Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

No consensus

As I have said, I am all in favor of discussion. It's important. It's how we resolve issues. But having said that, surely it must be clear, from the mass of discussion that has already taken place here, that there is no consensus to move this article. Perhaps another move request will be put up, but surely the current state of this page must be a clear indication of how that will go. Must we do it yet again? We all surely have more useful things to do here. Omnedon (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES echoes that point: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Certainly if there were any clear indications that a new debate now would be substantially different from the last one, then I'd be a little less concerned. Unfortunately, given that so much of the preliminary squabbling has been about retreading the same basic arguments that we've gone through repeatedly before, that seems extremely unlikely. *Sigh* ╠╣uw [talk] 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I also have been making this point repeatedly - this is a gross waste of time and resources already, and it is clear that we're not going to reach consensus to move this time any more than any time in the past, since it is the same tired arguments, and the same focus on minute points that miss the bigger picture, that this is her name, her preference, and how her life biography should be named. This is why we had a three person panel the last time and they were unanimous. Nothing has changed. Tvoz/talk 00:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That this long pre-discussion discussion discussion (PD3) is itself reaching epic standards, with yes, apparently, no consensus in sight, can we send out for pizza? Randy Kryn 1:08 16 April, 2015 (UTC)

The April 9 proposal was withdrawn (for not meeting the conditions of the existing moratorium), and summarily closed within hours. In light of that, it is somewhat odd that any discussion of the matter is taking place on this page at all (beyond, of course, the tendency of previously uninvolved editors to wander by every few days and suggest that this page should be moved). For the record, however, I like my pizza with meatballs, mushrooms and black olives. bd2412 T 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the meatballs to be squashed and spread, and insist that the olives are guaranteed pitted. It is no fun if the meatball falls off, and unexpected olive stones are most unwelcome. Otherwise happy to go with other's preferred catering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I just like the meatballs sliced. Squashing makes them a bit uneven. Also, extra cheese. bd2412 T 03:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Slicing is preferable to squashing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 wrote: "The April 9 proposal was withdrawn (for not meeting the conditions of the existing moratorium), and summarily closed within hours. In light of that, it is somewhat odd that any discussion of the matter is taking place on this page at all ....". The April 9 proposal was only closed because it was less than 5,000 characters. It is obvious from this page that someone could compose a 5,000-character RM proposal at present, so it's not odd that the matter is being discussed here. In my opinion what is odd is that no one has composed and posted a 5,000-character RM proposal to settle the matter. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The withdrawn proposal was ill-prepared for a question so heavily discussed previously. Discussion on the next RM proposal is taking place at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, it wasn't that it was "ill-prepared for a question so heavily discussed previously", it was speedy-closed only because it was less than 5,000 characters. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Lacking civility

I am also in favor of discussion but ask that it can please be conducted with a focus on the issues. "It's (also) important ... how we resolve issues."

So far there has been talk of "gaming the system", action that "will not be helpful to the process", unsubstantiated criticisms of an editors "attitude", unsubstantiated insinuations of "bad-faith and partisan politics", directives given "Move on and find something worthwhile to do", insinuations of "a power fantasy" and "this systemic bias", editors loudly and rhetorically decrying content "tl;dr", insinuation that an editor had not previously "agreed that the policies need to be read together", unreferenced slurs of editors being "clueless", insinuations of "Snark" (Snide remark), slur suggestion of an editor living in "the 1930" and insinuation of content being "ill-prepared".

Now I don't know the extent to which editors are enjoying all this fun and games but it maybe wise to consider the type of response it is likely to engender.

The close of the recent RM stated "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately..." and there is no doubt as to the option to take this route. However, making unsubstantiated claims "that there is no consensus to move this article" while doing little else but antagonising editors with IMO offensive behaviours that seem to me to carry all the worst hallmarks of dirty tricks, is not going to carry favour.

There would always have been the option to politely present a position and to cordially give indication as to why editors may think that a course of action may be unproductive. Please can editors keep this in mind in the event of similar future situations.

Please can editors stick to the point and to the relevant argument. Please can editors not selectively pick their references of name usage. Can editors actually quote policy-guideline or give specific reference and not just indicate as if to say, "there is something in that text but I'm not specifying what". Please can editor make direct reference to the policies that they are referring to without making use of piped links.

If editors see the value of discussion then let's discuss in straight forward ways.

GregKaye 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I deny any of the above implications if they aimed at me. Also, although not used by me, "systemic bias", comes from the close of the last move request, so it's perfectly understandable that it would be used - that is straight forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have presented contents that have been included on this page and have asked editors to stick to the actual points of debate. I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to. Wikipedia has clear policy/guideline in locations such as WP:AT and editors are at liberty to fairly present cases for the application of various stipulations. Editors should be able to do this without unsubstantiated slurs being made. Discussion should be straightforward and to the point. The additional chaff serves no positive purpose. GregKaye 12:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the penultimate close - if you don't know what systemic bias is being referred to - if you feel that impatience happens when interlocutors don't do the research they have been repeatedly referred to (beginning at the FAQ at the top of this page) - that's likely just going to happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, here is what you said above: "Please let the request be withdrawn so that I can add another 2429 characters of whatever value to the existing 2571 character content for later use." This would clearly have been gaming the system -- artificially padding the RM out with "characters of whatever value", rather than dealing with the underlying reason for the requirement. I suggested that should be avoided. And I stand by my comment that immediately re-opening in such a manner would not have been helpful. It is allowed -- but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Look at the wall of text above -- and the promised RM hasn't even been opened. There are many editors and many arguments on both sides, and many views that are strongly held. There is no consensus, just as in the past. An RM at this point is a waste of everyone's time. Omnedon (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker what is a "penultimate close"?

Omnedon, and you said "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process." I am fully satisfied that the original content of the RM was well researched and presented and had a far, far greater relevance to the topic to a great deal of the rhetoric and baseless accusation that has proceeded in the page since. In any RM that I have written I have presented I have consistently presented I believe relatively lucid presentation. There is nothing that will be unhelpful to process in the submission of an RM.

as much as anything I am asking people to stick to the point. Allegations of things such as "bad-faith and partisan politics" do not help. GregKaye 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed say that and I stand by it. My comments were with regard to procedure, not personalities. And I would say again, but for different reasons: this RM is not helpful. Perhaps at the time you were not familiar with the history of RMs on this article; but you are now. Omnedon (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not, however, say anything about "bad-faith and partisan politics". That was someone else. Omnedon (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Penultimate - the one before your abandoned request - the one we also refer to as the three-admin-close - the one listed at the top of this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I even went as far as to suggest A legitimate use of a SOAPBOX PLATFORM that Rodham does not use? within Wikipedia as a potentially legitimate response to guideline/policy content in context of situations such as systemic bias. I got attacked for for my trouble. I have also suggested that we develop some genuine ethics based guidelines. I am unsure why you are defending a content that you did not personally present. GregKaye 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear who are responding to but you appeared to be mistaken about where the phrase systemic bias is used in the long history of this and it therefore cannot be considered incivil to use it. 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)=

Dear unsigned writer, thank you for your criticism as related to what you take as appearance. Systemic bias, as most certainly pervades society, exists to large extent outside Wikipedia. Please do not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We present ourselves to here to present content on existent situations. I am fine about the idea of our developing our own systemic biases so as to respond in ethical ways to any external systemic biases that are perceived to exist.

