Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 20

Requested move 9 (26 April 2014)
Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary (politician) – "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is way to long, and as we mention on the Mononymous person article, she has been called and has publicly called herself simply "Hillary". 71.59.58.63 (talk) 23:32, 26 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.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Proposal: Move discussion moratorium and community sanctions
Above, Mark Miller asked how long there should be before the next move discussion. I was going to answer there but felt that a new section would be more transparent.

There is, to my knowledge, no policy or other official standard about how long there must be between move requests. It would be good, in my opinion, to agree time limits for this article. My personal view, as someone who is neutral on the naming of this article, is that in the absence of major, qualitatively new evidence (i.e. not just new numbers for metrics already presented) the following should apply.

I think that section 1 below should be fairly uncontroversial. Section 2 is intended as a starting point for discussion, not a proclamation.

Section 1: Any user (whether WP:INVOLVED or not) may speedily close any move request that occurs in any of the following scenarios:
 * A move request is current open, or has been closed but is awaiting the closing statement(s).
 * A move review of the most recent move request is ongoing.
 * A draft of a move review discussion for the most recent move request has received good faith, on-topic contributions within the past 14 days.
 * This does not apply if a move review based on the draft has been initiated, regardless of the current state of that request.
 * An arbitration request or arbitration enforcement request regarding one or more move requests for this article is open.
 * An arbitration case regarding one or more move requests for this article is ongoing.


 * Any user initiating a move request during this time may be blocked and/or topic banned by an uninvolved administrator.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may explicitly endorse such a closure performed by anyone who is not an uninvolved administrator if they believe doing so would be beneficial (for any reason).

Section 2: The time periods below are counted from the end of the most recent request, defined as the latest of: Discussions that are speedily closed (e.g. for being too soon or being initiated by a banned or topic banned editor) are ignored for the time calculations. It may be useful to prominently and explicitly note this date on this page.
 * The posting of the final closing statement in the most recent move request.
 * The formal closure of a move review about the most recent discussion.
 * 14 days after the last good faith, on-topic contribution to a draft of a move review discussion about the most recent move request.
 * This does not apply if a move review based on the draft has been initiated, regardless of the current state of that request.
 * The formal conclusion of any arbitration or arbitration enforcement action regarding the most recent move request.

I suggest that we define three periods, with new requests treated differently in each:
 * Period 1: New requests during this time should be treated as disruptive unless they present significant new information that is qualitatively different to that presented in previous discussions. For example if the subject officially and publicly expresses a desire to be known by a name other than the title of this article.
 * Period 2: Most new requests during this time should be treated as disruptive unless they present significant new information. Additional data points from the same sources used previously are not "significant new information" in this context.
 * Period 3: New requests during this time should be treated as disruptive unless they present new information. Additional data points are sufficient only if they show a significant change since the time of the last discussion.

Requests that clearly do not the requirements of the given period may be speedily closed by any user. If there is any doubt about whether a request meets the requirements of the given period or not it should not be closed other than by an uninvolved administrator.

Any user initiating requests they know do not meet the requirements may be blocked and/or topic banned by an uninvolved administrator.

My suggested timescales are:
 * Period 1: 0-5 months
 * Period 2: 6-11 months
 * Period 3: 12+ months.

It is my intention that once agreed these should continue to apply until they are explicitly withdrawn by consensus, so time periods should be relative to the most recent discussion not explicitly calculated from the end of requested move 8. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed move discussion moratorium and community sanctions

