Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

All are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve coverage of Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. Dustin (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we get to fight a rename battle over this one too? Tarc (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume it will reflect the one this page uses. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair notification of pending RM

Given the brewhaha surrounding this debate the last time around, I want to jump ahead of the ball and offer fair warning to the admins who were previously involved in moderating (i.e. @Adjwilley, TParis, BrownHairedGirl, and NuclearWarfare:), that this debate is about to recycle. Furthermore, I want to state upfront, that I'm considering pinging all of the editors/admins who commented in both the last discussion on this topic and the move review to alert them that this debate has renewed. I believe this falls under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, bullet "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic". NickCT (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Obviously, in order to avoid any appearance of bias, any admins who have previously closed discussions on this subject should refrain from participating in the closing of any new discussion. There are more than enough admins to go around to accomplish that. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously. Though I'd be interested to hear from the old admins on whether any opinions have changed, or on whether they have any reflections. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as this old admin goes - I never had an opinion to begin with, and I have even less of an opinion now that I am retired. Good luck.--v/r - TP 17:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Like TParis, I never had an opinion to start with. I would also have no desire to get dragged back into this debate.
    I am sure that editors on both sides will express their views, and that once again there will be good arguments of both sides. Editors are of course entitled to reopen the debate, but I do suggest that all involved might usefully consider whether rehashing this question for the umpteenth time is a productive use of editorial energy. Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
errr NickCT, what do you think's changed to justifiy another move debate now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: - Frankly the last run through this topic was pretty poor. There was fairly overwhelming support for the other name. I'm happy to acknowledge that when there's a lack unanimity on these questions, it's right and proper that "consensus be judged". But in situations where "judgement of consensus" overrides an actual, clear and real consensus among editors, that's not the collaborative editing WP is about. It's censorship.
Why do we have do demonstrate something has changed if the last decision was just plain wrong? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Because if you're going to cite that as a reason, it won't fly. In fact, if you're going to cite that as a reason, I'd not be surprised if an uninvolved admin just closed it. How many folks commented last time? You really think it'll be any different? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: - I figure you can get admins overturning general agreement among editors maybe once or twice, but it's unlikely to happen multiple times. I hope the same number of folks comment this time, and the same level of support is shown for HR. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Nick, there was no "actual, clear and real consensus among editors" last time. The fact that the opposers were in the minority is irrelevant. Arguments were advanced on both sides, and no consensus developed. Omnedon (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Omnedon: - Greater than 70% agreement is "actual, clear and real consensus among editors", or at least as much as one ever actually sees on controversial topics on WP. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagreed. Consensus is not defined by percentages. Consensus is where the group can agree to at least live with a decision, even if not everyone is entirely happy about it. That was emphatically not the case here. Arguments were advanced on both sides and a huge amount of discussion and argument took place with no resolution. That is as far from consensus as you can get. Omnedon (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Nick, If the last decision had been "just plain wrong", it would have been overturned at the discussion review. It wasn't. Are you seeking a review of the review of the close? And maybe then a review of the review of the review? How many uninvolved administrators have to weigh in here, before you stop insisting that they were all wrong? --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - Uninvolved admins? I guess you mean yourself? Oh no wait.... you opposed last time right? I guess you mean Cas liber. Oh no, wait. He opposed last time too. Which uninvolved admins are you talking about Mel? NickCT (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I am talking about the three uninvolved admins who closed the RM discussion, and the uninvolved admin who closed the review. That's four. In your opinion all four of them were "just plain wrong". How many more will it take, before you accept the result? --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - Well, NuclearWarfare was only commenting on whether there was a procedure problem with the RM. Frankly, I agreed. There probably wasn't a procedural problem w/ the RM.
But this is besides the point. None of the uninvolved admins you've pointed to have suggest that consensus on the topic hasn't changed. So why not test consensus again? NickCT (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on the fact that this page has had multiple RMs rejected multiple times, any new RM should start off stating what has changed since the last move request to justify another RM. Not the same laundry list of google hits, ngrams and same policy arguments that have been used ad nauseam in the many other move requests. To me, it seems as if the same argument as every other RM. If there has not been a name change, or other significant event, another RM cannot be justified. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I entirely agree. Omnedon (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If that is your opinion on the matter, I would strongly suggest you say as much in the Village Pump discussion currently considering this proposition. It is important that all procedural matters be disposed of there, so that any potential move discussion can focues entirely on the considerations of WP:AT. Since a venue is presently available to raise these issues, if the issues are legitimate then they will be raised there. bd2412 T 14:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point, thank you. Omnedon (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
tl;dr!!!! There are many smart editors spilling a lot of wiki-ink (and some tears) about nothing. In the name of all that is holy please just go write an article about something! There's a lot to be done over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lengthening Talk Pages Doesn't Help the Encyclopedia. Wikilove to all! David.thompson.esq (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_another_move_request_at_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_be_permitted.3F. Like it or note it seems we will have this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

