Talk:Hillary Clinton

Requested Move 7

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily closed as no consensus. We had a very emotional requested move on this not too long ago. I strongly suggest that we either wait a bit longer to propose it again... or at least give a rationale that extends beyond two words. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – common name 76.120.175.135 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, not again. See the history of this in the Talk headers above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The fact this keeps coming up and getting no consensus every time is perhaps a sign that the current title isn't optimum. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from earlier today. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. The fact this keeps being brought up here over and over and over and over again suggests to me, with all due respect, that some editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above, and my arguments given in the last extensive discussion, this is the name she is commonly known by. I don't even consider this to be a valid RM filing; a wiki-gnome IP user that advances no substantive argument, just a throwaway one-liner. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The best, most reliable and reputably published biographies introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We should be guided by our best sources. They probably like to stick with including the "Rodham" because "Hillary Rodham" was a significant notable person, pre-clinton. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First female Senator from NY

I'm not sure that's lead-worthy given that many states had already elected female senators. By analogy, we don't say in the Romney lead that he was the first Mormon governor of Massachusetts, even though he was.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that NY is one of the largest state's in the union, I'd say it's pretty important. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, here in Massachusetts, we think we're pretty big too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in Massachusetts too. Anyway, there are a lot more women in the U.S. than Mormons and when HRC was elected only about a dozen other states had elected female senators at the time. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, given the small number of Mormons, it was even more notable that one managed to become Governor of Massachusetts. Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is notable. Is it notable enough for the lede? Sure...I think so, yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's borderline to go in the lead, since the really significant 'first' from that period is first (and only) First Lady to run for office. The Women in the United States Senate article gives perspective on this ... she wasn't one of the first few female senators to win election, and she wasn't in the 1992 Year of the Women wave, but she is in the next wave after that. If I remember right, back in 2006-07 some other editors felt strongly that it should be in. It may remain in the lead now because it takes so few additional words (to take it out, you'd just remove "the first female"). I'm okay with it staying there, but it could also be moved to the article body (where it isn't now), as an addition to the last sentence in the "Senate election of 2000" section. Comparing with other leads from the list of early elected female senators, about half of them mention first in the state and half don't (typical WP!). I guess on balance I'd leave it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it doesn't belong in the lede. I don't remember hearing or reading anyone making something of her being the first female NY senator. The lede is currently too long. I'd cut "After moving to the state, Clinton was elected the first female Senator from New York; she is the only First Lady ever to have run for public office" to "In her eighth year as First Lady, Clinton ran for and was elected Senator for New York." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd be okay with removing "the first female". But not removing the rest; we have to briefly explain why she was the senator from New York, not Arkansas or Illinois, and that she is the only First Lady ever to have run for office is highly remarked upon. Google prefilled this "hillary clinton is the only first lady ever to be elected to public office" query when I started typing it and it returns over 100,000 hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is room in the body to expand on things in the lede. Don't be steered by these google things. Google is influenced by bored kids interested in simple trivia. Do reliable sources, do the published biographies, point to "first female NY senator" in their first few hundred words? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't steered by Google hits, just using it as backing evidence for the "remember hearing or reading anyone making something of" test that you used. This lead here is a 600-word mini-biography written with the assumption that the reader won't go on the article body (WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview"), which is a true assumption for some percentage of readers (exactly what percentage would be great to know, but I've never seen a usage study that tells us). Is "only First Lady ever to have run for public office" one of those things that such lead-only readers need to know? Definitely yes. Is "first female Senator from New York" one of those things? Borderline, to me. We'll see what some more others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As a historical milestone it is not important enough for an already-bloated lead, given how common female senators were. The only way to justify it in the lead would be if her gender substantially affected the outcome of the primary or the general election. Did it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that her gender was a constant theme of this particular election: her time as First Lady; was she really capable on her own or was she taking advantage of her husband's position; her riding of wave of sympathy as a scorned wife in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal; her "listening tour"; the kiss with Suha Arafat; Lazio invading her personal space during a debate; and so on. No, in the sense that I doubt there was any real barrier to a woman being elected Senator in New York by 2000. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then we ought to leave in the lead that she was the first First Lady in elective office, and remove that she was the first female NY senator. (Which seems about as relevant as that she was the first New York senator from Illinois via Wellesley via Arkansas). Lazio would have been screwing up her personal space even if she had been running to be the 5th woman senator from NY.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8

Note: In order to avoid any appearance of undue influence on the closing admin, a neutral and uninvolved three-administrator panel has been requested to close this discussion at the appropriate time. User:TParis, User:Adjwilley, and User:BrownHairedGirl have volunteered to serve on this panel. bd2412 T 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – I know this has been discussed before, but she has been radically de-Rodhamizng to the point were it rarely even brings up one interest point. 12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been researching this issue for several months, and have posted my findings with respect to a move rationale at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