 * strong oppose we do not need to create a complex series of legalistic policy structured here. IAR and consensus is the watchword. Once this new move review concludes we should just agree on no move requests for at least 6-12 months unless new material comes to light. But blocks and sanctions? No.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can see no reason, yet, for this. Let's see what happens after the move review. I'm in favour of open-ended discussion on this contentious topic. If it steps across the line into vexatiousness I'll change my view, but we're not there. While this discussion and that around Sarah Jane Brown are good-faith differences of opinion between editors in good standing, let them run their course. I have no problem with summarily closing move discussions initiated by IP/new users, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any entity other than ARBCOM can issue an enforceable scheme of limitations and sanctions like the one above. However, I would oppose the proposal as delineated above, although I would agree to a general policy of speedy closure for any new efforts brought within six months of the resolution of the most recent effort, absent some change in the facts on the ground. Consensus can change over time, even with no change in the facts on the ground. In this case, moreover, the facts on the ground are bound to change, because the subject of this article is going to take one of two possible highly significant political steps. If the subject announces a future candidacy, and if it becomes clear that this candidacy will primarily be marketed under a name different from this title, then it is inevitable that this title will change. If history is a guide, we will know this in about nine months. bd2412  T 12:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The community is perfectly capable of agreeing to and enforcing something like this. There is precedent for community restrictions on users and articles, I think including moratoriums on move requests. Certainly there is nothing saying the community cannot do this if there is consensus that it is the best way forwards. If you disagree please separate out arguments about can from arguments about should. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to say that move requests will be speedily closed for a time period, but something else entirely to suggest that they will be treated as disruptive, which implies wrongdoing on the part of the proposer (even a newcomer to the scene), or subject to blocks or topic bans. bd2412  T 14:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My intention with the italicised use of "may" was to indicate that it was an option available not a requirement, so that someone proposing it innocently aware of the history would not be subject to any sanction but that someone who did know could be. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's no WMF motion or enWikipedia policy that would prevent the community imposing these restrictions. Though, I'd only expect that to happen after a discussion involving broad participation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it would need to be a discussion with broad participation, probably including advertising it somewhere like AN and WT:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'd certainly like to see at minimum is a complete ban on IP editors filing move requests for this page...if not permanently then at least for 1-2 years. We've been getting trolled by someone or several someones for quite awhile now with this nonsense. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree we are being trolled. The IP who started this discussion is typical: they go straight to this talk page, propose a move, maybe comment once or twice, and then vanish never to be seen again. They format it perfectly, although they have supposedly never done an RM before; they repost it after Tarc deletes it; they cite policy like a pro. This IP even admitted they know it has been discussed before, although that particular IP never participated before. This is almost certainly some regular user hiding behind an IP. I've seen the same pattern at other contentious subjects. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. In fact I think I know who this one is, and have requested a sockpuppet investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also completely support a limitation on IP move requests for this page. There is no telling where they are really coming from, or their real motivation. bd2412  T 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go the other way. I wish there was a mechanism to make all proposals anonymous.  It shouldn't matter who makes a proposal - only what the proposal is, and what its merits are, independent of who is making it or what their motivations are.  --B2C 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case it matters. It seems clear, per WP:DUCK, that the IP who started this is actually a notorious blocked/banned user who has argued for the same move in previous discussions. At SPI they do not seem inclined to follow up because it's "probably futile by now". But without that sockpuppet IP starting the ball rolling, we wouldn't have been (and still wouldn't be) wasting so much time on this MR. We could be building an encyclopedia instead. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I'm not sure how widely known this was, and I hope I'm not letting a proverbial cat out of the bag, but was preparing a move request over the last several months - that's why he was able to dump such a huge move argument immediately into the stream. If the duck hadn't submitted this (and you may be right on that, the "de-rodhamizing" is rather damning), I assume BD2412 would have gotten around to it sooner or later...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure if I would have ever gotten around to it. I certainly hadn't finished doing the research that I intended to do, and hadn't entirely made up my mind. My "huge move argument" is far short of the analysis I would have been able to provide, given a few more months to peck away at it. On the other hand, looking over the history of these move requests, most of them have been made by different editors, and there is no reason to imagine that future editors who have never yet been involved with this issue will not be inclined to file such a request. Eventually, the article will be moved, and the discussion may involve an entirely different set of supporters. bd2412  T 22:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Thryduulf, thanks for giving this so much thought. I am generally in favor of some kind of moratorium between the closure of one contentious discussion and the start of another. But I don't think we need to write up a detailed set of rules about it. A "moratorium" like this can be suggested by the closer of the most recent discussion, or by the closer of the review if there is one. That person suggests a time period, and it is enforced informally. I have seen that done at other contentious discussions. Also, I strongly oppose this part of the proposal: Any user initiating a move request during this time may be blocked and/or topic banned by an uninvolved administrator. I think most of these too-soon proposals are done in innocence by someone who is unaware of the past history (or at least by an IP who cannot be proven to have any prior knowledge; with that in mind I would go along with Tarc's suggestion that move requests not be accepted from IPs). At most the "penalty" for opening a discussion too soon should be a warning. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. My experience suggests that if someone DOES try to reopen a contentious discussion within a few months after a previous one, the request simply gets closed or shouted down by the community. No rulebook necessary. And maybe we could simply agree to do the same with IP-initiated requests. (Or semiprotect this page?) --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, MelanieN, and the common thread in theses cases is that the status quo position is poorly supported by policy. That's why extreme measures like suppressing discussion are required to defend it.  And that's what happens, repeatedly, until discussion is finally allowed to proceed so consensus about a policy-based solution can develop. I presume you don't need me to cite specific examples.  --B2C 21:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet the status quo was maintained by a panel of 3 admins, though you still choose to fight and fight and fight with no end in sight. This obstinate refusal to accept when things don't go your way has been noted in your current editor review, and is also apparent in the looming battle building at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move review draft. Tarc (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc, I think you should really go read the definition of hypocrisy. You are berating people for constantly proposing moves of this page. You also critique the constant moves at Sarah Jane Brown, but you need to look at the evidence. Sarah Jane Brown was the result of 5 years of move requests, which culminated in a move request that moved it away from "wife of". Those proposing the change, those that you agree with, were the ones constantly proposing move requests in spite of consensus to NOT rename - in fact they were REJECTED, at,least,4 times, but they kept coming back to the well until they won. So, whose side are you on? Those who constantly propose new move requests, or those who constantly propose new move requests to names you prefer? You can't have it both ways. Cote d'Ivoire underwent I think 8 different move discussions before finally flipping, Cat Stevens has undergone many more, and anyone who believes that Yusuf's preference should be respected should continue to push the issue IMHO. I do think B2C is right about 1 thing in the Yogurt rule - once you flip to a more policy compliant version, it's very hard to flip it back - the same is likely true here, unless she is sworn in as pres and called HRC. In the last move request, we had something like 70% of those participating suggesting a move, and 88% of them cited the same policy, whereas roughly 80% of those opposing shared one view "subject preference", which isn't policy. You're always big on saying that it's policy that matters, not numbers. In this case, policy and numbers aligned.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not a democracy; move requests, AfDs, etc...are not straw polls. The side that presents the better argument is the one that carries the day, not the one that can bus in the most warm bodies to the polling station like a Chicago politician can.  The side that wishes fervently and desperately to drop "Rodham" from Mrs. Clinton's name simply were not as convincing as you imagine it was.  WP:STICK. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Discussion is not disruption.  People keep describing these discussions as "disruptive", but nobody ever identifies who or what is being disrupted by them.  Other talk page sections can and are used to discuss article content.  WP does not come to a standstill.  What is disruptive is the unilateral closure of any discussion in which people are willingly participating.  Discussion is how we develop consensus on WP.  The claim that there is consensus when there isn't, and that discussion is disruptive, is just WP:Status quo stonewalling.  I've seen it used time and time again.  It sidetracks discussion from the unresolved issue to whether there should be discussion about the issue.  It's nonsense.  If you don't want to participate, don't.  But don't gang up on others to try to muzzle them.  --B2C 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree it's beneficial to limit repetitive perennial debates that offer no new rationale. Re-debating the same points again and again (and again), only to reach the same conclusion again and again (and again), just because some passer-by decides he wants to kick the beehive for no good reason, isn't terribly sensible.  I also agree that fresh ideas must always be free to advance, which is why it's good for any moratorium to target only those proposals that don't offer anything significantly new.  (The suggestion to restrict IPs also seems wise, given the circumstances.) That said, I dislike this proposal for its complexity, its sanctions, etc.  I might support something simpler, along the lines of what was adopted at USPLACE.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find the current proposal as written to be far too bureaucratic in nature. Let's just pick an amount of time (likely six or twelve months, but maybe more) that would start after the move review concludes and have a moratorium last for that amount of time.  Calidum   02:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose any limitation on the freedom of expression embodied in such a request. One simply cannot consistently demean the IP requests as trolling and then count them against future requests by actually registered editors. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This request is nothing to do with who starts a request (there is a separate proposal below to restrict IPs, which I oppose), and requests that are speedily closed are explicitly ignored for time calculations under this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: prevent IPs from starting move discussions
There seems to have been some support for this idea above: that any move request that is started by an IP should be speedy-closed, no questions asked.

Here is a a record of the disruption and/or attempted disruption launched by IPs in 2014:
 * Requested move 9: started by an IP who is now blocked for evasion of previous blocks.
 * Requested move 8: started by an IP who is now blocked for evasion of previous blocks.
 * Requested move 7: started by an IP who is almost certainly (per WP:DUCK) a sock of a notorious banned/blocked user.
 * Requested move 6: started by an IP who (for a change) has only been blocked once, for disruptive editing.

This record of deception speaks for itself. And it's to be expected. These aren't innocents who just happened to come up with the idea of changing this article name. It really doesn't make sense that some brand-new user would come straight here and launch a formal move request.

It looks to me like the article itself is already move-protected. And if you look at the move log you can see why: retitling this article used to be a favorite sport of vandals. It was also subject to bold renames by people who never even considered trying to get consensus first. Now the favorite sport to launch move discussions. None of these people are here to build an encyclopedia.