S-protection of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016‎

I just wanted to note here that I have s-protected Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016‎, to match the protection level of this parent article. IPs will no longer be able to edit that page, so if you are watching this page, you may want to watch that one also, for edit requests being brought up on the talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that is excessive. Pre-emptively preventing direct editing of an article very likely to interest newcomers is contrary to the principle that the project is open to everyone. Is there evidence of a rush of IP vandalism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In light of discussion at the talk page (and review of the protection logs for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012‎), I have removed the protection. I expect that quite a few editors will keep an eye on this hot topic. bd2412 T 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

'Brief stint' - biased language

Since most campaign and lower level workers for Congress persons only work for a year or two... Is that really notably 'brief' on her part? Seems biased. And obvious, since the dates are right there. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I don't think it's biased, but I do agree it isn't really necessary, so I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

proposal to change the opening sentence

At present it reads:

I propose as a text that I think can either fit in with either title:

Hillary Rodham Clinton or Hillary Clinton :

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/), born: Hillary Diane Rodham and known within politics as Hillary Rodham Clinton is a former United States Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady of the United States.

I think that this should work either eventuality. It loses the DOB but that's in the infobox and, from a stereotypical point of view, you should never ask a lady .

GregKaye 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's way to convoluted. Current version is preferred. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Awkward and unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary. It's standard for a WP biography first sentence to start with a fully complete name even though only some subset of that name is used in practice. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ditto - unnecessary, too wordy, and not consistent with Wikipedia biographies. Tvoz/talk 03:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. I was keen to find a way to incorporate the professional name used in lower profile situations on the thought that this might be useful an eventuality that the article title moves to most commonly recognisable name.
The form of infobox used does not permit name variations but maybe an adaption could be worked out at say WP:PUMP or a different form of info box might be used.
Anyway, depending on the progress of a potential RM maybe an option such as the one suggested can be reconsidered. It is an informative content. GregKaye 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender feel free to point to any issue raised in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) or other guidelines content that you consider to apply. I will be happy to consider genuine content. GregKaye 10:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a very bizarre proposal, and I don't even understand what it is trying to accomplish. RGloucester — ☎ 13:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester She has/has had a number of designations: She has a commonly known name: "Hillary Clinton"; a full name: "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton"; a name from ~birth: "Hillary Diane Rodham" and a name that she uses professionally in many contexts that are not of the highest level profile (such a her announcement of her presidential candidacy and her campaign adverts): "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Curiously in the thread above I am accused of not recognising Hillary Rodham Clinton. I actually think that it is fair for a statement regarding the existence and use of this name should be presented clearly in the article content. GregKaye 15:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not how we do things here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester there are many ways in which we do things. Guidelines are only guidelines but I know of no content that precludes content like this. I was merely presenting a possibility that may be of relevance should the name of the article be changed to "Hillary Clinton". If my proposal is not accepted now, at least it will be here in case anyone wants to develop any of the content at a later date. GregKaye 16:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Change to more general topic of article name and, arguably, Wikidrama

