Jacqueline Kennedy", which is a form many people use, but it was not how she self-identified for many years and it would not capture the full course of her life (meaning her later marriage). Muriel Humphrey Brown is a similar example.  Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band could be more concisely located at "Sgt. Pepper's", a shorter and still clear phrase that people use all the time, but it was not how The Beatles named that album.  I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch) is so located, even though many people refer to it by the shorter and still unique "Sugar Pie Honey Bunch", because that was the name Holland-Dozier-Holland gave to the song, lengthy and parenthesized as it is.  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is so located, even though "Affordable Care Act" is shorter and frequently used, because that is the full name that Congress gave it.  We locate Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, et al at those full titles, even though many high-end publications just use the far more concise "CIA", "NSA", etc even on first reference.  And nobility - there are hundreds of articles like Lynda Chalker, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, just to pick one at random, which is about as un-concise as you can get, but presumably the most accurate.    Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people using the title "Sgt. Pepper's" mean that as a shorthand for the full "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." The situation with Clinton's name is not necesarily similar in that regard. "CIA" and "NSA" both present disambiguation issues (WP:PRECISE). And while I haven't looked into it, I suspect that most reliable sources refer to the Holland-Dozier-Holland song using the title "I Can't Help Myself" (another one that would create disambiguation issues for Wikipedia) or "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch)," not as "Sugar Pie Honey Bunch." (Besides which, that latter article is probably not the best-sourced example someone could come up with.) Dezastru (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be real honest here....I believe that there are a great deal of editors with too much bias, one way or another and that what is most important is accuracy. Part of that is to is the preference of the subject or we must...I repeat must ignore all arguments posed by any editor in regards to what they claim is the preference of the subject from their references and sources. In fact, if I were TParis or any of the other 2 admin on the closing panel, this is exactly what I would do. Ignore Hillary's preference and ignore and every !vote and argument made by an editor who claims their decision is based on their supposed evidence of Mrs. Clinton preference from any source, regardless of what it is, where it comes from or how much they argue it. Editors cannot have their cake and eat it too. If one claims they have absolute proof the subject is preferring HC, I would discard that argument, look at every other argument being presented and go from there. If the other admin disagree, then we would still need to discard the editors arguing such due to our knowledge that the subject has actually made such preference clear. Just get this over with and lets move on please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, I'm sure the closing administrators will appreciate your telling them what to do. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Melanie....read what I said. It is what I would do. Not me telling them what to do. Like TParis would ever allow anyone to tell him how to handle a closing. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy really ought to require that the personal preferences of BLP subjects be a primary consideration in determining what identifying information editors elect to include in BLP articles and in how the articles are titled, in those situations in which the subjects have made their preferences clear. Had that been an unambiguous part of policy, and had I known that Clinton prefers Rodham be included in her Wikipedia article's title, I would have been arguing all along that the title should not be changed. Is Wikipedia policy now changing with this case? I argued that the BLP subjects' preferences should guide our editing in the disputes over how to title the article on Chelsea Manning, on whether to include Tammy Duckworth's full date of birth in her BLP, and on whether to include the surname of Touré in his BLP. (And although I have not participated in any RFCs for the Cat Stevens BLP, I would have argued that that article be titled according to the author's preference.) In all of those cases, the outcomes of the discussions were to override the BLP subjects' express preferences in deciding how to title the articles or in deciding what personal identifying information should be included in the articles. The community felt, according to the judgments of those closing the discussions, that BLP subjects' preferences are not primary considerations for these kinds of decisions under policy. In the Manning case in particular, editors supporting changing the title of the article to accord with the subject's preference had to document that the name the subject preferred had been adopted by the majority of reliable sources, indicating that the subject's preferred name had become the WP:COMMONNAME, before Wikipedia would allow the article to be retitled according to the subject's preference. If the decision in the Clinton case is that the title should not be changed because Clinton has asked that it not be changed, Wikipedia needs to re-examine its approach to decision-making in all cases involving BLPs and personal preferences of the articles' subjects regarding titling and the inclusion of personal identifying information in the articles. Dezastru (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Move to close subdiscussion
Is this post discussion actually achieving anything other than filling up the talkpage? The RM has been closed and the admins are determining the outcome. Either the time for determining the outcome has already passed or there'll be a relisting and so it's not yet time for further contriubtions. At the moment there's nothing that this discussion is going to determine. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What policy-based arguments favors HRC or HC?