I propose that we should ban all IPs from starting move discussions at this subject, for at least a year or two. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. Quite frankly, IPs tend to do a poor job of presenting a move rationale anyway, and these have been no exception. bd2412  T 22:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The last two IP proposals were BS and were closed properly, but not because they were presented by an IP; because they were crap.  If an IP comes along and presents a solid case, such a proposal should not be closed just because an IP happened to present it.  --B2C 01:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Obi-Wan's offer below. That will insure that IPs have a reasonable opportunity to request a move, but not an unreasonable opportunity to troll the page with a bare-bones request. bd2412  T 13:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support. If a given IP with a good track record wants to start a move request, they can contact me and I will file on their behalf. I agree though that 2-line move requests here are rather weak - you need to bring a good argument ala BD2412 to the table if you wanna move this thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, and I'd be leery of of any new account that starts an RM as well. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the merit of proposals should be judged by WHAT they say, not WHO presents them. WP:RM is often replete with crap proposals that have no basis in policy.  Here's a current one, based on nothing more than "when I hear ...".  Pure WP:JDLI proposals like that, presented without any kind of basis in policy or guidelines whatsoever, regardless of who makes them, should be immediately closed long before proposals are closed simply because they're done via anonymous IP. Especially when the IP proposal is well founded in policy, as has been the case here.  Look, this is an inherently controversial title.  It's political.  It's feminism.  It's title policy.  It's a perfect storm.  I'm confident we can find a title supported by consensus, but we can't do it by suppressing discussion.   --B2C 01:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - If they want it moved they should probably ask here first. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we have some sort of moratorium in place, I feel this would be unnecessary. I'd like to add with I agree others below that banning IPs is improper and shouldn't be done.  Calidum   02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as IPs are people too. Close a crappy nom, not a well thought one. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. If you think the proposal is worth the time, take it on yourself, and wear the consequences. I'm sick of an obviously experienced user hiding his/her identity behind an IP, vexatiously wasting everybody's time here. If no user in good standing is ready to put their reputation behind it, the proposal doesn't belong here. Sorry. Too much anonymous trolling here. Either this, or semi-protect this and Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although I would likely support this as a site-wide policy, proposed in the proper venue. A group of editors cannot and may not make a unilateral decision to ban IP editors from starting move discussions on one of their articles. This proposal is pointless, as it's entirely unenforceable. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem is move requests that don't take the time to understand why this article is presently where it is and the arguments that have been made by both HC and HRC camps. Far better would be to summarise these arguments on a sub page and close any request that hasn't read them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WHAT IF the title was Hillary Clinton?
(this section moved to User talk:Born2cycle --B2C 01:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

Discussion at WT:NCP
WT:NCP

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

finalizing
All,

I'm making an attempt to finalize the move review that's been contemplated for some time now. Any editors wishing to weigh-in, comment, correct the move review before it gets submitted are invited to see here. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made substantial changes... hopefully improvements. Please review and make your own changes or tweaks.  Let's get this done.  Thanks for the push.  --В²C ☎ 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

collapsed section

 * No feedback so far? It's funny how quickly people lose interest in this topic. Especially funny given the fact that folks are proposing we need a moratorium on discussion of a subject that no one wants to discuss.
 * If I don't see any objections, I'm going to unilaterally move forward with the move review after 24hr. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a lost cause tbh, and will argue as such when this farce moves forward. We solicit 3-admin panels to close the Big Ones like this, so that the finding will be on much more solid ground as it is much harder to impugn the integrity process, allay the "just a supervote!" junk, and so on when the decision rests on more than 1 closer's shoulders.  It's sad when we go to those lengths and STILL the losing side has a cow. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Pity that the closing panel was on the losing side or else the page could have been moved! Your comments are as helpful as usual Tarc. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can stop the Bitter Betty act for a moment, it'd be nice. Again, why go to lengths to get 3 admins to close a discussion if you're just going to disagree with it if it doesn't come out the way you like?  It's a curious Wiki-phenomenon; some editors (i.e. you, b2c, obi) don't submit to cases heard by 3rd parties to be adjudicated, you submit them because you want your opinion to be validated.  When it is not, the rage begins. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes yes Tarc. We all understand you want people to accept the bad decision you supported without appealing. To answer your question, 3 admins closing are probably better than one, but that's not protection against getting it wrong. And this isn't about validating opinions. I've quite frequently suggested closers misread consensus, even when that consensus happens to have been counter to my own personal opinion. Don't project your need for validation on others Tarc. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop the damn pinging, please, watch-listed pages exist for a reason. The thing is, there is rarely anything "wrong" about determining consensus. Absent an egregious and crystal-clear violation of policy, deletion reviews and move reviews are largely a waste of time.  This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More useful comments Tarc. Well done. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you two please cut it out? As Tarc said, there's a reason why we watch-list certain pages. That reason is NOT so that we can keep getting summoned back to the page only to watch two presumably adult Wikipedians yell at each other. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel scolded :-( NickCT (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ineffectively, apparently. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Double scolded. Ouch. Ok. I'm sorry. I'll cease and desist. But before doing so, I'd like to point out in an "adult" way that Tarc started it. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NickCT: Let's be honest: a closure here in either direction was bound to make some people unhappy, and couldn't possibly have pleased everyone. It's for that reason that we turned to an objective three-administrator panel to perform the closure: to bring more weight, reliability, and finality to the closure than any single editor would likely bring.  The panel clearly gave consideration to the many varied and complex points raised by the participants, and in doing so reached a unanimous decision that I feel we should respect.  Yes, I know you dislike the result, and it's fine to feel that way, but IMHO more than enough time and energy has already been spent on this matter.  I suggest heeding Wikipedia's excellent advice on the treatment of dead equines.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I love how folks opposing an appeal keep using phrases like "bound to make some people unhappy" like "some people" is a small minority. All of you have failed to acknowledge the basic fact that the decision went against the wish of large majority of people who responded to the RfC. Instead of saying "some people" can we say "bound to make the large majority of the people who participated in the RfC unhappy"? That's a bit more accurate. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You speak of "large majorities", but these sorts of things are not votes. We solicit 3 administrators who can check, double-check, and triple-check each other as they measure the consensus of those who made arguments of merit.  It is patently bizarre why there is so much heat over this issue; Sarah Jane Brown is at least a thorny question of disambiguation, but this is...what is it, exactly?  It is attempt at negation of the subject's maiden name that she uses frequently enough in public discourse that it is widely recognizable by all involved.  I've never understood the massive windmill-tilting here, if it is just policy for policy's sake, to satisfy some WP:* arcana, then we really don't do that here. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * re "It is attempt at negation of the subject's maiden name" - Oh yes. That's right Tarc. This is all a huge conspiracy among multiple sexist editors to deny poor Hillary her maiden name. You've sussed it. Very perceptive.
 * re "You speak of "large majorities", but these sorts of things are not votes" - I'm not "speaking of" anything. I'm pointing to a large majority. And "these sorts of things are not votes" is the common refrain of folks who have lost the vote. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How does one lose a vote when one did not participate in one? Tarc (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Move Review Filed
A move review has been filed over this requested move. Note that the template above would usually get attached to the section with the actual RM in it. Given the RM is now in archive, I'm sticking it here. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I add a move review tag to the page? NickCT (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the page. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * By gosh, golly, and Emma Dorothy Eliza Nevitte Southworth, clearly the article should be moved to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton!!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Envisioning yourself as first to think of that, are you? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the internet usually proves that any aside of twitter length has been made before, and better.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did Hillary and Dennis Rodman have a secret engagement when no one was looking? Tarc (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It may come as a startling surprise to those whose lives revolve around a fascination with this politician, but most people neither want nor need to know Rodman from Rodham. But blessings to you who do!! DeistCosmos (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - For the record I'd like it noted that my fascination is with Dennis Rodman the skilled diplomat. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shall we debate which of them is the better diplomat? Rodman, at the least, has the quality of not being a politician. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A simple solution
No-one is harmed by the current title, and the other title, which some feel is better, won't be THAT bad if we move there. There is also a move review brewing which will likely be posted at some point. There is debate about IPs, I don't see a strong consensus there yet. There are NO other possible titles for this page that could ever gain any reasonable measure of consensus.