Currently the text at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics is very clear: "The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known." If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it. Please do not slur editors who are just trying to stick to direct interpretations of existent WP:PG on some perception of bias when you have done nothing to legitimise these views openly and directly within policy. GregKaye 05:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why my name did not go along with my signature date but once again you fail to read what you quote in context - and that you now have to resort to **** demonstrates bias. The section you quote is on patronymic-metronymic culture - that has nothing to do with the present situation - which is the biography of a woman not in patronymic-metronymic culture. Moreover, that "best known" links to AT - just goes back to the same need to review the hierarchy of sources for encyclopedic biography. Systemic bias as used in the last move close was about bias against women - not patromymic-metronymic culture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker In this entire thread you have given very little context if any and very little reference if any to your many accusations and other contents that I have taken as amongst other things demeaning. Now you say "once again you fail to read what you quote in context"

I referenced a text as at: by which the person is best known that dealt with three topics and I will patiently go through it bit by bit so you don't miss things.

Topics as presented in the title were: 1, "Multiple ... surnames", "and changed surnames" and "– patronymics and matronymics".

The topics presented in the text were: that "Some Western cultures use a "double last name" format", "or add patronymics or matronymics." and as indicated in a separate sentence "Also, people sometimes change their surnames, particularly on marriage".

The topics presented in the examples to the best of my understanding covered:

A name referencing both parents:

• Josep Puig i Cadafalch – Puig is the last name of his father, Cadafalch of his mother; i means "and" (see Iberian naming customs).

A subject that has used a matronymic.

• Antoni Gaudí – not Antoni Gaudí i Cornet; this architect is better known without the matronymic.

A subject that has used a patronymic.

• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky – Ilyich is a patronymic based on the first name of the father (see Eastern Slavic naming customs#Patronymic). Only for a very few Russians is the patronimic customary in English, notwithstanding widespread use of patronymics in the native language.

another person referencing both parent's names.

• Tatyana Sukhotina-Tolstaya – on marriage she combined the feminized versions of her husband's and father's surnames. Note: the patronymic (Lvovna) is not used in the page title in this case.

three people who's Wikipedia titles either are or aren't affected by naming processes during marriage

• Virginia Woolf – born Virginia Stephen, she took the married surname Woolf. The article title contains "Woolf" because that is the name by which she is best known.
• Vita Sackville-West – her birth name, not her married name Vita Nicolson, which is rarely used.
• Courteney Cox – on marriage she became Courteney Cox-Arquette, but she is still best known by the surname Cox, so the article title reflects that.

Alan, I said plainly, "If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it." and then, added to all your other unwelcome and, from my perspective, antagonistic accusations, you now accuse me of bias. If you want to try to justify this, fine. Please consider though, both for the sake of this thread and for others you may be involved in elsewhere, how tactical, wise or whatever do you think it is to plough straight on with behaviours that you know other people find antagonistic.

I started this thread with a long and I hope thoughtful content on civility. The basic point was please stick to the arguments but time and again accusations against editors have occurred again and again. You again, for all that I can see, make empty accusation of bias. Again I ask, "Do you ever give it a rest?" Please think on this. Many editors here have been bemoaning a supposed waste of time and similar. How do you think I feel when time and time again I have had to field this type of, as I see it, antagonistic nonsense from certain editors who time and again seem to be incapable of assuming good faith? PLEASE I ask you to stop but I am honestly unsure if you are capable of doing so.

Ping also, Omnedon, Wasted Time R, DD2K, Tvoz as I don't know what else to say or do. GregKaye 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to talk about civility. So, if that is what you want to talk about, you're at the wrong page. If you think my arguments "empty" -so be it. I directly addressed your points in my prior comment that matronimic-patronimic culture was irrelevant, and that "best" means seeking out the best. I don't know how you feel, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand - that you have several times complained about how you feel you are treated, and that that's a reason you want to contribute to a content edit to an article, shows personal bias - that you resort to **** punctuates that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (Also, if you wish to give me your advice on tactics or wisdom, please go to my talk page - and don't clutter this page, which is for content edits to this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

Alanscottwalker One thing that I fully agree with is that, that the specific parts of the referenced text that refer to matronimic-patronimic issues are irrelevant. I have never said otherwise. You are not arguing a valid point.

I am very happy for you to present any genuine argument that you have and hope that, in doing this, you can argue against another argument rather than arguing against an editor.

You have offered no justification for your any of your own unsubstantiated comments that I have quoted above.

I stand by the core content of my, I think substantiated comment in relation to such contents as found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "If you want to write another rule or an adaptation of this rule then get the **** on and write it." Fair enough I could have refrained from the original and edited back wording) but the, I think, generous and option presenting content stands. The point made was a fair one and, I think, a generous one to present. As I have also, I think, generously commented, you may have valid arguments according to IAR.

However, if you are not going to work with policy then please do not expect WP:PG or as you call them "our rules" to be applied in any but direct ways. I am also, I think generously, pointing out that there are avenues that you can take to develop policy, if you see fit, so as to be more conducive to the subject's situation. Is there anything that you actually disagree with here or are you just making argument for the sake of it? GregKaye 09:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

All my arguments have been genuine. All my comments are substantiated. That's all I have to say on that. That your claims and reasons are wrong, I think we have discussed enough at this point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker There are many of comments that have been in no way substantiated. Now you offensively say, without justification that my claims and reasons (reasons for goodness sake) are wrong. I have been asking you to stop making these unsubstantiated accusations for some time. Even here you continue yet nothing is substantiated. There is no apology. You have nothing to say. I this is your version of diplomacy, good luck to you. GregKaye 19:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong on all points. I have substantiated at length - that you find disagreement personally offensive, is the further sign of your poor argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker In your edit of 10:23, 13 April 2015 you cited WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT while failing to give any indication as to how this related to choosing Hillary Rodham Clinton over Hillary Clinton. When you were challenged on this you said, "That you don't see relevance in basic policy on how Wikipedia covers encyclopedic subjects and analyzes sources, as well as human dignity mentioned in BLP is rather bizarre and lacking common sense" to which another editor replied "that is a bit of a non sequitur and ad hominem attack."

You then immediately said, "now having agreed that the policies need to be read together" leaving a clear implication that I had somehow not previously agreed to that WP:PG should be read together.