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

31 March 2014

• I opposed this back in 2007 but usage seems to have shifted since then. However, according to this New York Times article, Clinton still wasn't legally her name as of 1993. Is it now? —  AjaxSmack  02:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, her legal name doesn't matter. --12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done some research on this and found that in 2008, her name appeared on the primary ballot of every state in the U.S. to have a primary ballot as "Hillary Clinton"; state requirements vary, but generally prohibit candidates from using an alias or assumed name. bd2412 T 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

She's trying to coast into office on Bill's name unsigned comment by 69.140.53.10 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 04:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In other words... per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB --B2C 01:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - given the numbers of previous move this should be numbered "RM 8" for clarity. But support, it's evident that the middle/maiden name is less used in US sources than plain Hillary, and not used at all outside US. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The best, most reliable and reputably published biographies introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We should be guided by our best sources. They probably like to stick with including the "Rodham" because "Hillary Rodham" was a significant notable person, pre-clinton. The nom appeals to recentism. Recentism should be avoided. If she runs for 2016, there will be all sorts of excitement, but a reference work should remain steady. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, yours is a name I usually see and agree with on RMs/RfC etc, but in this case I'm wondering if "introduce" is relevant to titles. We too "introduce" with WP:FULLNAME in lede, as per normal, but in a title the way books "introduce" vs text body mentions doesn't apply. As for recentism, it may be true in US newsprint, but I don't think that applies outside US where Hillary Clinton has almost never been Rodham in Australian, UK or Indian sources In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, with regards to recentism, I think the solution is to look at the sources currently, explicitly, used to supply the core content in the article. I don't see the nationality of sources as being obviously relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep as part of her name. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. There is no significant evidence that she is "de-Rodhamizing" it. All Department of State documents used the full name, just like Senate documents before that and First Lady documents before that. And in particular, the placeholder page at Simon & Schuster for her new memoir due out later this year uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a couple of days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. The fact this keeps being brought up here over and over and over and over again suggests to me, with all due respect, that some editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 10:48, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that NPR, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times are not "serious" media? Because they do not generally always refer to her as Rodham on first mention. Dezastru (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons given every other time, as nothing has changed. I reverted this insipid nonsense yesterday, but disruptive IPs are apparently not easily swayed. Once this closes as "no move" once again, I will head to the appropriate board and request a ban on future RMs. 6-12 months should do it. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm struggling to see the relevance of some of the arguments of those opposed. Particularly, referring to the "best, most reliable and reputably published biographies", the "serious media" and the "last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while". These arguments seem to contradict WP:COMMONNAME. That is, we don't use just the "best" or most serious sources for a person's name; we use the most common. And when people change their names, we can change our page titles to reflect that (as long as the change is reflected in the sources). -- Irn (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. There is no reason why she should be an exceptional case to have a less familiar article title. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Hillary Clinton is the WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Supported it last time, still support it now. "Rodham" is an unnecessary disambiguator, and she's most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As discussed last time around (and as is still the case now), usage is divided — there are sources that use the shorter form and sources that prefer the longer, and the latter includes what are arguably among the most significant: White House, US State Department, US Congress, Congressional biography, C-SPAN/C-SPAN Video, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's publishers, VoteSmart, Britannica, etc.

I should also note (again) that trying to compare the suitability of longer and shorter forms of a personal name by relying just on frequency stats can be tricky: even when the longer form is clearly preferred by a source, subsequent text may shorten it simply for brevity once the preferred name is established. (And with someone in the news there's also headlinese to consider.)

I'm afraid I see no new rationales advanced here that haven't already been considered in the previous unsuccessful move requests, and question the benefit of once again rehashing what's starting to look like a perennial proposal. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support for the following reasons, which have not been presented or discussed previously:

Miami-Dade County, Florida, Democratic Presidential Preference official sample ballot identifying the subject as "Hillary Clinton".

Carteret County, North Carolina Democratic primary sample ballot identifying the subject as "Hillary Clinton".

Los Angeles County, California, Democratic Primary ballot identifying the subject as "Hillary Clinton".

Fairfax County, Virginia, Democratic Primary official sample ballot identifying the subject as "Hillary Clinton".