I have injected the above title so as to enable further discussion of the thread topic if desired, GregKaye 11:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @GregKaye:, your 'highest level profile' argument is one that many people have disagreed with. The fact is that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is what she has consistently used as her official name when in office, see her official former Secretary of State page and her official Senate page (archived) and her announcement when she became First Lady. It's also the name she's published all six of her books under, from It Takes a Village through Hard Choices. See also her signature. See also what her people told Jimbo her preference is during the last RM. Now it's true she used a shorter form during her 2008 presidential campaign, and she may do that again during the one about to start. Campaigns are all about short, easily digested messages. But overall it's clear she uses, and prefers, Hillary Rodham Clinton the most.
Now if you are saying that if the article title gets changed to Hillary Clinton, the lead should be modified to indicate that she frequently uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as name too, well maybe. But we can cross that bridge if we get to it. First I guess we have to go through another cycle of cutting-and-pasting previous RM arguments into a new RM. What joy. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasted Time R When she campaigns for public support she has done so under the name "Hillary Clinton". Once she has got public support she has presented herself as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". If anyone is gaming a system, its her. Please also see image search results for Hillary rodham clinton campaign poster. GregKaye 16:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, really? I know you don't live in the U.S., but I hope you can realize that the vast majority of those images are fakes? Wasted Time R (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Its also clear that none of them present ".. Rodham .." GregKaye 17:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and she expressed that she would prefer to be called that on Wikipedia. Per the BLP policy and MOS:IDENTITY, which should align ourselves with her preference, given that both names are common. We should not engage in male power fantasies of denying women their names. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I would think, by that reasoning, that we would move Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam, unless we consider men less deserving of that choice than women. On the other hand, Yusuf Islam doesn't continue to set up websites where he calls himself "Cat Stevens", or have himself billed as "Cat Stevens" at events. bd2412 T 19:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, BD2412. Cat Stevens is universally known as "Cat Stevens", not as anything else. Hillary Rodham Clinton is most usually known by that name, and what's more, the alternative form "Hillary Clinton" is contained within the full form. Most sources that use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" also use "Hillary Clinton" and "Mrs. Clinton" as a short form, as I demonstrated above. Sources that use both forms, which are very common, demonstrate that the commonality of "Hillary Clinton" does not necessarily support the idea that this article should be titled as anything other than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We don't use journalistic shortform here. Sure, many sources may say "Los Angeles" at first mention, and then switch to "LA". That doesn't mean we rename the article on Los Angeles to "LA". RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester Re: "Hillary Rodham Clinton is most usually known by that name". Genuine question: which news channels do you watch? GregKaye 11:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Perhaps I read The New York Times or The Washington Post, or perhaps The Christian Science Monitor? Her name is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and that's how she's known. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester:, ah, you mean "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula"? Or, as it is now officially named, "the City of Los Angeles"? We title to it here by the short form, "Los Angeles". Of course, reasonable minds can differ, and that is why we have discussions on topics like these. bd2412 T 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Just spent the last few holes of the Masters reading the 2014 discussion (maybe a record for longest Requested Change discussions?) and it seems like a new discussion will be a massive rehash of all the points brought up there. It's difficult to see how any other result would occur, and it would also take another panel of admins to come to the same conclusion. When the discussion goes up I'll comment there, but are you sure that you want to go through the discussion that resulted in that 2014 giant-wall-of-text all over again, with very little new evidence to add to either side and with the panel's 2014 decision to obviously be part of the closing consideration? Randy Kryn 20:10 11 April, 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr!!!! There are many smart editors spilling a lot of wiki-ink (and some tears) about nothing. In the name of all that is holy please just go write an article about something! There's a lot to be done over at Wikipedia:WikiProject I'll Turn This Car Around And We Won't Go To Disneyworld. Wikilove to all! David.thompson.esq (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Randy Kryn 00:29 12 April, 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, Randy Kryn, David.Thompson and others have this right - can we please not waste time and bandwidth over this, again? Her name (and please no "maiden") is Hillary Rodham CLinton - that is abundantly clear - there is no advantage or purpose to changing the title of the article, as we've concluded over and over and over again. Nothing has changed. She's about to become a declared candidate and we will have plenty to do here in keeping trolls and opportunistic assholes and partisan anti-Hillarists away from vandalising the piece - those of us who were here in the 2007-8 