In the now-closed and currently-under-review discussion above several policies were referenced to support both sides. In particular, some people on both sides claimed one or the other was favored by WP:COMMONNAME. However, my reading of the discussion is that consensus is that WP:COMMONNAME does not favor either.

Now, a large number of people noted that WP:CONCISION supported HC, and no one, I believe, few disputed this. Further, as far as I can tell no policy was even cited as clearly favoring HRC over HC. Certainly not one that was not disputed if not refuted.

So, as far as I can tell, the only policy-based argument, presented in the discussion, favoring either HC or HRC, is that WP:CONCISION favors HC. I should also point out that nobody cited WP:IAR for some good reason to favor HRC.

I've read all of the discussion multiple times. I know all the arguments and reasons. Unless I'm missing something, none of arguments presented in that discussion in support of HRC are based in policy. And the argument that HC is clearly favored by WP:CONCISION is presented multiple times without any objection. I'm curious if the reviewing admins find something I'm missing, but isn't that HC is supported by policy and HRC is not, and so the article should be moved to HC, the WP:CONSENSUS of that discussion? --B2C 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC) corrected "no one, I believe" to "few". --B2C 06:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a fool for taking this bait, but B2C, I argued multiple times above that conciseness is not a good decider here because the names are not equivalent and I gave multiple examples of other projects and articles where conciseness is not used for one reason or another. Look at "I'm not confusing them ..." for starters.  Now I get that you disagree with my interpretation, and you think all my examples are "other stuff exists".  And I freely admit I have not spent 1/100th the time thinking about article titles that you have, and that I don't use the word "policy" 1/1000th as often as you do.  But I do know something about this article and its subject matter.  And while WP:FIVE is silent on the question of article titles, it does say that "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception."  I don't know whether my arguments here actually require an exception or not, but regardless, what I strongly believe is that keeping this article at "Hillary Rodham Clinton" makes for a better Wikipedia than moving it does.  It's as simple as that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think moving would improve Wikipedia. The vast majority of Americans do not use their middle names or maiden names for much of anything, which may be why her use of her maiden name has not caught on as much as the shorter form has, and is also perhaps why she has commonly used both versions instead of only the long version.  Who was the last president whose Wikipedia article includes the full middle name?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant's opinion is a perfectly reasonable opinion, even if he isn't citing and quoting obscure lines from "policy". It is completely compatible with a project that anyone can edit, incompatible with a project ruled by self appointed policy wonks.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, lots of women would take exception to your statement, and since we haven't had any women presidents, there isn't much of a sample size to look at. But I think everybody's repeating their arguments ad nauseum, and yes I'm guilty as well. Maybe the closers should close down this discussion too. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the exact stats are. A study of 19,000 women done in 2011 found that only eight percent of just-married women decided not to change their last names. That number was way down from the 90s, when 23 percent of women reported retaining their maiden names. Of those who did change their last names, I think the percentage is very small of women who continue to use what-used-to-be-their-last-name.  I have no objection regardless of what women choose in that regard, I'm just saying that the uncommonality of using maiden names may explain why "Hillary Clinton" is so widely used.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't her maiden name. It is her family name. The 'acceptability' of dropping the family names of women who choose to keep them is a product often a product of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I don't know why you want to devalue her personal choice to use the name she was born with. She has purposely made this choice, purposely expressed this preference. Her family name is worth no less than her husband's name, and she's made that known. I'm not even going to bother rehashing arguments I made above. The discussion was closed. Can't we just wait for the result before rehashing everything all over again? RGloucester  — ☎ 03:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She has apparently expressed that preference for the title of her Wikipedia article, but expressed the preference for "Hillary Clinton" in various other contexts (op-eds, ballots, presidential announcement, etc.). Her predominant name at the State Department was "Secretary Clinton".  