You then, I think, argumentatively said, "I just cannot credit the claim that ethics and human dignity can't be considered - it's just not the case" when all I did was state the clear WP:PG content at WP:TITLECHANGES while also encouraging, "If anyone has further thoughts on related matters I think they may be well raised in locations such as: WT:AT or WT:BLP." Another editor replied, "By your reasoning, the subject is constantly attacking her own human dignity, since she prefers the name so much that she uses it far less prominently than the more concise variation."

In one edit you say "No one is showcasing a name.." but in your next edit you say, "The name she prefers is biographically of import".

You make the offensive remark "some editors are claiming that we should take cluelessness concerning women's names and cluelessness concerning the subject of this article, as a reason for changing the title" in a context where she solely campaigns as "Hillary Clinton". Who? Please also see WP:WEASEL

Through it all you make repeated reference to "dignity" and "decency". To what extent do you think that "Hillary Clinton" defiles her own human dignity and decency when she repeatedly and publicly uses this name?

Lastly you now make the strong claim, "you are wrong on all points". On what point am I wrong? GregKaye 07:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you want to re-run a discussion of many days/week? No. That's of no benefit to the educational mission of the encyclopedia, nor this article. All your points have been addressed previously. Taking things out of context is a signal failure of your arguments. That you are wrong is just something you will have to live with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker The only extent that I "want to re-run a discussion of many days" is to point out tbat, as far as I can see, that points raised regarding comments of yours, as quoted, have not been addressed previously. What I request, as I would do with any other editor, is that in future edits you directly and clearly substantiate contributions that you make. GregKaye 09:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, you don't see what you don't want to see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: states: "I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to". Then you have not taken the time to read the last RM and the close, nor the policies which outline the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Ask yourself this, why move the page? Why spend countless hours debating a move that has been proposed many times before? For what reason? To remove a woman's family name? One that she has stated herself important to her, and one which she signs every document with? For what possible reason would anyone want to spend hours of their time to move a page, when the common name's are about equal? Both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton get you to the same article. Why spend so much time trying to remove the family name of this person? You are not going to have a debate about this subject in a civil manner if you refuse to see the obvious systemic bias in this, and ask other editors to tie both hands behind their backs before any RM is proposed. It's an insult to anyone that has been through this bullshit before. Dave Dial (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Dave Dial 100%. This is exactly the point. Tvoz/talk 01:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvoz Neither you nor Dave Dial (who, for some reason, you have also just dialled) have quoted the text that I originally responded. This had said, "It strikes me as being a power fantasy, nothing more. I'm tired of this systemic bias all over the place." Neither have you placed this addition in sequence following my personal response to Dave Dials helpful content below. I hope that within Wikipedia we go directly according to the WP:PG on NPOV. From my reading the insinuation from a Wikipedia editor was of "a power fantasy, nothing more and of systemic bias all over the place.. within Wikipedia. That was my interpretation and, in this context, I think that I fairly said, "I am honestly not sure what the allegation of "this systemic bias" referred to." Please remember that we are dealing with a subject who is consistently presenting herself politically as "Hillary Clinton" and that there is also a strong argument that we should, within contexts such as these, make a neutral application of clearly presented WP:PG such as UCRN. GregKaye 09:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon A major but extremely basic flaw in the previous RM was that it was not spelt out that WP:UCRN is demonstrated by predominance of use. Reference to the most scholarly sources may indicate most valid options for identifying subject presentations but, for instance, a biography which may have had its contents influenced by personal contacts with the subject and which, compared to outputs by the likes of the CNN or the Times of India, has relatively little impact on an actual level of common recognisability in the English speaking world. Remarkably the neither did the previous RM make a strong case for the ATs second criteria Naturalness. Naturalness "Hillary Clinton" is a name which fits with the WP:NATURALNESS description of a "title ... that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." This is clearly shown in extreme results from a "Hillary Clinton" : "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Google trends search. However you could easily have recommended a more in depth presentation of a case rather than to make insinuations of gaming.

Greg, this is your opinion, among a large number of opinions already registered here. Having seen how previous RMs have played out, I was not about to recommend that you try again on something I viewed as a waste of time. And you did propose gaming the system. Things have moved on since then, and so should we. Let's do something productive, shall we? Like improve articles, the foundation of Wikipedia? This discussion is going nowhere. Omnedon (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial I appreciate that you are directly and reasonably presenting a case. Such an example might have been adopted by other editors. When it comes to common name as defined by prevalence perspectives of commonly recognizable names are far from being about equal. Wikipedia has strongly stated a case for neutrality and it responds to situations in actuality. We try to avoid biases in all possible ways. Wikipedia has a clear policy on WP:SOAPBOX and, when I was I think considerate enough to give notification of this content, even pointing out various arguments that might be presented on either side, I was again criticised and attacked. No editor should expect another editor to tie their hands behind their backs. However I do not think that it is, to quote the phrase, "helpful to the process" when contributors attack the editor rather than addressing arguments. GregKaye 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There was clearly no such basic flaw, there is nothing in the policy you quote that makes for hard "rules". That you are spending your time, arguing for hard and fast "rules" to substitute for knowledge of the subject in an encyclopedia - and to perform an act of systemic bias - is in the words of policy "unproductive". Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we disagree about the flaw though I agree with you on not having hard and fast rules. I believe that the only time I talk about "rules" is when I am quoting other editors such as yourself as of 22:24, 12 April 2015.

I am arguing that Wikipedia policy and guidelines be consistently applied which may, in this case, permit a legitimate and straightforward case on the basis of IAR to be made. GregKaye 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If the close did not break the rule than calling it a basic flaw is tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you ever give it a rest? I expressed my view of an "extremely basic flaw in the previous RM". It is just one of the things that I would not necessarily have missed. I made no specification of the close and that was the last thing on my mind. Please stop this constant stream of accusation. It isn't well received. GregKaye 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What? The previous RM was closed as not moved - you said it had a basic flaw related to breaking some rule you want to exalt over the educational purpose of the article - but no such rule was broken. As for giving it a rest (what again?) - you engage in a procedure that policy tells you is often unproductive - and then you complain - I made no accusation - I said your claim was tendentious - that's called addressing the argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The move request being filed when the "will-she-run" media hype was at its peak...with the actual announcement coming 3 days later...was either deliberately timed or the Mother of all Unfortunately Timed Coincidences. If that observations ruffles a few feathers, then, well, tough cookies. Editing political articles and bios should be done with awareness of what is going on in the real world. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't go into details but this coincidence barely scratches the surface. The timing, from a !Vote perspective, does not really help the move proposal. My guess is that a well drafted proposal would probably face less agro if it occurred at a less politically active time. GregKaye 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Political activity is likely to grow, not diminish, for quite some time. It's probably better to discuss this in the next few weeks than to wait longer. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• "I am arguing that Wikipedia policy and guidelines be consistently applied which may, in this case, permit a legitimate and straightforward case on the basis of IAR to be made." And we call that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. You are not using basic common sense, understanding all of the previous history of the move request for this article and ignoring the previous consensus and restrictions placed on the article from that previous consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller We have policy and guidelines. We take it all into account. How is that Wikilawyering??? I do not think that it does, hopefully the most powerful person person in the world credit to have disregarded policy and guideline if there are legitimate and comprehendedable routes by which things could be handled.