campaign on this page and Obama and the others know exactly what is coming. There is no good reason to hash this infinitesimal point out again, and no likelihood of a different result. We have much better, more important things to spend our time on. Tvoz/talk 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick note here to User:David.thompson.esq, User:Randy Kryn, User:RGloucester, and User:Tvoz - the discussion of whether we should have another move discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted?, so these opinions should be expressed there. If a move request occurs, it will focus on WP:AT, and not on procedural matters, since those will be disposed of in the Village Pump discussion. Also, to David Thompson, your user page is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. bd2412 T 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, User:BD2412 ! As to substance, I am chagrined to learn there is yet another wikiplace where this discussion is being had. And, if the discussion is at the wikipump, what the wiki are we doing adding more wikicrap to this talk page? And isn't a discussion about whether or not to have a discussion something better suited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Please gouge my eyes out? (a project to put into effect WP:PGMEO). David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why the heck do we need another discussion elsewhere? If we're going to have an RM, let's have an RM. This is such a nightmare. I wish people would just leave well alone, but Wikipedians are all a bit too liberal to understand the value of stability. Honestly. Spreading the discussion across multiple pages is a recipe for a procedural nightmare. RGloucester — ☎ 02:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the above subheading regarding WP:Wikidrama above in the hope to preserve a space for the thread content that I started and in the hope that editors might re consider the tone and content of their remarks. I would agree that there is an argument for making additions to guidelines at WP:AT to the effect that ethical considerations may be taken into account on a formal basis. I would also take an argument regarding the preferred way in which she might want to be referenced very seriously. However, on Twitter, on Facebook, in speeches and in campaign materials she presents herself as "Hillary Clinton". GregKaye 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg. It seems painfully obvious (WP:PaOVS) to some editors that another renaming attempt will not only fail (as closers would have to take the 2014 move three-panel closing ruling into account), but will eat up editors time, energy, and will-to-live. So I guess they are trying to talk sense and/or nonsense to others who want to go ahead with it. I read the text of the last attempt yesterday, and talk about wikidrama! It went on and on, should have its own Wikipedia page, and could be made into a graphic novel. In any case, that's probably why some are questioning another attempt now, waste of time and binge eating taken into consideration. Randy Kryn 11:48 12 April, 2015 (UTC)
Greg, Per policy, we are not writing Twitter, nor Facebook, nor speeches, nor campaign materials - this has all been discussed previously. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Randy Kryn In regard to the "drama" of "the last attempt" you should add manipulation. An honest mistake was made in that I succinctly submitted a thoughtful request that had not much over half of the minimum required text and the response was basically that, you failed, don't do it again. For drama: please see the above thread, please see the uncivil personal attacks on people who back change, please see rhetorically presented text on this page that is formated to shout in a larger font size than any that I have seen on any other Wikipedia talk or, I think, any page, please see your own comment which amounts to "an RM would be such a headache". What I don't see is valid Wikipedia guideline based arguments that demonstrate "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to be a guidelines supported title for the article. If the arguments are there then will be no headache.
Alanscottwalker Per policy we primarily go by secondary sources which, as demonstrated, give extremely strong support for a title "Hillary Clinton". However, as said "I would also take an argument regarding the preferred way in which she might want to be referenced very seriously. However, on Twitter, on Facebook, in speeches and in campaign materials she presents herself as "Hillary Clinton"." It was remiss of me to forget mention of her websites which also give predominant coverage of her chosen designated name "Hillary Clinton". Please do not adopt tactics to dramatically take one comment out of the full context of the page. You can see full well that I have presented a variety of supportive content. I have been considering not personally submitting an RM but, in the context of what I see as the gaming, selective, dramatic and occasionally uncivil and abusive responses on this page, I am beginning to see little reason why I shouldn't. GregKaye 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Citing campaign literature (or news) does not respond to the reasons that per policy this is encyclopedic biography and per policy the appropriate "encyclopedic register" is based on high quality sourcing for encyclopedic biography. As for your last reason for making content decisions because you think that's a proper response to your user conduct claims, that's just poor content decision making, and not based in policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Greg, you might as well go ahead, as you'd make a coherent case. My last response was mainly after reading last years discussion (which I printed out and used for firewood to heat the house for a few days) and realizing that a new one would likely fall into the same arguments. The one was closed as no-consensus by a three-judge wikipanel. I don't think anyone is wikiattacking you personally, even with the shouting, but just moaning about the idea of another go-around on a seemingly settled question ("no-consensus" uses this page as its home address). Randy Kryn 11:28 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