We shouldn't devalue any of those preferences or names, and they are all relevant to the title of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias? Misogyny? Oh please! That's just a ridiculous appeal to emotion. I have to agree with Anythingyouwant on this. I've never heard or read Mary McLeod Bethune's name without the maiden name being included. Same with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Marian Wright Edelman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Carol Moseley Braun, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Helen Gurley Brown, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. Sandra Day O'Connor's name is almost always given with the maiden name, as is Jada Pinkett Smith's (although JPS has a foundation with her husband that uses her name without the maiden name). I may be wrong, but I believe all of these women consistently use (or consistently used, in the case of those who are deceased) their maiden names in their dealings with the public, such that their maiden names are inextricable components of their public personae. Clinton has not, and that helps explain most of the difference. Misogyny and systemic gender-based bias are real problems, but there's no evidence that they are a primary explanation for why "Hillary Clinton" is used so much more commonly than "Hillary Rodham Clinton." Dezastru (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Franklin Delano Roosevelt was called 'President Roosevelt' as well. Usage with titles is different from usage without them. She has made clear that she has in the past felt coerced into using Clinton because of systemic bias. Despite that, she has always retained Rodham, and most reliable sources, and your beloved State Department, use the Rodham as well. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also object to this insistence on using the offensive term "maiden name". Try "birth name", or, heaven forbid, "name". (And what some women decided to do in the 2010s or 1990s has exactly nothing to do with what she did or did not do in the 1970s and for all of the years since.) Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is referred to as Justice Ginsburg just as Hillary Rodham Clinton was referred to as Secretary Clinton, so that point is utterly wrong. In our text they are Ginsburg and Clinton, and Kay Bailey Hutchison is Hutchison, and no one is asking that that be changed for any of them. But the titles of their articles - their names - are their names as reliable sources, and their signatures, and preferences, and official websites, and books, etc etc are. Finally, the systemic bias argument is right on point, and we should not contribute to it. Enough - this should have ended when it ended. Tvoz / talk 08:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of reliable sources speak of Clinton's "maiden name" being Rodham. See here for example.  I certainly meant no offense by it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Her "maiden name" was Rodham when she was a maiden, which I venture to guess was around 50 years ago. She remained Hillary Rodham long after that, and then Hillary Rodham Clinton, for practical political reasons by all accounts. But I take your word for it that you didn't mean offense - you're not the only one using that term here, so I wasn't addressing only you - so thanks for that, but the reason I raised it is that to me it is central to the problem here. Tvoz / talk 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To those claiming that "maiden name" is offensive, I would ask "to whom"? I'm sure there are many women who find it offensive. There are also many women who don't. I know many women who quite happily use the term "maiden name", of themselves and of other women, so suggesting that it is an offensive term would seem to be a personal preference only and not representative of the views of the majority, male or female. I would venture to suggest that unless Hillary (Rodham) Clinton herself has expressly stated that she finds it offensive then it is completely irrelevant to this discussion and that, whether or not that is the case, if people choose to use it in this discussion then they have a perfect right to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I acknowledge your valiant effort to rebut the conciseness argument. And we can agree to disagree on how strong the conciseness argument in favor of HC is.  But it still leaves us with no policy-based argument favoring HRC, doesn't it?  --B2C 06:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with RGloucester above: it seems unnecessary to reopen this whole discussion again; however, the one thing it does demonstrate with ever-increasing clarity is just how much disagreement there is surrounding this proposed move. As others noted in the original discussion, that fact in itself forms a strong policy-based argument against the the proposal, per WP:TITLECHANGES:

Is there some controversy around the various titling alternatives here? Unquestionably. That being the case, and given that the article title has indeed been stable over so many years, all we have to consider is whether the reasons presented here for changing it are so compelling as to overcome the clear policy directive that we not flip between titles when there's controversy involved. B2C himself has repeatedly asserted that no criterion clearly favors the proposal, except conciseness... and under the circumstances, the (debatable) improved concision does not IMHO meet that bar.