Given that, I propose the following as a simplification for all of the proposals above:
 * From May 1, 2014, no further move proposals can be posted here for at least 9 months. Any such proposal posted before 9 months can be closed on sight by any editor. This moratorium will stand unless a new consensus determines otherwise.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * support as proposer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since there is no provision for the possibility of a change in circumstances. I expect the move review to stay open at least until the end of May, and would therefore support such a moratorium lasting eight months from the close of the MR (which would end up being nine months from now), at which time we can reasonably expect to know if a future campaign is brewing in earnest, and what name the subject would be using to prosecute such a campaign. bd2412  T 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a provision - which says "this consensus will stand until a new consensus determines otherwise" - therefore, it explicitly can be undone at any point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't clear that you meant "this consensus" to mean consensus for a moratorium rather than consensus for the current title. Twelve months still doesn't take recognize the likelihood that a fairly determinative change of the facts on the ground is likely to happen in nine months. At that point, I would rather not spend a month wrangling over whether to trim three months from a moratorium. Nine months from now is a reasonable amount of time, and longer than just about any moratorium I have seen short of a permanent status determination. bd2412  T 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok changed to 9 months.
 * Support as refined. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - The article has been the subject of an intense discussion and things seems to indicate that there will some editors who continue to do battle over the naming of the article for some time. I support this suggestion as it seems more than a little disruptive on this article to have this continue. I like the idea of a little space here. I would support 6 months to a year.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is exactly like Yogurt/Yoghurt.  For years the debate raged on and on and on.  For about two years I repeatedly pointed out that we had a policy-based reason to move to Yogurt, and, once so moved, there would be no policy based reason to move back to Yoghurt.  In fact, this was the main reason I supported the move.  But few believed me, or cared.  But, sure enough, when it was finally moved, there was no more conflict.  No need for a moratorium - because there was nothing to discuss, or propose, any more. Same thing here.  Sorry, but suppressing discussion, which is how we evaluate and develop consensus on WP, including discussion that is part of move proposals, should not occur.   There is no need for such a moratorium here.  There is a policy-based reason to move this title from HRC to HC (better compliance with WP:CRITERIA, particularly WP:CONCISE). If it's moved to HC, there will be no policy-based reason to move it back to HRC.  This is probably why those who prefer HRC are so adamant about keeping it at HRC - they know they will have no policy-based grounds to move it back to HRC once it is moved to HC.  --B2C 22:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic to your POV, but there are two outcomes - either a move review is held, and it is endorsed, meaning no move requests for 9 months to HC. Or, a move review is held, and the move is overturned - meaning no move requests for 9 months. I think the title can remain at either version without need for redebating. 9 months will come sooner than you think...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm sympathetic to yours. I just think suppressing discussion sets, or reinforces, bad precedent.  I would never support such a proposal, regardless of how it may or may not "help" my position on a particular issue.  It may be innocuous in this case, but it's not always going to be. If we support suppression here, we won't be able to oppose discussion suppression in another case where it's not innocuous on the grounds that discussion should never be suppressed.  I, for one, don't want to be in that position.   --B2C 22:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see this a suppressing discussion, however. It's more saying, if there was a due-process move, and (likely) a due-process move review, we don't need to revisit the issue in a month's time. There's no harm in waiting. As BD2412 states, new info may come to light in 9 months, but barring that, why rehash this again? For controversial titles I'm all for continued quality move discussions, just not too frequently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't support any kind of delay on proposals. Frivolous or otherwise-problematic ones can be closed speedily per SNOW at any time.  So such moratoriums apply only to non-frivolous proposals by definition.  I don't think we should prohibit non-frivolous proposals of any kind, ever.  --B2C 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This page is a great case in point - ultimately for the reader I think it would be marginally better, but the difference is rather slight. Yogurt/Yoghurt is the same - the difference to the reader is rather minor. not all page moves are like that, but at least for those two, there are diminishing returns.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Title decision-making is rarely about improving the reader experience. In general, titles are not descriptions of the topic, but simply reflections of the name of the topic. Topics that require disambiguation, or don't have names (and so require descriptive titles), are the exception.  Just hit WP:RANDOM a dozen times or so to see what I mean.   Your argument at Sarah Brown notwithstanding, that's a rare exception (and falls under the needs-disambiguation exception category anyway); not typical at all.  WP:RM is always chock full of proposals to change a title that will not affect the reader experience at all. That's the norm.  So the fact that neither title here (or at Yogurt/Yoghurt) makes a difference to the reader is rather moot. --B2C 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Why change a title if we don't feel it improves the user experience in some way? Isn't everything we do here for the benefit of the readers?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not always directly. Ultimately titles made stable by following policy as well as reasonably possible benefits the readers indirectly because editors have more time to improve articles rather than argue about titles.  It's ironic that it takes seemingly pointless debate about titles that don't benefit readers directly to get there. There is an alternative philosophy.  And that is just to walk away from any title discussion that does not involve direct reader benefit.  I reject that philosophy because I don't believe it will work.  There will always be editors attempting to change titles for various reasons, and sucking others in for long discussions.  So what I try to do is stabilize titles by advocating the best-fit in terms of policy.  Yogurt/Yoghurt is a case in point.  That one took eight years and I think eight RMs to get right.  But ultimately it moved to the stable policy-based title.  Imagine how much editor time would have been saved if the decision in RM #2 had not been overturned based on a claim of lack of (local) consensus.  Now multiply that savings by thousands of titles/articles.  Title stability will improve the encyclopedia, and the only way to get there is to remove ambiguity from title policy (as much as reasonably possible) and to bring as many titles as possible into compliance with policy (as much as is reasonably possible).  We will never get perfect title stability, but we can get closer.  And the closer we get, the less debate we will ultimately have about titles, and the more time and energy will go to actually improving the encyclopedia for the reader. Anyway, that's my philosophy.  --B2C 00:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Yogurt/Yoghurt would have been better solved by just alternating titles once a year. I agree these discussions suck up editor time, so I'm puzzled that you want to hold them more frequently rather than less. Even if it takes longer, in sum, to reach what you call a "stable" title, limiting the total number of discussions = fewer bytes expended, no?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Good point, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Indeed, I made the point somewhere in the 400,000 bytes of discussion threads above that in my 9 years of involvement with this article, I do not recall a single real-life reader being upset by the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" title. Not one Article Feedback user, not one legitimate WP-naïve IP address poster on the talk page, not one journalist or blog writer, not one person I know in real life who I've talked to the article about. Only WP editors have been worked up by it. Doesn't that tell us something? The title this article has had for ten years is not a real problem. I'm sure there are some titles that really do trigger a real-world reaction, such as nationality-related naming issues, but this is not one of them. So maybe the 400,000 bytes of effort - and a good deal more, once you count subpages, past RM's, etc - should have been put to better use somewhere else? And a lot of this debate hasn't just been blather - it's involved real research, thinking about arguments, and careful writing. Wouldn't this intellectual effort have been better spent doing something else? If, for example, people were really interested in pioneering women in American politics, look at the Ella Grasso article. She was the first women elected governor of a state entirely on her own merits (no husband previously in office). She was even mentioned as a possible presidential candidate or vice presidential pick, well before Hillary and before Geraldine Ferraro. Yet the article on her is woefully threadbare. The 400,000 bytes of research and writing effort spent on this RM could have easily made that into a GA-level article, and benefited real readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet, here we are, debating not the title, but whether and when we should have a new discussion about the title. What can I say, we're wikipedians. We should start an RFC about an RFC to handle whether we should have an RFC about the timing of the RFC for the title. But yes, otherwise, I agree. I think one move request a year is not untoward for certain articles that people get worked up about, but not a lot more frequently than that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You make my point, Wasted Time R. Clearly the undisputed fact that no one only a few in the real-world care about whether the title is HC or HRC is not sufficient to end debate and the associated wasted bytes and time.  The same was true at Yogurt/Yoghurt.  The only way to stop the wasted time and generated bytes is to go with the title that best meets policy.  As long as there is a title that meets policy better than the current title, there will be editors who seek to change it accordingly, for good reason.  But they all go away when the title that meets policy best is chosen, because then there is nothing to argue about. --B2C 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC) struck out "no one" and replaced with "few" --B2C 18:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Whether real-world people would be upset if "Hillary Clinton" were the title is unknown. In fact, I have talked with a couple of real people of feminist backgrounds who said they would be bothered if it were moved.  I'm not saying a small sample size like that proves anything, but it's a data point.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasted Time R, well, I don't doubt that some people in the real world would have preferences about certain titles, and this one is especially unlikely to be an exception. But are we now supposed to decide titles based on which one will upset the fewest number of people in the real world?  Again, any title that meets WP:COMMONNAME should be more than acceptable by that measure; trying to take that consideration any further than that reflected by usage in RS results in, well, fodder for the endless and essentially pointless debate we've seen here. I'm not unsympathetic to the position that there is a PC preference to HRC - I just don't think we want to take such factors under consideration, not here, nor anywhere else, because they are so inherently subjective.  --B2C 18:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, based on my reading of the recent discussion, your contention that HC should be acceptable under COMMONNAME is correct but misleading. Both HC and HRC have approximately equal claims to being the COMMONNAME as they are each the most commonly used name in different fields. There have been arguments presented that both the HC or the HRC sources should be considered the more important or more relevant, but none of those arguments have been sufficiently stronger than the opposing ones for there to have been consensus about this issue. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Thryduulf, you make one of my points, but are missing the other. First COMMONNAME arguments have indeed been presented for both. But the pro-HRC one, the one the closers identified in their closing statement as one of only two arguments favoring HRC (the other being TITLECHANGES), depends upon a novel method of cherry-picking sources that has no basis in policy or practice within the context of title decision-making.   Such an unprecedented approach really needs to have local consensus support to be given much if any weight, which was not the case here. In contrast, the pro-HC COMMONNAME argument does not depend on any kind of novel approach, and was heavily favored by participants. Second, even if you find that the COMMONNAME is a wash here, not preferring either title, that's only part of CRITERIA.  The clincher is CONCISE, which clearly favors HC.  That CONCISE favors HC over HRC was heavily favored by those weighing in either way on this point - it might have been unanimous. Other than happening to be the current title, which should only be relevant when there is no good reason for a title change,  HRC has no policy-based advantage over HC.  But there is good reason to change the title to HC - to bring it in better compliance with CRITERIA, and in particular CONCISE.  So TITLECHANGES should not apply, unless you dismiss policy compliance with CONCISE as not being a good reason for a title change.  But then you would have to dismiss a good portion of all successful RM proposals that I've seen in my years on WP, because countless have been moved on this basis alone (or on one of concision's close cousins: unnecessary disambiguation and unnecessary precision), and WP:RM is always chock full of such examples. To dismiss the argument for the move based on WP:CONCISE here would again be something contrary to policy and practice, and so would need local consensus support, which it did not have. In short, local consensus as well as community consensus as reflected in policy favored this move.  The closing panel erred in not seeing this. The move review will sort this out. --B2C 00:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sayre's_law may be useful here. Debates about article titles are (usually) so bitter because so little is at stake. One must admit that this isn't always the case, however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support with the usual qualification: "...unless new information comes to light or a new argument is made which has not been made before." However, I usually prefer that this kind of moratorium be suggested by the closing administrator, rather than imposed by the discussants. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose No point trying to suppress debate, the current title can clearly be improved upon and no one should be prevented from attempting to move articles to the most appropriate and most policy compliant title. This isn't the only article where people are opposing BLP moves and ignoring policy simply due to their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance and such behaviour should not be allowed to stifle the improvement of this encyclopaedia. It's not a "minor issue" to be confusing hundreds of thousands of readers with totally illogical not to mention unnecessarily lengthy article titles for absolutely no reason. I agree entirely with B2C (and I say this as someone who greatly respects Obi and agrees with his views on most things).--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a big diff, again, between suppressing debate, and limiting its frequency. At Ireland, I think they put a moratorium for 2 years, and it worked. There was a big discussion on this last year, there was another one this year, and I'm assuming there will be another one in 9 months time. but what value would it bring to have another big discussion tomorrow? Or next week? Nothing has really changed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First, who knows? Maybe a new compelling argument will surface.  We shouldn't have to first establish consensus to suspend the moratorium in order to propose a new RM based on the new compelling argument.  Secondly, as noted before, we shouldn't be support the practice of proposal/discussion suppression in general.  Again, just because this time it might be innocuous, next time it might be important.  Let's not make it easier to pull that trigger by endorsing that approach here; let's make it harder by rejecting that approach here  --B2C 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While I support the above proposal it won't upset me in the slightest if this doesn't pass. But I still think it was a good idea anyway.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Please don't misinterpret this as any personal attack.  Simply, I note with some sadness that I have, off-and-on, observed from near the beginning of the Wikipedia career of capable contributor MelanieN, that her good efforts have been subverted into countering B2C, which arguably needs to be done.  But it is just sad that B2C is obsessed with what B2C is obsessed with, and that it sucks up good portions of career(s) of good editors who could potentially contribute more, to counter B2C's efforts.  It is sad that B2C doesn't work more on actual positive contributions, and that it costs many others' time to counter.  It is sad that I and many others commenting above on other sections of this page are doing this again and again and again.  Under current Wikipedia policies, B2C and MelanieN and I and others can do what we do (mainly cancelling each other out).  Which is sad. -- do  ncr  am  01:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good words, Doncram, but don't worry about me. I actually spend very little of my Wikipedia time arguing about things like titles. I do keep an eye on some titling areas that I care about, and yes, that sometimes involves a fair amount of canceling each other out. But I think of myself as primarily an article geek, and writing/improving articles is where I spend most of my time and effort - that plus commenting at AfD. I hope you (and Huwmanbeing, and Omnedon, and a few others) aren't getting burned out by the occasional need to deal with B2C's obsessions. I certainly am not. —MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — Whatever the outcome of the move review, it is best that we don't keep arguing over petty nonsense unless there is a justified reason to do so. This will assist in that regard. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — let this issue rest a while. Jonathunder (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — the advantages of stay for focusing on other things, outweigh any need to discuss it again within the time period. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems a little ridiculous. A 9 month gag rule on move discussions? Seems completely against the fabric of WP and the idea that consensus can change. If we want to let this issue "rest a while" we might be able to agree to something like 2 months. But 9 months seems a little out there. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Consensus, as was shown in the last move discussion, is for "Hillary Clinton" of course. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, since repeated discussions tend to go over the same ground. There's no deadline. And Nick, if the consensus had been to move to HC, then it would have happened. Omnedon (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Inaccurate. Go back and look at the RfC. A super majority among users for HC. The consensus among the admin panel was for HRC. NickCT (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to go back and look -- I participated. "Majority" doesn't equate to "consensus". There was no clear consensus to move, so it was not moved. Omnedon (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I mean "consensus" in the way that everyone outside of Wikipedia means it (i.e. general agreement). And please use the term "super majority" instead of "majority" to accurately indicate that an overwhelming number of respondents were for HC. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, in my experience, including in the "quality" initiatives that sprung up in workplaces over the last couple of decades, consensus doesn't allow for strong minority disagreement to be set aside. Consensus indicates a solution that everyone can at least live with. That's a real-world definition. It's not the same as "general agreement". Omnedon (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't unanimity. "General agreement" when more than 2 out of 3 agree to something. That's the standard the US government uses at least, and who can argue with that? NickCT (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A solution that everyone can live with doesn't mean that everyone is entirely in agreement; so that's not necessarily unanimity in the strict sense. But it's also neither "general agreement" nor "consensus" when a minority strongly disagrees and says exactly why. Omnedon (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But how small does that minority have to be before consensus is reached? There is always going to be a vocal minority against everything. Look at Evolution, vaccination and fluoridation. A minority against something doesn't mean consensus on the matter hasn't been reached. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is not always going to be a vocal minority against everything. Consensus is often reached on Wikipedia. But yes, if there is strong disagreement based in reason and not simple disagreement, then consensus cannot be said to have been reached, whether the disagreement comes from a majority or a minority. Omnedon (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nine months is an arbitrary time point, and consensus can always change. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, nine months is not arbitrary at all; it is a time by which we may reasonably expect, based on past practice, to know whether a new political campaign is in the works, and what name the subject will wage such a campaign under. bd2412  T 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The timeframe by which we might "reasonably expect, based on past practice" seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me, since we don't know if the trend of earlier and earlier announcements will continue, or if her strength as a candidate might lead her to make her announcement later in the cycle. As an aside, in looking into when Hillary declared her intent to run in the 2008 election (January 2007 was when she formed the exploratory committee), I noticed three pages that use HC over HRC (Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Clinton presidential primary campaign, 2008, List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements). Seems she ran under HC in 2008, right down to the website. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - So you're saying we should schedule our discussions around Clinton's campaign? That seems arbitrary. Why don't we wait till she gets divorced and gives up the "Clinton" portion of her name. NickCT (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is a policy regarding article content. It has no bearing on this at all. However, it seems highly unlikely that the subject will effect a material change to the public perception of her identification, which would make a move request more likely to succeed, within the nine months following the close of the last one. bd2412  T 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "It has no bearing on this at all." - Well, maybe not technically. But the spirit of CRYSTAL is that one shouldn't try to predict the future. Are you trying to predict the future? NickCT (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is that one shouldn't put future-predicting content into articles, period. The original proposal was for a one-year moratorium. I agree that a cooling-off period is needed, but would have us remain open to the possibility of a past timetable repeating itself. bd2412  T 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe a gag order/censorship can be helpful on occasion. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think another move request initiated in a shorter time would have any different outcome? bd2412  T 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I don't think it's outside the realm of reason. Even if I agree with you that it's unlikely, I'm struggling to see the benefit in quashing discussion. Thinking to the recent Chelsea Manning RM shenanigans, there was a no consensus RM followed by a consensus move ~2 months later. NickCT (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Chelsea Manning case is distinct. There, much of the first discussion was focused on procedural errors by edit-warring admins that had nothing to do with the correct name for the article. The second discussion focused solely on the name issues, and was also backed by a change in sources during the intervening period. bd2412  T 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My sense of that argument was that the WP:COMMONNAME for Chelsea Manning changed over the period of a couple months, after a lot of news sources/RS made the decision to "endorse" the name change. Though there were definitely some edit-warring admins involved *cough* David Gerard *cough*, making things worse, I think the RS did literally change and consensus on the RM changed to reflect the RS. Regardless BD2414, though I dissent on this matter, I do so most respectfully. You'll probably get your gag order, and it probably won't be a huge tragedy. NickCT (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that as if I hadn't done an unfathomable amount of research and work on this question. In any case, I didn't propose this moratorium. I am merely one of many supporters of having a break. bd2412  T 00:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that as if I wasn't following the debate pretty closely. Anyway, I'm not refuting what you're saying. I agree. Much of the first discussion was focused on things other than the correct name. But I think the RS did come into play. And granted, you aren't the proposer here. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, as you know I also support a move. But, I also like to think I'm a reasonable person, and my proposal to wait is based mainly on the fact that the current name isn't that bad, indeed it is a perfectly reasonable title and the wiki would not be seriously harmed if it remained at this title till the end of time. The Manning case, where I was pretty involved in the second move request, was a completely different animal and no fair comparison can be made between the two - we had BLP allegations, move warring, arbcom-level behavioral issues, a huge transgender rights issue and all the rest, so emotions were brutally high and even the waiting period imposed after the first move caused howls and dismay and the next move was out within hours of the expiration of the timeline- people literally were counting hours. No comparison here. Within 9 months we will likely know if a new candidacy has been proposed, and if so under what name, and that will generate lots of new reliable sources. But I see no rush. Plus, there's still a serious chance the move review will succeed - do you really want the HRC crowd to propose a new move a week from now if that passes?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Agree it's not that bad, but I'm not sure that justifies a gag order. And agree that Manning was a different situation. I was just trying to point out that moves coming soon after a no consensus RM aren't unheard of. NickCT (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moratorium. That's enough attempts at moving this page. Let things settle for at least six months. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I would encourage people to give this a rest for a while, I do not think this is appropriate. Consensus can change, and so can circumstances. Neljack (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - rather than rehashing again...and again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per Omnedon, Casliber, etc. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  21:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, I would and did say "6 months", but 9 is now better in this case given the massively time-wasting Move_review/Log/2014_May. When it comes up again in 9 months I will again briefly support. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I seem to recall a move discussion for Theater District, Manhattan where an almost immediate move discussion began after editors felt there was not enough editor input. It did not garner support to move back to the longer standing spelling of Theatre as opposed to the moved name of Theater. Yes, there is no actual policy or guideline that restricts the time in between requests. An editor then began a !vote discussion similar to this asking for a moratorium which failed. That was about a year ago and no further move requests have been made even though there was no moratorium in place. I don't think we'll have the same luck on this article. So I, for one, support a 6 month moratorium on any further move requests pertaining to this article.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A 9 month moratorium is unreasonable
In all likelihood there will be much more coverage of Hillary Clinton after the mid-term elections. This will provide many more data points on the current state of reliable source references. There is no reason to stifile discussion until several months after that. The name issue here has been made complex, but it seems to me to revolve around people ignoring the clear intentions of common name rules. It has also to some extent been complicated by people ignoring the fact that the practices used to develop common name references in reliable sources have changed over the years. So we really should preference newer sources because they show the current view on how to develop common name references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say that I am totally confused by this brouhaha around the name. Sorry, but I don't get it and I read the entire thread. Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The nine month moratorium was supported by a substantial majority of participants in that discussion, given the repeated efforts to pursue this matter and the exhaustion that the intensive discussion tends to engender. In any case, the moratorium as proposed was nine months from May 1, 2014 (i.e. until February 1, 2015). One thing I've learned as I've grown older it that it will be here before you know it. bd2412  T 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reason to put off discussion. This issue has been discussed up and down, and there is no consensus. Some of us would rather not keep going over and over the same issue just because various people keep bringing it up. Omnedon (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose a moratorium on further debate on the previously adopted moratorium on--er, what are we talking about again? Jonathunder (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) −
 * Speedy close as reasonable There has been enough discussion on this for now. While it may be that the upcoming election cycle will provide a substantial new data points that might tip the opinion, until that actually happens no point worrying about it. So suggesting that this meta discussion be speedy closed. PaleAqua (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is unlikely to go anywhere, so we might as well let it run its course. This is an expression of dissatisfaction, not really a proposal for anything, so I don't see there being anything to close. bd2412  T 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. Editors can just choose to ignore it. I don't think the Title of this article is going to change anything either way, so I would just ask that we should let the decision be. If there is an event that takes place within the 9 months, editors can bring the issue here and ask for guidance. Dave Dial (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understandable, withdrawing bit of my comment. PaleAqua (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I coulda sworn that article talk pages are for discussing the editing and improvement of said articles, not for the contemplation of the sourness of one's grapes. Tarc (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There is no reasonable possibility that there will be a consensus to overturn this moratorium absent some specific event that radically changes the conversation. bd2412  T 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton, I propose a more general indefinite moritorium on moritoria discussions, hypothetical future sources, and any other discussions not related actual sources or the content of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What about a moratorium on discussing the more general indefinite moritorium on moritoria discussions? Or maybe just a moratorium on discussing the moritorium on further debate on the previously adopted moratorium.DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what we do on Wikipedia:
 * CONSENSUS.
 * When there is no consensus, we discuss in order to reach consensus. Moratoriums on discussions are contrary to how WP works. If you don't want to participate; don't. If there is a survey, participate for a minute and move on. It's not a big deal, unless your real concern is that the status quo that you favor might be overturned, and that's the real reason you favor a moratorium. --В²C ☎ 06:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is consensus. Consensus has been reached in the extensive and disruptive move review, we do not now need a more extensive and disruptive review of the review. As per Tarc Jonathunder   bd2412   SmokeyJoe  User:DeCausa. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, please quit insultingly telling us what "we" do on Wikipedia. If in discussion after discussion the same points are raised over and over again, and no consensus is reached, a cooling-off period is perfectly reasonable. We're all volunteers here and none of us wants to waste our time on pointless discussions. Many discussions are useful. Right now, the discussions about the move and the review are not. They're over. Let us try and forget it for a while. As for "participate for a minute and move on" -- please heed your own advice. Participate and move on. Omnedon (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle is free to initiate another move request at any time, no one can physically stop him. If one is filed anytime soon however, I and I'm sure many others wouldn't hesitate to bring the matter to ANI, where the result would likely be a topic ban.  It's entirely up to him to choose his path forward. Tarc (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears in my attempt at humor my point may have been lost: it's rather silly to keep talking about not talking about something. Let's get back to discussing the actual article (the part AFTER the title), shall we? Jonathunder (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Yes, I agree, a 9-month moratorium is unreasonable: it should be longer. This has been a gross waste of time and energy, and the project suffers`for it. Tvoz / talk 04:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been in favor of moving the page (and still am) but this is enough. We need to stop having discussions about the name and discussions about discussions about the name. Let's all agree to take nine months or more year off from this and find something productive to do.  It's obvious at least one proponent of the move is attempting to bludgeon this through.  Let's step back here.  Calidum  Talk To Me 04:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * re "We need to stop having discussions about the name and discussions about discussions about the name" - Ditto. This thing has had it's day in court. We got a bad decision, but hey, it happens. Let's wait before broaching the subject again. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not likely a reliable source but #1 NYT's "non-fiction" bestseller

 * Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas Regnery Publishing (June 23, 2014) ISBN 978-1621573135, see "A Provocateur’s Book on Hillary Clinton Overtakes Her Memoir in Sales: ‘Blood Feud’ vs. ‘Hard Choices’ in Hillary Clinton Book Battle" User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mentioned briefly in the Hard Choices article. And certainly not an RS - supermarket tabloids have higher standards.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

time for a new photo? (I know free images are out there)
Her "official" DC photo above the infobox is getting rather long in the tooth and looks like a 20-years ago photo-shoot. Let's face it, she's almost 70. Surely a more recent photo is available to be submitted to Commons? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The infobox photo is her official photo as Secretary of State, so taken in 2009. I don't think that's too old a photo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the image is OK here. 5 years is not that old at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's pretty much SOP to use the most recent official portrait for public officeholders, past or present. So I concur. There might be a new one in a couple of years. Tvoz / talk 04:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean sometime around January 20, 2017? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State conspiracy theory/hoax
Not sure if this belongs here or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, not in her bio. This is just one more crackpot theory accusing her of one atrocity or another, and I don't think it rises to the level of notability for its impact on her life. As far as I've read, at this point it has had none. Tvoz / talk 20:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's right. It's just useful to know about it if someone brings it up or adds something suggesting it's true. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree. Tvoz / talk 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An edit has created multiple "Script error" problems
Not sure which editor did it, but references around the 338 mark on are messed up. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I think the problem was that you can't use use an anchor for a cite before the complete cite itself.  i.e. the first time you do the full thing;