If a new request is to be made, please set-up an administrative panel

A panel of three administrators is required, if this request is to be accepted by His Majesty. This should be arranged now. Those that wish to make the request ought get on with it. In such a case is this, the scrutiny of a council is required. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear God no. One of the faults of the last one was using a panel of admins instead of letting an admin familiar with RMs close it the normal way. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Please arrange a panel, as was done last time, and as is necessary. I'm sorry that it did not work out for you, but the administrators did a very thorough analysis. One can see this page, for example. That type of analysis is required if this is to be accepted by His Majesty. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is rooted in policy, not in voting. Analysis is required, to ensure that the closer sees the policy for what it is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What's more, if the new move request is closed and does not meet the standards of the old move request, it will not stand up by comparison. It will be struck down, as inferior in analysis. The procedure must be mimicked. It must not be gamed. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with a panel - of course, we should have a panel of admins familiar with closing RMs. However, there is no point in starting that process until the Village Pump discussion is wound up (it is hardly a certainty that there will be another move discussion). If that discussion results in a consensus that it is permissible to go forward with an RM, it may be a few days - or a few weeks - before editors participating in gathering information in support of it have a final form that everyone is happy with. Not to mention the fact that the situation with the subject herself has changed substantially just in the past two days, and it will take some time to effectively assess the degree to which this new paradigm affects the wording of a proposal. In short, patience. bd2412 T 03:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no patience for these machinations by the machine of your engineering. Stringent standards must be met, may it please the Crown. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a closing three-admin panel for the "As-yet untitled possible Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move discussion". Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm much obliged to you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Who is 'His Majesty' here? Unless someone here is genuinely a monarch, please avoid using a fake style. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can get a panel consisting of @Everyking: and HRM @Jimbo Wales:. Jonathunder (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Technically, Jimbo is WP:INVOLVED, since he weighed in last year (albeit obliquely). ;-) bd2412 T 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales' position as an admin is for all intents and purposes honorary/ceremonial at this point, as he has largely sworn off tool usage in recent years. Even though his position on this mirrors my own, I would stridently oppose his serving on a closing panel for this matter. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear, this wasn't a serious nomination, just a silly response to the use of monarchical styles. (Although I don't know why Everyking couldn't be seriously nominated, if it comes time for it.) Jonathunder (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I only understand monarchical forms of government. His Majesty is the embodiment of the State. He is the font of power, and of honour. He may not have material power, as such, but spiritual power always trumps material power. I simply reminded His Majesty's minister (BD2412) that he must follow the appropriate procedures to be granted legitimacy in the eyes of the Crown. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about common name

Here is something to think about. The previous closure stated, "WP:COMMONNAME only supports using more recent results if a change in name has been made. (Clinton has not legally changed her name, and according to Jimbo, has not changed her preference either.) Because of this, the WP:COMMONNAME arguments lose much of their strength, and it is necessary to look at other factors in order to determine consensus.". In reality, WP:COMMONNAME just says "Wikipedia prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." If enough evidence is gathered to show this is Hillary Clinton (so no maiden name), which it does seem to be, then the dispute should be sorted, right? 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jonathan Swift would give the endless WP debate over her name the contempt it deserves, IMO. Absolutely and utterly unbelievable. Does it really matter? WP is full of editors who have no sense of proportion, or clearly nothing better to do with their free time. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC) My apologies. It was a cheap shot. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this comment? If you think discussing her name is pointless and trivial, then you don't have to comment or think about it, much less take contemptuous potshots at other editors. AgnosticAphid talk 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Seriously. Civility is a good thing. Red Slash 03:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
P-123 There are relevant arguments here that can be considered in relation to article name. There is a WP:UCRN argument and there may also be some ethical argument in relation to giving this notable woman recognition of her maiden name. Wikipedia has due process by which issues such as these can be considered. As it is I came to the article when scanning through titles and it jumped out as a form of name that, from my experience, was comparatively rarely used. I think that it is very possible that other readers may take a similar view and consider that non neutral influences are at work in Wikipedia. Please do not regard the efforts of Wikipedia editors, who (from what I have seen) are acting in good faith, with contempt. I do not understand the Jonathan Swift reference. GregKaye 10:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Part of what it means is that your argument, that you don't recognize Hillary Rodham Clinton, so should not be the title is in context incomprehensible. The purpose of this article is to encyclopedically educate on the subject of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker Part of what what means? What I recognise is that the argument that you have presented has not recognised what it is that I have recognised. However I do not understand "so should not be the title is in context incomprehensible." Feel free to explain. GregKaye 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was responding to the thing you said you did not understand. That you don't recognize the title for this encyclopedia article is an incomprehensible reason for changing the title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
tl;dr!!!! There are many smart editors spilling a lot of wiki-ink (and some tears) about nothing. In the name of all that is holy please just go write an article about something! There's a lot to be done over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Seriously though, Just Stop. Wikilove to all! David.thompson.esq (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, what we do here is discuss stuff. You're welcome to your opinion but it's pretty rude to tell others what they may and may not discuss, tedious to do it repeatedly in the same discussion and puerile to super-bold your stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming campaign