• First, per the subject's name appearing as "Hillary Clinton" on all United States Democratic Presidential Primary ballots in 2008, as demonstrated in the links and images below:

  2008 Alabama primary ballot

  2008 California primary ballot; another California primary ballot (in English and Chinese)

  2008 Delaware primary ballot

  2008 District of Columbia primary ballot

  2008 Florida primary ballot

  2008 Georgia primary ballot

  2008 Idaho primary ballot (cached version)

  2008 Indiana Democratic primary voting machine display

  2008 Illinois primary ballot;

  2008 Louisiana primary ballot

  2008 Massachusetts primary ballot

  2008 Michigan primary ballot

  2008 Missouri primary ballot

  2008 Montana Democratic primary ballot

  2008 Nebraska primary ballot

  2008 New Hampshire primary ballot

  2008 New York primary ballot

  2008 North Carolina primary ballot; another North Carolina primary ballot

  2008 Ohio primary ballot; another Ohio primary ballot

  2008 Oklahoma primary ballot

  2008 Oregon primary ballot; another Oregon primary ballot

  2008 Pennsylvania primary ballot

  2008 Puerto Rico primary ballot

  2008 Tennessee primary ballot

  2008 Texas primary ballot

  2008 Vermont primary ballot

  2008 Virginia primary ballot

  2008 Washington primary ballot

  2008 West Virginia primary ballot

  2008 Wisconsin primary ballot

  2008 Democrats Abroad primary ballot

  Second, per the subject being officially introduced as "Hillary Clinton" in numerous venues, as seen in the following video clips:

  1:28 of this video of a voiceover of Gavin Newsom introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2007

  0:04 of this video of John Corzine endorsing "Hillary Clinton" in 2007

  1:40 of this video of Maya Angelou introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2008

  0:35 of this video of Meryl Streep introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2012

  2:42 of this video of Henry Kissinger introducing "Hillary Clinton" in 2013

  Also, here is a C-SPAN video clip identifying the Secretary of State as "HILLARY CLINTON".

  Third, per the candidate's own identification as "Hillary Clinton" in campaign ads for "Hillary Clinton" which end with the subject herself stating, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message":

  2007 campaign ad: "Presents"

  2008 campaign ad: "3 AM"

  2008 campaign ad: "New beginning"

  2006 New York Senate campaign ad: "Standing Up For New York" (actually ends with "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm delighted to approve this message").

• Cheers! bd2412 T 17:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In the 2008 campaign, she was self-identifying as just "Hillary" most of the time, no other names necessary, and when not that, as "Hillary Clinton". And in ballot boxes, shorter names are probably considered an advantage. However in 2006, when she was running for re-election as Senator and campaigning for other Democrats, she self-identified as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in a robocall that I got; I noted this at the time because the issue had already come up here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

bd2412: We've already discussed that usage is divided; simply introducing more specific instances that illustrate that fact is not really a new rationale. As for the specific themselves:

Regarding ballots: Yes, she did appear as "Hillary Clinton" in the 2008 Democratic Party primary election (which all of the linked and pictured ballots are from). However, in her Senate ballots she appeared as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". See, for instance, the ballot for her 2006 Senate run. Official election reports issued by the New York Board of Elections also refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for 2000 and 2006, as well as in their report for the special election of 2010. Suffice it to say that she's run as both HC and HRC... and seemingly more often as HRC.

Regarding videos: I searched YouTube myself and immediately found many significant contrary results where she is introduced as HRC, such as:

• 2008 Democratic Convention speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• 2004 Democractic Convention speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Council on Foreign Relations speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• LGBT Speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Internet Freedom speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Special Operations Conference speech — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Speech at the Armenian Embassy — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Receiving Award of Merit from Yale — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (18:30)
• NYU Commencement Address — introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" twice (0:30, 3:00)
• Senate Election acceptance speech — "Hillary Rodham Clinton"