 * then afterwards you can use a shortcut;




 * The cart can't be put before the horse. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually in my experience you can put the cart before the horse. I've done that dozens of times - adding the ref anchor earlier in the article than the actual ref cite - and the system adjusts for it. Interestingly, I don't see any script problem in the version before your fix, Tarc - it looks fine on my screen (and still does after your edit). So I'm not sure what was going on here. I'm curious, though, if others had the problem or if I'm missing it somehow. Also, OP says it's around cite 338, but your fix (on my screen anyway) is at 275. So this whole thing is majorly weird. FWIW I continue to use the old edit method, not the abominable WYSIWYG "beta" version, so maybe that has something to do with it?  Tvoz / talk 23:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, well, that is weird. And yea, I remember at the time where I saw the breakpoint didn't match numerically with what was reported initially, but didn't think much of it at the time. Every cite after 275 was hosed. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

 * alma_mater= Wellesley College} [[Yale Law School
 * profession= Lawyer

110.148.158.194 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Clinton hasn't practiced law since the mid-80's, would not be appropriate to list her profession as such. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * But I do agree that the infobox alma mater field should say Yale Law School, not Yale University. The former is more informative and gives a better picture of her education, her profession, and the nature of her Yale experience.  There's some editor who goes around changing all these to XYZ University, but I've never understood why - just another one of those slow-motion infobox battles that goes on in WP ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014
Yale Law School (J.D.)
 * alma_mater= Wellesley College (B.A.)
 * profession= Lawyer

110.148.158.194 (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See above and below. Degrees have been added. Profession has been deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Add profession of Hillary Clinton

 * profession = Lawyer

Aajay3 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Per above. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Followup: Aajay3 added "lawyer and politician" to the infobox. I deleted them. There is clearly no consensus what her "profession" is right now. She was trained as a attorney, but hasn't worked as one for 30 years. She was a politician (senator) from 2001 through 2009 and ran for president during that time, so "politician" is closer - but since then she served as Secretary of State which is not a political position, and right now she has no actual profession ("famous person"?). If she decides to run for office again, we can then list her profession as "politician". At the moment I think all of her possible profession or status listings are "ex": ex-attorney, ex-First Lady, ex-politician, ex-Secretary of State - and there is no particular reason to list any of them as her "profession". --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Profession' entries in the infobox always cause trouble for political figures, for all these reasons. If I had to list them, I would say "Lawyer, board member, political spouse, politician, diplomat," but at the end of the day, it's better for the reader to just go through the lead and absorb all these activities that way.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't list them either, but certainly not "political spouse" which is hardly a profession. Tvoz / talk 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved with this before and I don't really care about info boxes, but she IS a politician. The idea that Secretary of State is not a political position is just wrong, though that does not mean that every former Secretary of State would properly be called a politician. However, one who was a Senator and presidential candidate before becoming Secretary of State, is a politician.  Neutron (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we feel a need to list some kind of profession (which I personally don't think we need), "politician" is probably closer than anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some inconsistency on this. Condoleeza Rice's infobox does not give her profession, while John Kerry's does - as both politician and lawyer, even though he has not practiced law for decades either. Personally, I don't think a lawyer in public office stops being a lawyer, unless he or she gets disbarred. Neutron (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would favor "Politician" as the profession. Juno (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia infoboxes are an endless source of inconsistency. Whether to include "politician" in the opening paragraph became a big point of debate on the Mitt Romney article at one point.  I did a survey of all 50 articles about current U.S. governors, and 30 did so and 20 did not, with no rhyme or reason as to which was which.  But if a profession is listed, it cannot be just "Politician".  She did not run for elective office until age 52, and has only spent about 10 years as an active politician.  The rest of her life, she has been doing other things.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "public figure"? If we were going only by her post-cabinet activities, I would say that she is currently an "author and public speaker", although to me that seems to fall short. bd2412  T 14:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Public figure" isn't bad, but I stand by leaving the field off of the infobox (done all the time around the project for one field or another) - this is a textbook case for letting the article explain a complex history, rather than trying to boil it down to a few words. Doing so, for the bio of a whole life, can be misleading, if unintentionally so.  Tvoz / talk 18:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was curious to see how another complex public figure's inbobox was displayed, so I went to look at Sarah Palin who is listed as a...commercial fisherwoman? Tarc (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Harry S. Truman says Haberdasher and Farmer. bd2412  T 19:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Lawyer and Politician" seems like the obvious choice, they are the professions she is best known for.--Gawzyknob (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it really harm the article any to just leave it blank in the infobox? --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Gawzyknob said fits best for me. She is still a politician, but she has had a long career as a lawyer as well.  I think the infobox for profession should be filled in with lawyer and politician for completion's sake.Amcorbe (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

← I don't necessarily agree that she is best known as being a politician - as Secretary of State she was arguably a diplomat, and how do you characterize her 8 years as First Lady? And she is a successful author. I still think the field is not essential, and we should let the article explain her varied career rather than trying to boil it down to a couple of words and run the risk of inserting perhaps unintentional POV. Tvoz / talk 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the field is not essential as far as I can tell.90.244.85.64 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the earlier point about leaving it to the article. If a fact or facts can't be provided adequate context in the infobox, it harms (rather than helps) the article to try to force it.  Along with some dates, I'd say "Lawyer, Corporate Director, Child Advocate, Author, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, United States Senator, Political Candidate, Diplomat, Possible Future Political Candidate," but clearly we long ago left infobox practicality.  Justen (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2014
Due to Hillary Clinton's birthday today, her age should be updated from 66 years old to 67 years old.

108.41.245.181 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The age field is listed with a template, Template:birth date and age, that calculates it automatically and currently displays "67". Sometimes the server cache lags a bit behind these sorts of updates, so if you still see "66", try clearing your browser cache first and see if that does the trick. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The articles were not merged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(Please note: I have removed the merge template from here, as it is meant to appear on the article itself so that more people can see it. The IP has proposed merging Hillary Rodham senior thesis into either this page or Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am also going to provide links on the other talk pages so that all discussion is here) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The content of this article does not seem sufficiently notable to warrant a page of its own. The details could be merged quite easily into the two above articles. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The thesis has sufficient reliable sources, and enough detail in reliable sources, that to summarize the notable aspects in anything other than its own stand-alone article, would be incomplete and biased. Also I am not comfortable with the proposed shot-gun approach to the merge proposal. Hugh (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per HughD, too much for this article to absorb. The details are necessary for understanding the topic, so the standalone is the right way to go. Tvoz / talk 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It has its own field of interest; in this article it is only a footnote, but as its own piece it is an interesting piece of historical trivia. bd2412  T 21:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose both. The thesis and the controversy around it are already mentioned in two sentences in this main article, which is proper weighting here; if the details of the thesis article were merged here it would throw the weighting of this article completely off. The "Political positions of X" articles are for policy stances that people establish while they are political figures, so what an undergraduate in college writes in an academic setting as a senior thesis does not belong in such articles.  The thesis article should stay as it is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Granddaughter
Clinton said the birth of her granddaughter was the greatest "blessing" since the birth of Chelsea. If that is the case, shouldn't there be at least ONE picture of the kid's face, front on??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.44.188 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If there was a photo of the full family, all three generations, maybe. Others here might think not.  But it's a moot point for now since Wikipedia has very restrictive copyright-related rules about what photos are allowed to be included here, and there are none with the granddaughter in them that are available for use.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I echo Wasted Time R's opinion and add one other consideration: Chelsea and Hillary are public figures:  Getting photos of them to use in encyclopedia articles really isn't much of a challenge, despite Wikipedia's amazing copyright rules (that I try to abide).  And despite WP's amazing BLP rules that I also try to abide.  My additional concern is that Charlotte is a private person and a minor, and that if you, 61.219.44.188, go trying to take a picture of her without her mother's permission, the least you're likely to get is a punch in the face from said mother. In other words, despite the "it would be nice..." feeling, my better judgment says, "Don't even go there."  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)