Just a note that I have received reliable information suggesting Mrs Clinton will be announcing her campaign within the next week (probably this weekend) and will run under the names 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Hillary'; that is, without her maiden name. Some newspapers are starting to pick up on some of these details. I suggest you set up a subpage to construct together the best possible move request before submitting it here. Doing so will strengthen your case yet further. The evidence is quite overwhelming and, once you have sorted out the issue of Mrs Clinton's name in 'official, print and biographical' sources (which were not considered well enough last time), there should be very little opposition except that caused by personal feelings. Good luck. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, mysterious IP from the UK. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we have all received the "reliable information". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: - Shhhhhh..... It's secret. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note article title "Hillary Clinton To Announce Presidential Bid On Sunday". GregKaye 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"Hillary Rodham Clinton" AND Announce AND (Presidential OR President) AND Sunday gets "About 5,490 results" in news for the last month

In the first ten pages of searches on "Hillary Clinton" AND Announce AND (Presidential OR President) AND Sunday Hillary Rodham Clinton was not mentioned that I could see, certainly not in titles In Searches on "Hillary Rodham Clinton" AND Announce AND (Presidential OR President) AND Sunday the name given in a very significant proportion of titles is "Hillary Clinton"

GregKaye 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) edited GregKaye 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
And the headline of yesterday's WaPo article was A new campaign slogan for Hillary Rodham Clinton: Think small. This is the sort of game we could do all day, cite examples of usage of both names. Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton bring readers to the same exact article; this has really always been a solution in search of a problem. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You could play this game all day, and then you could just follow policy and do what WP:COMMONNAME tells us to do. That is to check all English language sources and figure out which one is the most common name. As was made clear, again and again in the last debate, when you do that, you'll find Hillary Clinton is the most common name. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
NickCT I agree and view any gameplaying to be uncalled for.
  • Tarc yet the "WaPo" produces the following results:
site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 16,700 results"
site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 791 results" in the last month
Also see actual references for searches:
Even here the vast majority of titles make their reference to "Hillary Clinton".
Similar searches should also be done for newspapers across the English speaking world.
I think that whatever happens on Sunday an RM may be called for on what seems to me to be an extremely suspect title.
GregKaye 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
We already followed policy the last time, when 3 admins closed the discussion as such. After a point this just becomes like an AfD, when partisans nominate and re-nominate and re-nominate an article year after year, hoping that the Wiki-Slot Machine will come up in the combination of editors and closing admin(s) that will produced the result that they already think should happen. This is gaming the system. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that a new move request should not be allowed, the thing to do is propose at WP:VPP or WP:ANI to extend the moratorium on proposed moves, or make it permanent. bd2412 T 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In order to clear the air on this question, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tarc. Please familiarise yourself with the closing statements of various discussions. The right combination of editors came up on previous occasions. However, administration, rightly or wrongly did not consider that arguments in previous discussions were conclusive with regard to common name. Who knows? Maybe the editors concerned, being aware of the numbers, did not present their full case. Even with regard to the Washington based paper mentioned, "Hillary Clinton" was by far the more commonly used name. I believe the prevalence of use in favour of the "Hillary Clinton" designation is even more pronounced in non-US sources:
site:www.independent.co.uk/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 18,400 results"
site:www.independent.co.uk/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 724 results"
The name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" does not appear in many titles. GregKaye 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Greg, all these counts have been done before in previous RM's, and usually in a more precise fashion. For example, everyone agrees that the Washington Post always uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on its first reference in the article text. Everyone also agrees that headline writers and photo captioners almost always use "Hillary Clinton", since space is at a premium in those cases, and that later text may use "Hillary Clinton" in quotes from others or as a disambiguator versus Bill. Thus raw counts of the second will exceed those of the first, even for papers that use the first. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Greg Kaye's arguments were all rejected as a basis for consensus the last time around. Per policy, we are not writing news, nor are we writing campaign literature, we are writing encyclopedic biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Who says we are writing news. We are, at the Wikipedia's stated preference, seeking to present "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." While biographies may be good sources of content information they do not relatively have very great sway in influencing public recognition of names. GregKaye 12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The claim that Hillary Rodham Clinton is in any sense unrecognizable or unnatural is factually incorrect. Moreover, the purpose of encyclopedic biography is not to cater to un-knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember what "no consensus" means