Also: Since B2C specifically addressed my position earlier, let me reiterate that I do favor the current title on its merits. As I've said before, the fact that so many of the most significant and relevant RS on this subject prefer HRC is a valid consideration and makes a good case for it as common name, even if it does not necessarily win on raw frequency counts. When choosing between alternatives, WP:COMMONNAME says it's appropriate for editors to look to certain kinds of RS for guidance; for instance, "other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register"... and encyclopedias like Britannica, World Book, etc. all use HRC. Various major organizations are appropriate sources too, and government organizations clearly prefer HRC: the White House, the US Congress, the Library of Congress, the US State Department, Thomas, etc. The Clinton Foundation prefers it. Hillary herself prefers it, as her office made clear. Such things are entirely relevant... and giving weight and consideration to them is just WP:COMMONSENSE. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 13:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well stated, and I agree completely with this summary. Tvoz / talk 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In short your position seems to be relying on WP:COMMONNAME (with a hail mary reference to WP:COMMONSENSE thrown in for good measure) - per usage in reliable sources, and you're choosing to give more weight to encyclopedias. Okay, but there are strong arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME favoring HC as well.  At best I think we have to agree that there is no consensus on whether WP:COMMONNAME, or usage in reliable sources, favors HC or HRC.  --B2C 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, Huw didn't "choose" to give more weight to encyclopedias; he was quoting policy as you are so fond of insisting. In other words, encyclopedia usage is a policy based reason for preferring "Hillary Rodham Clintion". One of those policy based reasons that you insist don't exist. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy says that encyclopedias are among the sources that can be used - the policy does not support giving encyclopedias more weight, as Huw is choosing to do. --B2C
 * The policy specifically names "other encyclopedias" (and not anything else), in a context suggesting that encyclopedias could be used as a tie breaker in deciding what title this encyclopedia should use. Again, that's from a policy page. (I know I said I wasn't going to participate in this discussion, but when I saw this sweet pitch just begging to be hit out of the park, I couldn't resist. I'll stop now.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice try but foul ball. You're cherry-picking one part of that policy, and even there it says "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful".  And just below it states: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." It also says: "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above." Read that again.  "when there is no single obvious terms that is obviously the most frequently used".  No one can seriously argue that HRC or HR is "obviously" the most frequently used, and no one has.  If it were obvious, there would be no controversy about this issue.  So, we must choose a title "by considering the criteria".  And, again, among that criteria only conciseness favors one over the other.  --B2C 20:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C: You're suggesting that if there's no single title that's obviously most frequent, policy says not to consider those kinds of reliable sources? I see.
 * MelanieN: Well hit; I should try to stop now too. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, I'm not suggesting that policy says not to consider those kinds of reliable sources. What did I say that caused you to think I'm suggesting that? I am saying that policy is not clear on what to do about determining the most common name when there's no single title that's obviously most frequently used in reliable sources.   Participants in the RM discussion have found reasonable basis in usage and policy to support HC as well as HRC in terms of WP:COMMONNAME.   That's why on that criterion there is no consensus about which of the two is favored.  No WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and no community-wide WP:CONSENSUS as reflected in policy.  Same with every other relevant policy, except WP:CONCISE. What it says to do in such cases - no single title that's obviously most frequent - is to consider "the other criteria above".  You know, other criteria like WP:CONCISE.   With respect to WP:CONCISE my reading of consensus, both local and community-wide, is that it weighs heavily on the side of HC.  --B2C 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More to the point, see the detailed analysis based on "the criteria above" presented by above, at 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC).  --B2C 16:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also,, I don't think anyone is arguing that concision improves the title. Concision is useful when two titles are approximately equally "good".  That is, criteria other than concision do not favor either.  That is the case here (that is, there is no consensus that criteria other than concision favor either one).  In such cases concision is useful for one and only one reason: it settles a controversy in which either choice is more than acceptable once and for all.  That is, once this title is moved to HC, there will be no more controversy, for there will be no strong argument whatsoever to move it to HRC.  That is a good reason to move it accordingly.  --B2C 14:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to think that there will be no more controversy if the title is changed to one that is actually controversial. Tvoz / talk 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When I argued, for years, at Talk:Yoghurt that that title would cease to be controversial once that article was moved to the other controversial title (Yogurt), people disagreed as well. But once the article was moved, I was proven to have been correct.  There was eight years of controversy while the title was at Yoghurt, and there has not been a peep since it was moved to Yogurt over two years ago.  Why is that, do you think?  