• These comments on civility are nothing new. On six occasions above I have commented on contents requesting editors to strike. Either I was wrong in every case or editors are not responding to request for civility. "There would always have been the option to politely present a position and to cordially give indication as to why editors may think that a course of action may be unproductive. Please can editors keep this in mind in the event of similar future situations."

In the face of what I have regarded to be significant antagonism I have had no qualms in contributing to I think a fairly strong case for move as at: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. Other editors can respond as they like. GregKaye 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Hillary Clinton

She is primarily known as simply Hillary Clinton. That's also the name she uses on her own website and in her presidential campaign. Why should we put the 'Rodham' part in the title? Michelle Obama is also not 'Michelle Robinson Obama'.--Wester (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you apparently erred in your first sentence, meaning to say She is primarily known as simply Hillary Clinton indicates that the two options are quite easily interchangeable in many people's minds. That has been where this debate has always led; a split in HS vs. HRC, and no consensus to move away from the present title. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you try having a ten-minute conversation with any normal person about this subject, and refer to her only as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for the duration of that discussion, you will quickly discover that she is, in fact, primarily known as "Hillary Clinton". Also, there has been a massive shift in the context of this discussion just in the past few days, with the campaign announcement and the clear indications that the subject is primarily "Hillary Clinton" for purposes of this most visible endeavor. Whatever applied on Saturday went out the window on Sunday. bd2412 T 13:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

She is known by both, as amply demonstrated in past Move Requests. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be the first to concede that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the question. bd2412 T 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

bd2412: A massive shift? Um, no. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a closer look at those articles. For instance Washington Post. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton is mentioned a few time you can not say that it's the primary name. [1]. It's quite clear that Hillary Clinton is the more common name. In act, each of those articles which suppose to use 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' primarily uses Hillary Clinton.--Wester (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a short form can save space. Her name, however, is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As an example, look at all these letters to the editor that The New York Times received today on the matter of her candidacy. All of them use "Hillary Rodham Clinton". No massive shift occured. Her name, as used by people generally, is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It may well be convenient to shorten the name on occasion, but that's unacceptable for an encyclopaedic biography. There is no justification for stripping this woman of her name. She is not her husband's chattel. She has chosen to keep her family name, and so it remains. She expressed a preference to Mr Wales as such. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" appearing in the text, but note how the title of the page to which you point uses "Hillary Clinton"; it also appears in one of those letters, by the way. Reasonable people are entitled to disagree on this point, and where there are disagreements as to the weight of the sources and the application of policies, we have a process to weigh those propositions. bd2412 T 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe in reason. Regardless, yes, "Hillary Clinton" is useful as a short form to save space. We have no such concerns. We are not writing a headline. We are titling a biography. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If we were really interested in saving space, we could condense your reply there to the first sentence. bd2412 T 17:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that an appropriate way for a Minister of the Crown to speak? I fear not. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it unseemly for me to quote you back to yourself? bd2412 T 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

My words are my own. Condensation is not a right that you possess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you have said: "I don't believe in reason". That's a pretty bold thing to say, don't you think? bd2412 T 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "bold" at all. It is the essential mantra of all mankind, for all of time. There is nothing reasonable about this world, man, the heavens, or this encylopaedia. This is something one must accept, if one has not done. Do not expect reason where there is none. Regardless, this woman's name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. You do not possess the right of condensation. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

bd2412: Hmm, I wasn't expecting anyone to seriously claim headlinese as a sound basis for determining the preferred form for an encyclopedic biography. Hey-ho. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned or linked before (first time in years I've visited this article), but NPR has an interesting piece about the Rodham issue. My personal view (not that it really counts for anything) is that "Hillary Clinton" is the common name in use now, so the article name should probably reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Scjessey for finding this. With this and a couple of other sources that have been brought forward here or that I found, I have expanded the current Note in the article to include the name usage from 1983 forward (it's now Note 1), since it's clear that it's a subject of media attention and not just a topic here. I have phrased it as neutrally as I could; expansion of this Note is in no way intended to support either side of the argument here, but just to explain the history of name use as given by mainstream sources, and my intention is that the Note's text can stay as it now is regardless of whether this article gets moved or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Before a new discussion of moving this article is carried out...yet again. Perhaps it is best to check if there were any standing recommendations or restrictions placed on doing so from the outcome of the last, very extensive and protracted debate.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it should just be Hilary Clinton as artilce name, not the longer name. That's how she's generally called. Common name etc. A no brainer really. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Potentially the second oldest new president?

Am I correct that if Clinton were elected, she would be the second oldest new president to ever be elected. Ronald Reagan was a few months older on his first inauguration day but was there any one else who was ever elected as a new president and who was older? Does any one know if there was a lot of discussion about Reagan's age at the time? I have a feeling there was. It would be interesting to see if attitudes have shifted about age since Reagan was elected...Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

70 is the new 40, either that or as Al Gore once said, "59 is the new 58". Randy Kryn 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unimportant trivia, really. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If she becomes the nominee, she will be the fourth oldest first-time nominee (after Reagan, McCain, and Dole). bd2412 T 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So User:BD2412, I am correct that she would be the second oldest new president ever, right? Is that getting any attention I wonder? Did it get attention when Reagan ran? Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi: - You're right. Interesting fact. Find a reference for it and add it to the article. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi NickCT - Well, I was really trying to find out about the Reagan position like I mentioned. To contrast the two campaigns in that regard would be interesting. I was asking about it rather than making statements about it, in case people here know about "ageism" in the Reagan campaign and so we could see how it pans out in comparison with the Clinton 2 campaign. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that ageism in the McCain and Dole campaigns would be just as relevant, since we are only talking about the campaign stage. I would throw out a few caveats, though. Reagan was elected 35 years ago, when average life expectancy in the U.S. was several years shorter; also, women continue to have a life expectancy about five years longer than men. Taken together, a white woman in the United States in 2015 would be expected to outlive a white male in the United States in 1980 by about a decade. bd2412 T 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure who is for or against adding this information. Though interesting I am personally undecided whether or not it is encyclopedic and I think it may be necessary to have consensus on addition unless its notability is proven beyond dispute. GregKaye 07:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's utilizing WP:CRYSTAL, talking about something that hasn't happened yet (and may not happen at all) and is not, therefore, encyclopedic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense, the notion that "it" hasn't happened yet and won't actually happen until the day she is sworn in as president in 2016. It's a factual inevitability, one which stems from her personal actions. If John McCain was running and was campaigning on a platform of raining nuclear missiles down upon Iran, that would certainly be an encyclopedic entry that would not need to wait until the day the missiles were actually launched.