Remember, in the history of Wikipedia, there has never ever been a consensus to have this article at this title. It is here strictly because of inertia. Check the logs--every single move request ended with "no consensus to move". Compare that to the ill-advised move request at Talk:Defecation#Requested move. That move ended in a strong consensus not to move and a repeated proposal to move it to the same location would indeed be gaming the system. But re-requesting a move to overturn absolutely no consensus at all is not gaming the system, and I want to make that point clear before any full-fledged move request begins. Red Slash 03:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct in all cases. The key is that it's been the practice of some closers to close out failed move requests with the phrase "No consensus to move" even when there was strong opposition. So if you look at this past RM or this past RM, in both cases there was actually a clear consensus to keep it at the existing title. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at that first one you linked, I'm going to guess that the proposer didn't advertise the move by officially proposing it. The second one surely wasn't done through RM, either. Red Slash 19:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It is here at this title because there has never been a strong argument advanced to move it elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
And because it happened to start out that way. If I walk into a room and turn on the TV, and then fifty people show up at the house for a party and everyone starts arguing about whether or not to turn the TV off, and nobody can agree, it's safe to say that the reason why the TV stays on is not just because no one could agree; it's also because it just happened to be already on when everyone showed up to argue about it. Red Slash 19:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it started this way because that is the name she is more known by. The point remains that Hillary Clinton still gets the reader to this article, so this is a lot of huffing and puffing about, really nothing. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
tl;dr!!!! There are many smart editors spilling a lot of wiki-ink (and some tears) about nothing. In the name of all that is holy please just go write an article about something! There's a lot to be done over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Enough Already. Wikilove to all! David.thompson.esq (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I need my own identity, too."

Think about your actions, masses. What did she say when people tried to drop "Rodham" from her name, as if it were an insignificant nothing? She said, "I need my own identity, too", and offered a correction. Are you going to feed into this misogyny complex, and bypass the preference she has expressed again and again? RGloucester — ☎ 19:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the author of that piece a misogynist, based on its title? Is Hillary Clinton a misogynist when she declares to hundreds of millions of people, "I'm Hillary Clinton"? bd2412 T 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It isn't her fault that the American political system is a matter of branding and marketing, or that some people use her preference for "Rodham" against her, or that headlines shorten her name for space concerns. Her preference is clear. There is no valid reason for not respecting her preference, using a name that is the most common in RS, in this context. That's what she told Mr Wales, and that's what we should abide. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, when you say "most common in RS" are you counting all the kinds of sources specified at WP:RS? bd2412 T 19:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and excluding use of "Hillary Clinton" as a short form to save space in places where "Hillary Rodham Clinton" also appears. RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, since Google News returns 16,900,000 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and only 2,260,000 results for "Hillary Rodham Clinton", that's mathematically impossible. 19:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't. You are using a useless method. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Source? You know, if it were a 2-to-1 or 3-to-2 lead, you could argue that, but where it's closer to 8-to-1, and returns excluding "Rodham" lead by over 14.5 million, well you'd have to show a pretty big hole in Google News sources and its algorithm for that not to reflect commonality. bd2412 T 19:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Plenty were provided in the last RM, and there is no need to rehash what is already settled. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I ran a few tests and I am satisfied that Google hits and Google News hits are reasonably reflective of real world commonalities. Of course, as I have said before, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not because she made a correction in 1983 that it's still valid today. Futhermore: Wikipedia uses the most common article name. Not the desired articlename by the person. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is an unnecessary long name. The fact that so many people keep requesting to change the title reflects this. If this article was on the logical name Hillary Clinton nobody would bother. --Wester (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_22&oldid=1136795120"