Perhaps because there were a strong policy based argument to move to Yogurt, but there is no strong policy-based argument to move it back to Yoghurt?  That's exactly the situation here.  There is a strong policy based argument to move to HC; and, once moved, there will be no strong policy-based argument to move it back to HRC.  That the issue is controversial is only part of the consideration.  There also has to be good reason to move.  There is good reason to move from HC to HRC; there is no good reason to move from HRC to HC.  So moving to HC will settle this issue once and for all.  Mark my words.  --B2C 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * B2C: Wow. You'd earlier stated that you felt the only criterion favoring the proposal was concision.  You now further admit that concision doesn't even do anything to improve the title – instead, the "one and only" reason for going with it is that your think it will "settle the controversy once and for all"... which obviously is a personal opinion for which I see zero consensus. That's not a lot to hang your hat on.  Let's remember WP:TITLE's guidance: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."  Making a controversial change that yields no improvement for the reader is not good practice.  As for how to avoid more drama in the future, one thought would be to formally limit how frequently subsequent move requests could take place; this was done at WP:USPLACE.  (It even allows an exemption for proposals that offer rationales that haven't previously been considered, so that only repetitive rehashes &mdash; not fresh ideas &mdash; are limited.)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. In many RM discussions the difference to readers regarding which title among those in question is chosen is zero.  In this case, for example, a reader's experience is unaffected whether the title is HC or HRC. They're likely to not even notice which it is.  But even if they do, it's not going to change what they get out of the article, especially given that the introduction opens with her full name regardless of what the title is.  Yes, of course we should not move the article to "Donald Duck", because that would be confusing to readers.  But whether the article is at HC or HRC makes no difference (disagree? please explain).  That's just another way of saying neither title complies with the criteria other than concision better than the other.  Unless the current title is unnatural or not recognizable (to those familiar with the topic area), a title change is unlikely to improve anything to the reader, especially not significantly. There are other considerations to be made in deciding whether to change titles.  We are not restricted to making changes to controversial title only when the proposed title meets naturalness or recognizability better than the current title.  Titles can and are changed to be more precise, more consistent with similar issues, and to be more concise. Concision is almost not at all about improving the reader experience.  What does it matter to the reader if the capital of France is at Paris, France or the more concise Paris?  But we prefer the more concise form.  Conciseness is about predictability and ease of use for editors, especially when linking.  It's not only about avoiding absurdly long titles.  But it's also very useful as controversy-settling tie-breaker, which I believe is the best reason it applies in this case.  The reason this title is so controversial is precisely because it really doesn't matter whether the title is HC or HRC.  So most people go by what they personally prefer, and it ends up being about 50/50, as you would expect given that personal preferences are likely to be randomly distributed, sometimes leaning more one way than the other, depending on who shows up for a given discussion.  This is exactly the kind of situation where conciseness is especially useful.  Just as we use Occam's razor to cut through complexity, and we can use the WP:Conciseness razor to cut through title controversies like this one.  --B2C 18:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but once again: per WP:TITLECHANGES, we have to have good reason to make a move, particularly so for a move that's controversial &mdash; and you clearly say above that in this case the one and only reason for going with what you see as the one and only tie-breaking criterion of greater conciseness is your firm hunch that doing so will somehow totally settle all controversy on this matter once and for all. No offense, but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that anyone's hunches meet the definition of a good reason.  If everything is as balanced as you suggest, then straining to pick a winner based on something as questionable as your personal predictions is ill-advised; instead we should simply acknowledge the absence of a clear consensus and retain the status quo... per policy.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is the exact argument, almost verbatim, flawed for the same reason, that prolonged the yogurt/yoghurt controversy for eight years. And it can only accomplish the same thing here.  If WP:Status quo stonewalling is your intent, you should be congratulated. Anyway, it's not a hunch.  It's a fact that there is no strong policy-based argument clearly favoring HRC over HC, but there is one that clearly favors HC over HRC, the #1 argument mentioned in the RM discussion: WP:CONCISE.  If the article is moved from HRC to HC, there will be no policy-based argument favoring HRC over HC anywhere near as strong as is the WP:CONCISE argument favoring HC over HRC, that can be presented to support a proposal to move it from HC back to HRC - such simply does not exist.   --B2C 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that that's your opinion, but many others (myself included) have a different opinion &mdash; and have already quite clearly and at length said why. For my own part, I honestly don't see any evidence that the benefit we'd reap by making an already reasonably concise title still shorter is any greater than the cost of setting the title of this article at odds with the form preferred by all other major encyclopedias, government agencies, various other significant bodies, and indeed nearly all the most relevant reliable sources related to the subject, including Hillary herself... and indeed consider it much less, particularly given the many other complex considerations raised in this case.