As far as it being 'ageism' we only need look to what occurred in the final years of Reagan's presidency, with him almost certainly in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, nuclear football in hand. It's not just whether they'll stay alive through their terms it's the mental decline which accompanies old age. This is a legitimate question of concern for any presidential candidate, as the electorate will find it absolutely impossible to assess the mental condition of their president once they are elected, barring frank displays of symptomatology. QuintBy (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That you could say about any candidate, since there are health conditions that can strike at any age. If we cross the bridge of "gets elected president" then it makes sense to talk about being the second-oldest president. If we cross the bridge of "gets nominated", maybe it makes sense to talk about being the fourth-oldest first-term nominee (and, I believe, seventh-oldest nominee for any term). At the moment, she is not even in the top ten oldest candidates. Mike Gravel was 78 when he ran in 2008. Ralph Nader was in his 70s for both of his campaigns, and Ron Paul also ran several times while in his 70s. Of course, if Jeb Bush ends up being the Republican nominee, the age issue would apply equally, because then both candidates would be in their 60s. bd2412 T 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if Clinton is elected, it would still be uninteresting trivia; being in second place is rarely notable. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

With Bernie Sanders entering the race, Clinton is no longer even the oldest 2016 Democratic candidate. bd2412 T 21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It could however become a very serious issue in the primaries and general election, if she gets that far. Personally, I think it makes sense to include it only if it becomes a major point raised by one or more of her opponents in the election. And it almost certainly will be. But until that happens, the article can probably do without the information. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2015

• Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
• Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
• Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors → Hillary Clinton awards and honors
• List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton → List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
• Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Political positions of Hillary Clinton

– For the reasons set forth at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, it is proposed that "Hillary Clinton" is her common name, and is more recognizable (particularly to the large population of Wikipedia readers outside the United States, but for many American readers as well), more natural, more concise, and more consistent with titles for human names. Please note:

Discussion of this proposal is taking place at
Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request#Requested move.

Calidum T|C 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to believe this move request came only two days ago. It already feels like an eternity. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Last year this clown car has enough gas to run for 3 weeks, so tuck in and make some popcorn. Tarc (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Size of move request

That move request is 397.4 kB. It's way too large for me to have even the slightest desire to read it, especially considering that other people will be adding to it in the meantime. Dustin (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it help if we split the page? We could move the discussion to another subpage. bd2412 T 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be: move the !vote to Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request and move the duscussion to talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. That seems like a more familiar Wikipedia arrangement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• That would make Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request an article, wouldn't it? bd2412 T 20:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What article has a slash in its title? Anyway, it was just a suggestion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A slash just makes the page a subpage. I'm not particularly against the idea, I am just not sure that it is allowed. I don't believe that I have ever seen a discussion of any kind as a subpage of an article, rather than a talk page. bd2412 T 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Having a move discussion as a subpage in main article space might have odd consequences for mirrors and archives. It might also create an orphan page if the article is moved. Jonathunder (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• The so-called "discussion" section cannot be removed. RMs are not votes. The straw poll is irrelevant by comparison to the actual discussion. The discussion is integral to the move request, and many people's straw poll opinions are linked directly to stuff they've written below. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The closers will know where to see the discussion. I am more concerned with editors being able to open the page without their browsers freezing due its sheer length. bd2412 T 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:RGloucester that the connection between the !vote and the discussion needs to be closer, though not necessarily on the same page. For instance, how about moving the !vote to a "WP:" address and the discussion to "WP talk:"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The closers "may know", but the discussion is an integral part of the request. It is not some side discussion. Discussion of procedural matters may well be removed, but discussion directly pertaining to the request itself cannot. Whilst I agree that the current situation is not ideal, I think that this would've needed have to been dealt with earlier. Moving the pages now is a recipe for a mess. Leave it alone. All of the information needs to be centralised so that it can be considered in the manner in which it was written. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If browsers are freezing, then the status quo ante don't seem seemly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Anythingyouwant, I have no objection to moving it to a WP address. I don't think it is possible as a technical matter to keep all the information centralized and still have this accessible to all users, although I have asked about this at the Village Pump. bd2412 T 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
            • The proposers should've thought of that beforehand, and planned accordingly. Their shortsightedness is not surprising, giving what they are trying to do here. As it stands now, the RM has evolved to the point where the discussion and the straw poll sections both serve as homes for matters of import. This may have been a design flaw, as a clearer delineation between the purposes of each section could've been set out at the start. However, changing it now would result in a skewed picture of what has actually occurred. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Looks unforeseeable to me. User:RGloucester, has it ever happened before on any other move request in the history of Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The page is now bigger than the second Chelsea Manning move request was after the discussion was closed, and that was the biggest move discussion we had prior to this. bd2412 T 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split. I would assume the request will be closed within the next day or so anyway. Calidum T|C 21:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense given that the person who started this thread (Dustin) didn't say he was unable to open the page, just that he didn't want to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A page of this size is still likely to cause browser problems, but we will definitely want to see this closed sooner rather than later. @SmokeyJoe: - still want to place a bet on this running three weeks? ;-) bd2412 T 22:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If the page is too large for several people, there are sections that can be moved to subpages. If it is too large for any single person, please say so here, and I or others will assist. I don't think db2412 should be personally involved in getting the RM close. As an involved editor in the contested discussion, he should keep at arms length from the close. On the issue of a bet, it is a further reason for bd2412 not to influence the closing logistics, and other comments will be on his talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I assure you, I have no intention of acting as closer, or doing anything beyond making the neutral request for closers that has already been made, and possibly prompting the volunteers to begin their work if the period for an RM has run without a request for an extension of time. bd2412 T 03:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I should not have implied that you might. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt it will cause browser problems. It is in reality a TINY page, compared to most of today's internet and I haven't seen anyone complaining about it causing issues except you because you opened it. And it is FAR from the largest discussion (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action, with 1,903 !voters and almost twice the bytes). So calm down, realize that our browsers have handled other pages fine for years and let the discussion run its course. Try going to List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Did your browser die? No? Then your little discussion is fine. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't die, but it was noticeably slow to load, and slower still to bring up the edit window. My concern is for people who edit from places that tend to have older and slower computers. However, as said before, this discussion is a day away from being closed, so the situation is effectively moot. bd2412 T 02:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be the one who needs to calm down, what with the caps and bolding and all. All that aside, pages of that size do take a noticeably longer amount of time to load and this may be an issue for computers with slower Internet connections. People in this discussion need to think about other people too. Apparently, this discussion will be closing soon so this may not be too big of an issue, but the aforementioned points still should apply in future situations at the very least. Dustin (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S. and BD2412: MY internet speed. Honestly think if I can load it, pretty much anyone can... Also I only edit using section links to save time downloading and uploading and would advise others to do the same if they have issues. Sorry about the caps and bolding EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. :) Dustin (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose separating the well-reasoned move request from the Survey. To my knowledge this has never been done before and this is a particularly inappropriate RM to try that on. Has anyone complained of browser problems? If not, this is a complete non-issue. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't need to have a straw poll on this, and it has already been brought up by another editor that this discussion will (apparently) end within the next day or so. Just FYI. Dustin (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not set in stone, and if it does close early-ish there will likely be endless claims that the early close prevented enough people, or the WP public at large, or people who weren't among the only 120 or so people pinged, from weighing in. The original plan for the RM was to let it run as long as possible in order to forestall claims it was not representative or did not represent a sizable enough cohort (given the prominence of the subject), and also to forestall attempts at further RMs to overturn the result within the next 12 months. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: RMs routinely run seven days, and are then closed. There is a specific process for extending the RM period, if an editor feels that this is appropriate. bd2412 T 03:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know how long RMs normally run. I also know the extensive discussion and agreement that this one would run much longer, for the reasons I just gave. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Well, as I have indicated, you are free to relist it yourself if you think that it should run longer. All you would need to do is add <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before Calidum's timestamp in the initial request on this page. Any editor can do so; I have no plans to. I do not recall there being any specific agreement to treat this any differently than other RMs in terms of the timing. bd2412 T 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Who are the arranged panel? Have they begun to coordinate? There is no way to have a close without everything gathered. This request has been a procedural nightmare. RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, do you propose needs to be "gathered"? bd2412 T 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The panel members need to coordinate on how and when they will close the discussion, and on drafting a closing statement, along with analysis pages like the one written by TParis last year. I've seen the AN/RFC thread, and just sent a note to the volunteers on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 03:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We requested experienced closers. I am sure they know how to close an RM. There is no specific requirement that closers draft a lengthy analysis page or the like (although they certainly may find it helpful, as I occasionally have), so long as they explain their determination in the close. bd2412 T 04:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If this closure does not meet the standard set by the previous request in thoroughness, it will not stand. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious, then - if the closers find no consensus to move the page but do so without writing out an analysis of their finding, will you seek to overturn the close? bd2412 T 04:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is premature and unhelpful. When the discussion is closed, if people are unhappy about it, there is WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would do, BD2412. I'm not an opportunist. I like consistency, stability, and most of all, thoroughness. A weak closure with no analysis should not be able to supersede a closure that was extremely thorough by any measure. That goes for a weak closure that moves or does not move the article. The contention that surrounds this debate demands it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• What I would like to avoid is (1) another tiresome and de rigueur MR, that's as long as or longer than the original RM Survey, (2) another RM within 12 months. Therefore I suggest: letting this RM run for as long as seems possible and appropriate given the extreme prominence of the subject, especially at this time; and also the closing panel creating some form of statement that sums up their analysis and decision-making process. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  What probably is happening is that people know this is the last real move attempt. If she's elected U.S. president and officially puts the name Hillary Rodham Clinton on all her official presidential orders, etc., which, given her past history, she is very likely no-crystal-ball-needed to do, the name is cemented where it should be and hopefully will be kept. If she loses few will care. As for the closers, I'd submit James Carville, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, and Pat Buchanan, with Monica and Bill as "the chorus" back-up singers. Let them all duke it out live on pay-per-view, which would give give Wikipedia some wicked-good publicity (only half joking, I'd pay to see it!). Randy Kryn 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, I sympathise with Softlavender's view. If there is a perception that the discussion was cut off with substantial participation still going on, that would undercut its finality. There may be editors on either side of the issue who will not discover it because it came and went too quickly. bd2412 T 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to end all move discussions by transcluding the page.