 * You feel differently. That's fine.  We're not going to convince each other here, so I suggest we just give it a rest and wait for the closure.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just me. The vast majority of About fifteen participants cited WP:CONCISE implicitly if not explicitly in their support for this move.  They may have other reasons for believing WP:CONCISE is important; for me it's because of WP:Concision razor.  But the reasons individuals think we should comply with WP:CONCISE is irrelevant because it's policy.  It being policy is ultimately the good reason to comply with it.  It being the only WP:CRITERIA that clearly favors either of the two choices is the more specific good reason.  No matter how think about it, the bottom line is that WP:CONCISE is policy for presumably some good reason; and to comply with it is the good reason to change this title.  --B2C 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC) changed "vast majority" to "about fifteen". --B2C 04:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For Pete's sake - "The vast majority of participants cited WP:CONCISE". That is just flat out false. 23 of the 45 support voters cited no other policy than WP:COMMONNAME, and one of those voters attempted to switch their vote. Only 12 "Support" editors cited some other policy. I've tried to not interject here anymore, but that was just too much. Also, common name isn't close. There is no doubt over the last 30+ years(when taken as a whole) that HRC is the overwhelming common name for HRC. No doubt at all. It's close if you take only the last 4 or 5 years. That is only criteria IF there is a name change or a distinct act for the subject of the article that has been reliably sourced. That's not true here, so we can't use "recently", or trends the last few years. Now I am going to watch the Red Wings lose to the stupid Carolina Panthers, and won't respond further until something official happens. Dave Dial (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How dare you call him Pete! I have it on good authority he prefers the more formal Peter. Sure, he ran for his local school board using the name Pete (and lost to that guy with a funny name) but I think you're robbing him of his human dignity by insisting on using that name. Surely there must be some ill motive behind it too.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   01:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I corrected "vast majority" to "about 15" which is what I just counted.  --B2C 04:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see one further comment from Jimbo Wales at his talk page that bears noting. He is responding to a comment that BLP policy does not expressly state that we can take the subject's preference into account, and a question "may subject's preference trump black letter policy when doing so doesn't diminish the encyclopedia?" He replied, "I do not agree that policy doesn't expressly permit us to weigh subjects' preference. This is a myth. It has very long been practice to weigh the wishes of article subjects as one factor.  This is not just community policy, it is Foundation policy.  The BLP resolution, point 4, is explictly about this.  Let me put this all another way: there is nothing in policy which hints at or even suggests that we are disallowed from making Wikipedia better by listening to article subjects.  The people pushing the alternative point of view have absolutely nothing in policy to stand on. Arguments about this are often muddled by counter-arguments that are not on-point.  So to be clear: no, article subjects do not have an absolute veto over articles.  There are other policies that matter.  But if we are to be respectful, if we are to be accurate, if we are to be ethical, then we must take into account, as one factor, the BLP concerns of any individual (or group of individuals) written about in Wikipedia.  There is no policy justification for ignoring such things.--Jimbo Wales"
 * --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has a point with respect to certain article content. But there is no reason for this to apply to title decision-making where we primarily follow usage in reliable sources, and, when there is no clear most commonly used name for the subject in question, we use the other WP:CRITERIA (like WP:CONCISE) to decide.  If we want to also take subject preference into account for BLP article title choice decisions, then this needs to be specifically discussed at WT:AT.  I think it would just make an already unnecessarily ambiguous process even more ambiguous, and thus subject to even more disagreement and debate.  Now we have to try to contact to BLP subjects to find out their preference, and argue about how much that preference should count?  For each and every BLP article title?  To what end?  So that we use one name that is commonly used in reliable sources instead of another name that is commonly used in reliable sources?  When a coin toss is guaranteed to result in a more-than-adequate decision no matter which side flips up, it's counter-productive to make that marginally consequential decision-making process subject to more disagreement and debate.  --B2C 18:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @B2C, your take on this is too parochial. I agree that WP:CONCISE is a good reason to move an article to a title that leaves out parts that are unnecessary to identify the article, but it is not the only reason. In this discussion, it wasn't my reason, nor the sole reason for most supporters of the move, even the ones who mentioned it. The bottom line is that if you go to the marketplace and ask people, "who is going to be the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States," or "who is the woman you most admire," people are going to say "Hillary Clinton" and only a handful are going to say "Hillary Rodham Clinton," and that is a fair and balanced basis for a common name argument. That is exactly what Google's trends graph means, that people are many, many times more likely to think of "Hillary Clinton" than any variation using Rodham. It's not all about conciseness. Both of these are good arguments for moving the page, but WP:COMMON is the better argument.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume you meant WP:COMMONNAME. You are arguing common name from the traditional interpretation, in terms of what people on the street would expect and say.  But a few years ago common name was revised to be defined in terms of usage in reliable sources.  Those opposed to this move have a strong common name argument in terms of usage in biographies and encyclopedias.  For those who see it as tie, WP:CONCISE is the tie breaker. --B2C 07:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "For those who see it as tie, WP:CONCISE is the tie breaker" is an example of Born2cycle misleadingly speaking as if he is speaking consensus, for the community, whereas he is referring to his personal concision fanaticism, and referencing his misleading single-authored essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this epic discussion actually getting us anywhere? The RM has been closed for a while, any further discussion to determine the title can only happen in formal process, and all this section is doing is expanding the talkpage endlessly with no sign of an outcome either way. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Near pointless.  Someone is trolling.  Maybe there is an attempt to sway the closing.  Maybe it is rhetorical debate for the fun of it.  Very likely, it is discouraging of real interest in the article.  Options?  Threaten?  Move these post-discussion threads, and any follow-ups, to a subpage?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume the closers are not reading the post-closing discussion - their job is to evaluate consensus based on the closed discussion. Anyway, regardless of how this decision goes, the arguments are what they are, and so is the understanding about them.  Most important is discussing how WP:AT in general is to be interpreted, to broaden understanding about  how and why., please explain what you believe to be misleading about WP:Concision razor at Wikipedia talk:Concision razor. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "as if [B2C] is speaking consensus, for the community".  The following statement is from policy, WP:AT, and presumably reflects community consensus:
 * I was simply noting that for anyone who sees WP:COMMONNAME as not strongly favoring either title in this (or any other) case, the normal next step is to evaluate the two titles in terms of the other criteria. For a person who sees no clear winner based on WP:COMMONNAME, there is probably no clear winner with the criteria that underlie common name (naturalness and recognizability).   In this case, no strong arguments favoring either title have been presented based on preciseness nor consistency.  That leaves conciseness as the tie breaker in "considering the criteria listed above", does it not?  If you believe that statement and reasoning that stems from it does not reflect community consensus, I suggest you propose changing WP:AT accordingly.  --B2C 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was simply noting that for anyone who sees WP:COMMONNAME as not strongly favoring either title in this (or any other) case, the normal next step is to evaluate the two titles in terms of the other criteria. For a person who sees no clear winner based on WP:COMMONNAME, there is probably no clear winner with the criteria that underlie common name (naturalness and recognizability).   In this case, no strong arguments favoring either title have been presented based on preciseness nor consistency.  That leaves conciseness as the tie breaker in "considering the criteria listed above", does it not?  If you believe that statement and reasoning that stems from it does not reflect community consensus, I suggest you propose changing WP:AT accordingly.  --B2C 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @B2C, I don't think it's true that a strong WP:CONSISTENCY argument has not been made. It's been pointed out on the subpage that according to Naming conventions (people), "Most biographical articles have titles in the form &lt;First name&gt; &lt;Last name&gt;". It's been pointed out that Wikipedia articles referencing this person consistently prefer the shorter form. It may not have been repeated at length in the discussion, but the point is there. Precision, well that's a different issue. Obviously both titles precisely refer to the same person, so the only question there is whether more or less precision would dispel any ambiguity or confusion.
 * @User:SmokeyJoe, I think this long discussion is a result of the unusually long time that the panel is taking to come to a conclusion. The wait, obviously, is making some people anxious. Are panel members disagreeing among themselves? Vacillating on the outcome? Drafting a supervote intended to override both sides and come up with some new option based on some new policy formulation? We don't know, and won't know until they decide. I agree that they should not be considering discussion beyond the move discussion. Most of this is no more than a continued rehashing of points that were already argued in the discussion, by editors who already participated in the main discussion. I see nothing that suggests that if the discussion had gone on longer, more editors would have provided their opinions or more rationales would have been raised. I am completely in support of the idea of closing this post-discussion-discussion as a pointless exercise, and/or moving it to the subpage. Thanks for the good suggestion.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WPGA, I missed that consistency argument. Again, depending on how much weight you give that argument, that leaves WP:CONCISE as a tie breaker or just as more reason to support the proposed move.  --B2C 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:WPGA2345, thanks for quoting from Naming conventions (people). It sent me there to see what the actual quote/context was, and in a lower paragraph of that same naming conventions page, I found this: "If reliable sources write out a subject's full first and middle names nearly as often as they use initials, prefer the version with the names written in full. Example: Johann Sebastian Bach and not J. S. Bach, although the latter has more Google hits." That convention powerfully supports the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and completely demolishes the so-called "Concision razor" in the case of people's names. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're quoting from a bullet that follows the following heading: "For initials:". When it comes to expanding initials or not, to lean towards expansion falls upon the comprehensiveness aspect of concision. That has no applicability to the decision of whether to use a full middle name or not.  --B2C 17:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed?