I had a crazy thought for resolving this dispute. Suppose instead of redirecting [[Hillary Clinton]] to [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (or vice versa, following a page move), we transcluded the main page to the redirect title (e.g. transcluded {{:Hillary Rodham Clinton}} to [[Hillary Clinton]]), and then fully protected the latter page? This would create the appearance of the full [[Hillary Clinton]] page at both titles, but only the main one would be editable (i.e. no content fork). Someone trying to edit [[Hillary Clinton]] would see the transclusion template under a hidden-text note saying that edits need to be made at [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (and all edit history would remain there). Readers who want to see "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at the top of the page will see that; readers who want to see "Hillary Clinton" at the top of the page will see that; readers who were unaware of the "Rodham" and who typed "Hillary Clinton" in the search box would not be confused by the title; and no one would have a reason to want to move the page again. bd2412 T 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. It makes it harder for new editors to figure out how to edit the page and solves nothing. You could always do this on any page instead of redirecting, but it makes no sense if we can simply redirect it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This solves the problem of there being a sharp divide in the community over what title should appear at the top of the page. I can't think of any other page that currently inspires such a divided view by so many members of the community. This is a unique situation, and perhaps it calls for a unique solution. As for making it harder for new editors, firstly they can't edit this page anyway because of its protection level, and secondly, the page with the transclusion template can have as clear a message as you want in the edit window explaining the situation. bd2412 T 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I watch too much CSI, but this feels when a prosecutor is unsure of their chances in the courtroom, and tosses a plea deal to the other side for consideration. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This would work both ways. If the page is moved in the current discussion, {{:Hillary Clinton}} could transclude to [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]); people who wanted to see "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at the top of the page would see that. There would be no need to consider moving it either way. The page would effectively be in both places at once, even though edit history and actual editing would be in only one place. Also, you should watch Law & Order; sometimes the prosecution offers a plea deal out of sympathy, because they know the jury will give out a much harsher sentence than the defendant deserves. bd2412 T 17:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I really can't stand police procedurals at all anymore, CSI is just been on so long that it's habit. Anyways, the problem with this is that it's a technical "solution" to a disagreement, almost a literal Judgement of SOlomon where each side gets it's own side of an article. I'd worry about the precedent it would set, where the Palestinian activists can get Rachel Corrie and the right-wing American press can have Saint Pancake, liberals see anti-abortion, fundamentalists see the same article via pro-life and so on. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I consider this unique among all those, because here we are talking about two versions of a name used by the same person for different purposes; there is a divide on views of policy and commonality, but there is not (so far as I can tell) a left/right divide. It is, I grant, a sort of WP:IAR solution, but look at the bright side: ff this is implemented, I will consider the manner fully resolved, and will therefore not feel compelled to support efforts to retitle the page; to the contrary, I will then feel compelled to put my energy into contending that the matter is resolved, and no further action is needed. bd2412 T 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm smart enough to understand what this actually means, but I commend you for thinking outside the box. Really though, I don't think anyone is really 'confused' when they come to the HRC page. There's a big picture of her right to the left. In the info box. So even if they truly never heard of her family name(Rodham) before, they surly must have seen her before. And if the page is moved, the name HRC will still be on top of the infobox, right? Or maybe it won't, I don't know. In any case, since I don't really understand this proposal, I withdraw from any sort of !vote whether it's a good idea or not. I am also concerned about the back and forth going on at ANRFC. That particular hubbub should have been worked out well before now. And as I stated, I have no problems with the way the request was presented. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have set up an example here: User:BD2412/sandbox3. Note that this currently causes the userpage to show up in the categories; that can easily be fixed by putting "noinclude" tags around the categories on this page. bd2412 T 18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I also want to point out that this would delay updates to the page, people viewing the transclusion version would be seeing one that is hours behind the live version and might contain vandalism too. Just seems to be a solution that poses more problems to me... And I'm sure someone will come along and groan about server load given how big the page is... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All problems have solutions. Server load is a minimal inconvenience. Version control can be addressed by having a bot reload the page at short intervals, as we do with the sandbox. bd2412 T 18:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • having a bot reload the page In what way do you mean that? Simply hitting the refresh button won't fix it, and having gazzilions of null edits is pointless. Sure it could purge the page (not even slightly like what the sandbox bots do) but that is an uneeded hassle and still the page would be out of date frequently. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Null edits would not be recorded in the edit history (I make them all the time that way). It's a one-time setup, and could occur as frequently as needed to insure that the page does not get out of date. bd2412 T 18:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Would be much simpler to have it just load the purge link like the one at the top of my userpage in the time box... Also nothing of the sort happens at the sandbox that I am aware of... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The point is, a bot could routinely null-edit the page, which would make the most recent version transclude. All technical issues can be overcome with technical solutions; my concern is the applicability of this as a solution to the policy dispute. bd2412 T 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Transclusions make things complicated for new (and old) editors, and should be avoided for that reason. The benefit seems unclear. A different title can be provided using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. The proposal does seem to fork content, in that the two urls would provide forked content under different titles. Mirrors and other downstream usage would replicated the fork.