Pardon my apparent ignorance, but I see this RM was closed. What was the outcome? It clearly wasn't consensus to move, but did the closers find no consensus? Consensus against a move? Is there a closing statement I've overlooked? It seems to me there should be one, preferably at the top of the RM as is normal. Or are the closers still coming to a decision? (This seems unlikely, since the discussion has been closed for a while.) Pinging TParis, Adjwilley, and BrownHairedGirl, with preemptive apologies if I've just missed something. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've missed the part where there is clear consensus to move.  Calidum   18:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, wonderful. I'm not about to look over the whole discussion. What am I, made of money? --BDD (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Declaring there was a "clear consensus" does not make it so. The only thing that is clear, in my opinion, is that this is a controversial request with strong opinions on both sides. Tvoz / talk 21:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? The only thing that is clear in your opinion is the controversy?  It's not clear that the only WP:CRITERIA that clearly favors either title is WP:CONCISE, which favors HC?   It's not clear that HC is favored over HRC in RS usage as measured by Google Books counts?  It's not clear that a heavy majority of those participating favor the move?   None of this is clear to you?    --B2C 21:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's "clear" here is that you and a handful of cronies have hijacked this and other female/gender-oriented move requests (e.g. Sarah Jane Brown) over the years, with screaming, ranting Walls O' Text that when boiled down shows that the arguments are largely based on "I don't like it when a woman expresses an opinion", and nothing more. Consensus on this matter, when measured on intelligent contributions, favors the status quo. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're such a hilarious fucker tarc. When all else goes wrong trash the opposition.  Calidum   03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. When I Google for "Sarah Jane Brown -wikipedia", I get this artist's website, an amateur horse rider, a wire knit artist, etc., and not one hit (at least on the first page of results) for the subject of our Sarah Jane Brown article.  Naming conventions (people) explicitly states: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.", yet that's exactly what we did there.  That's the reason many of us opposed that title, period.  The reasons for supporting the move here have been clearly stated.  Stop trying to read between the lines - you're making up stuff, not to mention violating WP:AGF in the process.  --B2C 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tarc - we haven't met before, so I would ask for a little benefit of the doubt here. So far as I know I have not been involved in any of B2C's efforts that you are referring to. I'm certainly not anyone's "crony." Some of the 40 other editors who also supported this request, I recognize as being very active, such as BDD, Beyond My Ken, Necrothesp, NorthBySouthBaranof, Red Slash, and Future Perfect at Sunrise. I don't think any of these editors could be described as 'cronies' of B2C, or that the intelligence of their contributions should be questioned on the matter. We can have civil disagreements on these matters without involving the sort of motivations that you suspect - as it happens, I have also expressed disagreement with B2C's approach in this discussion - so please do not lump the rest of us in with him. Thanks.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   00:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry to disappoint. While I haven't been called B2C's crony before, I have been outed as one of his followers. All hail the Cycling One! --BDD (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We are drafting a closing statement but one of the other two has been slow to respond.--v/r - TP 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that it's likely to make a difference at this point, but the byline on her newest book has been officially announced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hillary's preference for HRC, along with links to her publishers, was raised in the request discussion, but thanks for the update. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  02:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for closing statement from 3 admin panel
Ok, it's been a week since the last update from Tparis. What is the hold up? If one of the three admin has decided to back out, do we need to replace them to get this situation moving or is it just that the three admin are still not in agreement. If this is more difficult than expected is there anything that can be done to speed things up just a tad. While there is no deadline...dragging this out doesn't seem to benefit the project either. Any update would be appreciated. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Heads up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"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" This was my main argument and while this is surely not the end of this....it I am requesting that we stick to policy and guidelines about how soon this move can be requested again. Anyone know what that may be?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)