Sometimes a book is published under different titles. It is always confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a perfect solution, but at least it will eliminate (in my opinion) any need for future page move discussions one way or the other. bd2412 T 13:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The server load this would create is significantly greater than that created by a simple redirect, so this basically eliminates any argument made in the move discussion about server loads and redirects. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In none of the solutions I have seen presented is server load of the slightest significance. If the page was transcluded as suggested above, and the appropriate null edits made, the additional server load would be (at the worst case) a few seconds CPU a day on average, and maybe a handful of disc writes. Nonetheless, unless an "aliasing" facility were present I would not support this solution, since it would WP:ASTONISH anyone trying to edit the transcending page. I prefer to simply say "there are some articles currently at the wrong name, but at least redirects are provided". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

My point was that some of the editors supporting a move used "reducing server load" as one of their excuses for moving. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• BD2412 asked me to comment on this idea. I commend the effort to think of ways around this disagreement. I would note though that it's not just this article, but several subarticles as well, that would have to be given this treatment. Furthermore, HRC is hardly the only naming dispute on WP. If there are technical solutions to getting around such disputes, either with the existing software or with some changes to the software, why not extend them to other cases as well? There could be solutions like rotating titles (one day A, the next day B – I think this was broached during a previous RM), location- or locale-based titles, user-preference-based titles, whatever. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding. I accept that my proposal has some drawbacks, but I still consider it a solution, and would consider it an improvement over either the status quo or the status quo if the proposed move takes place. I will say that subarticles are not particularly concerning to me (and probably not a specific concern to most editors on either side of the naming dispute). In any case, we already have a mix of usages there based on whether the subarticle focuses on a campaign period or a period of service. Other cases are really not a concern to me either - I can think of no other page name dispute that has been this long-running or drawn in this much activity (Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning had greater participation, but was settled within a few months; Yoghurt -> Yogurt went through more discussions for a longer time, but never had this much involvement). In short, I believe that this is a truly unique situation. I would note, as far as rotating titles are concerned, that unless we are talking about a cut-and-paste move of the text back and forth between titles, this would require daily intervention by a steward, since the page has too long an edit history to be moved by an admin. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia managed to title Liancourt Rocks and Gdansk without transclusion, we should be able to figure out how to title this article. Jonathunder (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• A better solution is to require respect for the close of the current RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Every other controversial title situation I know of has been resolved without requiring "respect" for any close, whatever that means. These things do work out because our relevant policies and guidelines are such that once the title that best meets policy is chosen, controversy dissipates naturally. Have faith in the process. It works. Even if it takes eight years. --В²C ☎ 17:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Upon reviewing the Yogurt spelling history (studying history is the source of much wisdom) I'm struck by the irony that you, SmokeyJoe, were the one who proposed the final RM that eventually led to the controversy-ending title change there, but not before an admin tried to shut down that effort by closing the discussion because it was "too soon" after the last one (in other words, not respecting the close of the previous RM). In that case that admin ended up being blocked by another admin and the discussion was thankfully re-opened and allowed the discussion to lead, naturally, to the ultimate peaceful resolution. I hope nothing leads to anything like that wheel-warring with respect to this title, but that's what can be expected when "respect" is "required" by admin enforcement. --В²C ☎ 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Much like Spider-Man became symbolic of escalating content disputes, WP:YOGHURT is becoming affixed in the minds of many as an example of overzealous title pedantry. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Countless pages of discussion over whether to include the silent "H" in yoghurt make my yog hurt to read them, but I wouldn't say there's much wisdom there. Jonathunder (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion is over guys, take your personal attacks elsewhere. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More irony. Jonathunder you were among the first, back in 2005, to correctly point out that that article should be moved to Yogurt because that's where it was originally, citing, of all people, PBS[3], who later in 2011 was the admin trying to stop the very discussion that ultimately resolved the controversy. The wisdom to be gleaned from all that is not in the countless pages of discussion, but in the 2011 decision to, finally, move in concert with policy, and the silence that followed ever since. The lesson few seem to have learned from all that is to not oppose move proposals when policy favors the move, no matter how trivial the policy advantage may seem, and for closers to find consensus in the supporting arguments based in policy despite passionate opposition. --В²C ☎ 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) I was involved in that move discussion near the beginning, as you correctly point out. By the end, I wished I had never heard of it. You may find in that whatever wisdom you wish. Jonathunder (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC) The minority in opposition was able to summon enough each time to claim lack of consensus partially because of people like you dropping out of the discussions. That's one lesson. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) So that is your grand strategy, just keep proposing and re-proposing year after year til that wiki-slot machine rolls up a set of lemons and you get the right combo of participants and the right closing admin(s) at the end, eh? It's no wonder that Guy came within a hairsbreadth of banning you outright from RMs after last year's Sarah Brown embarrassment. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) As long as HC is the WP:COMMONNAME, the strategy is to keep pointing that out, until folks come to their better senses and recognize the consensus behind our position. NickCT (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately for you, Hillary Rodham Clinton has an equal claim to WP:COMMONNAME. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC) HC is not the WP:COMMONNAME, if you respect reliable sources, as per WP:AT, and follow WP:V and WP:NOR. This confusion might all be avoided if the unfortunate shortcut, which is not synonymous with commonname, were dispensed with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, your interpretation of COMMONNAME to weigh reliable sources like we do for WP:V and WP:NOR when determining the most common name for title selection purposes is unconventional and clearly not supported by consensus, as shown quite obviously by the discussion here, as well as at many other title discussions, and, if followed, would indicate title changes for countless titles on WP. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC) That's not true. These conversations are not in support of this article. Please stop pinging me here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) Tarc, I've explained this so many times to you it is becoming a WP:IDHT situation. It's not my strategy. It's not anyone's strategy. It's my observation of a very predictable inevitability. Title policy on WP is like a gravity field. Slowly but surely the water eventually flows past the resistance towards policy preference. Resistance in the form of opposition to a policy-supported proposal can slow things down, even for years (is that your strategy?), but sooner or later policy will prevail. And that will be the case here, because, like NickCT says, as long as HC remains the COMMONNAME, folks will continue pointing that out. Some will propose accordingly, others will support. Only when the title is in accordance with policy will that stop. Regarding topic bans, I'll defer to your good judgment since you have much more experience in that area than I [4] [5]. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC) It is your opinion, nothing more. Many editors hold an opinion that differs from your own, but that doesn't make them wrong despite your best efforts to paint them so, b2c. Stop being the Bill O'Reilly of the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Your use of the word "wrong" indicates you think of this as a moral situation. It's not. There is no right or wrong here (oh the irony of you likening me to Bill O'Reilly when you're the one thinking in moral terms). Perhaps that's why you and some others feel strongly about this - you believe it's RIGHT to have her birth name in there because she uses it in formal contexts. But that's not how we decide any other titles on WP, and it's not how we should decide this one. We look at what policy prefers, and, for most titles, that process starts and ends with WP:COMMONNAME (and not interpreted with SmokeyJoe's twist). This title should not be any different. --В²C ☎ 23:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Despite your best efforts to obfuscate the matter, it really isn't that complicated; I. Policy covers article titles. a) Group A of editors interprets policy as supporting Title X b) Group B of editors interprets policy as supporting Title Y II. The two groups cannot agree, thus necessitating an outside body to adjudicate. It is a shame that some in Group A refuse to acknowledge the validity of Group B's opinion. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC) The same basic claim was tirelessly made at Talk:Yoghurt, RM after RM, year after year. "There's no consensus. Let it go. You're not respecting the other side. Don't you have anything else to do? Blah blah blah". But when we asked if there was a pro-Yoghurt argument that did not rely on "no consensus to move", nothing. And of course when it was finally moved, after having to overcome a frickin' lock on the talk page to continue the discussion, crickets. Total peace. An 8-year-long controversy 100% totally resolved just like that. So simple. So here we are again. Is there a pro-HRC policy-based argument that does not rely on "no consensus to change"? Crickets. Again. Gee, it shouldn't take a genius to see what will happen if it's finally moved to HC. --В²C ☎ 02:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) The sole premise of your argument is "I will be disruptive and tendentious until I get my way". It is the tactic of the bully, which I readily concede the point that it sometimes can be successful, as it exploits the weakness of a crowd-sourced volunteer project. Not really something to be proud of, though. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Really? The WP:IDHT threat/observation conflation again? And that false "threat" claim too was made, repeatedly, at Yoghurt/Yogurt. Whatever helps you rationalize missing the point is what you're gonna latch onto, I suppose. --В²C ☎ 02:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC) It's your own argument deconstructed, so yes, really. And please, say "yoghurt" 8 dozen more times, we haven't hit the daily quota. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Tarc: - re "disruptive and tendentious" - You really think you're in a position to comment on others being disruptive and tendentious? Really? Saying there are two equal groups of editors who interpret WP:COMMONNAME as supporting either HRC or HC is so misleading as to be a simple lie. You full well know, that almost ALL the respondents in the RM who cited WP:COMMONNAME did so in support of the move to HC. You, and a couple other editors decided at the last moment to try to make the pitch that WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, supported HRC. You seem to feel that by shouting this idea loudly enough, it will seem more reasonable. It won't. But hey, let's look on the bright side. At least you can find a couple people who share your warped opinion of the numbers. At least you're not completely alone at your tin foil hat convention. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC) So when you both begin and end a comment with personal attacks, do we call that an NPA Sandwich? Can I get extra pickles and sriracha ? As for WP:CommonName, it isn't the only policy in play, so your strawman attack against a point I didn't make falls flat. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Scandals and Gaffes

Proposed New Section:

"Timeline of Scandals and Gaffes"

• Whitewater Development Corp Scandal 1978-1997
• Benghazi Killings
• Honduras
• Claimed she was dead broke when living in a mansion and charging exorbitant speaking fees
• Improper E-Mail Usage
• Job Creation-“Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk)

Much of this is already addressed in the article. We do not do "list of gaffes", as what is a gaffe and what is a political talking point is not objective fact, but rather dependent on one's point of view. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Much of this is addressed." What is not addressed?173.66.197.57 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a citation needed for this "but was never charged with wrongdoing in this or several other investigations"?173.66.197.57 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add the sources from the main article to the claim in the lede, mentioned above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#cite_note-wsj102600-201 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#cite_note-nyt092100-191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

173.66.197.57, to respond to your points in order:

We don't have separate, catchall "Controversies" or "Scandals" or "Gaffes" sections or timelines in these political biographies. Instead, any such events are integrated into the overall biographical narrative at the point when they occurred. This gives better balance, neutrality, and context, and in particular this approach has been taken for all presidential contender biographies since the 2008 election cycle.

Regarding the specific items you mention:

• Whitewater – described in this article in the "Whitewater and other investigations" section, also in the dedicated Whitewater controversy article
• Benghazi – described in this article in the "Events of 2011–13 and overall themes" section, also in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article and in the dedicated 2012 Benghazi attack article
• Honduras – not described here (the level of attention given it doesn't seem to merit it), but is described in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article's "Regional issues and travels: 2009" section
• "dead broke" – not included here (note that you don't accurately reflect the circumstances of the quote in what you wrote), but is included in the Hard Choices article's "Promotional efforts" section
• E-mail – described in this article in the "Subsequent activities" section, also in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article and in the dedicated Emailgate article
• "Don't let anybody tell you" – not included here (garden variety hyperbole and/or verbal blunder), but is included in the Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton article's "Jobs" section.

So as you can see, every item you named is addressed somewhere in Wikipedia.

Regarding adding citations to the lead, this is one of many articles that follows the permitted style practice of not putting citations in the lead, but rather putting them where the same statement is made in the article body. And the statement is "... but was never charged with wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during her husband's presidency" is simple and factual. Of course, some people thought she should have been, while some other people thought the whole thing was a political witch-hunt ... but in the end, the Independent Counsel declined to bring charges against her in all four investigations she was a potential target in. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)