In both ballots and videos, clearly usage is divided, with HRC being frequently used. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per BD2412. Clinton will run for president of the US in 2016 and this article should use the version that she tends to use for politics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per past arguments. Huw states it well here. Omnedon (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence that could persuade you that the page should be moved? bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That would require speculation. Above you say that you have provided reasons that have not been given before; but to me it seems that you have given another list of occurrences of the shorter name, not new reasons. The longer name is also used, and to my mind (for various reasons given in the past) is the appropriate name for the article. What would convince you of this? Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I would be convinced that a name is the common name of a subject if it can be shown to be used more broadly throughout reliable sources. Since our policies favor conciseness and consistency, a stronger showing of predominant use would be needed to support a longer version of an unambiguous human name. bd2412 T 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Stronger than what? Both names are used, and plenty of examples of usage of the Rodham name have been given in past discussions. I see no evidence that anything has changed since last time. Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment even if rarely referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" nowadays, that doesn't necessarily reflect legal name. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  The legal name is not a factor per WP:COMMONNAME. Try James Paul McCartney and George Roger Waters for example. We go by their common name, not their legal one. Also, Ringo Starr's legal name is Richard Starkey, but we use the common name. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am aware of WP:COMMONNAME, though my comment was just towards a previous user mentioning her legal name. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I have heard of Hillary Clinton, before today I have never heard of this "Rodham." That's not how she is known, and is it just going to cause a lot of people to think they have found the wrong page. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Why is is necessary to have the article at Clinton's full name? We do not have Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or George H. W. Bush at their full names. Additionally, if we had people's articles all at their full names like this one, we'd have problems, such as articles named like Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfe­schlegelstein­hausenberger­dorffvoraltern­waren­gewissenhaft­schaferswessen­schafewaren­wohlgepflege­und­sorgfaltigkeit­beschutzen­von­angreifen­durch­ihrraubgierigfeinde­welyche­voraltern­zwolftausend­jahres­vorandieerscheinen­wander­ersteer­dem­enschderrassumschiff­gebrauchlicht­als­sein­ursprung­von­kraftgestart­sein­lange­fahrt­hinzwischen­sternartigraum­auf­der­suchenach­diestern­welche­gehabt­bewohnbar­planeten­kreise­drehen­sich­und­wohin­der­neurasse­von­verstandigmen­schlichkeit­konnte­fortplanzen­und­sicher­freuen­anlebens­langlich­freude­und­ruhe­mit­nicht­ein­furcht­vor­angreifen­von­anderer­intelligent­geschopfs­von­hinzwischensternartigraumhi, Senior. Epicgenius (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question: because many significant, official, reliable sources refer to her that way, including the White House, Congress, State Department, Clinton Foundation, and numerous others (see above). No one's suggesting always using full names for titles; I do suggest it'd be wrong to retitle the article while usage remains split and while so many prominent sources continue to favor HRC. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that searching for "Hillary Rodham Clinton" produces 8,130,000 search results on Google. The search term "Hillary Clinton" produces 160,000,000 results on the same search engine. WP:COMMONNAME, dude.... Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And Obama produces a lot more results than Barack Obama... yet we use Barack Obama. See my comment above about the risks of relying solely on raw counts to compare longer and shorter forms of a personal name, dude... :) ╠╣uw [talk] 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The search term "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham produces 134 million results. BMK (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And Obama -Barack get 2.3 billion. See the problem? Even recognizing Obama as the primary occupant of the term "Obama" (which he is) we still don't title the article that way. Put simply: greater numbers for the shorter form in raw usage counts don't by themselves tell you what the preferred form of the name is. The White House, for instance, uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the title and the lede, but then refers to her as Hillary, Secretary Clinton, or Hillary Clinton in the text. (And again, for people in the news one must consider things like headlinese.) ╠╣uw [talk] 02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? You don't see the difference? We're trying to decide on "Hillary Rodham Clinton" versus "Hillary Clinton", so the search string "Hillary Clinton" -Rodham gives all instances of "Hillary Clinton" in which "Rodham" doesn't appear. That's a result which can legitimately by compared to the result for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". On the other hand, no one is trying to rename Barack Obama to "Obama", so the search string you suggest is not helpful, especially since a search on Obama -Barack will bring up all the rresults on his wife and children, but also every article which uses "President Obama" instead of "Barack Obama" or "President Barack Obama". So the two examples, yours and mine, are not analogous is any way, since mine will only bring up instances of the specific phrase "Hillary Clinton".

You've got to be careful when crafting search strings for comparison purposes. BMK (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Of course the names aren't the same; rather, the comparison was simply meant to show that instances of a shorter form of a personal name are normally much more frequent that instances of a longer form.

For example, even controlling for other people with the same surname, the president is referred to simply as "Obama" much more frequently than as "Barack Obama" in most sources – but we don't title based just on that. This is the case with most people: once the preferred form is established, it's normally shortened in references thereafter. We see the same with Hillary: the White House, Congress, State Department, and various other significant sources all title and lead with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but then subsequently tend to refer to her as "Secretary Clinton", "Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary", etc. If you were to just go on raw frequency stats in such sources, HRC might not rank highest — yet it's nonetheless preferred. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per BD2412, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME - She's more widely known as Hillary Clinton..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Huw. Though usage is mixed, the sheer number of quality and official sources describing her as HRC should put this debate to bed (again). Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hillary Rodham Clinton is commonly referred to as such in most reliable sources. Whereas in most cases, such a "Rodham" would be dropped, in hers, it is usually retained. In fact, it may be a WP:BLP violation to excise the "Rodham", as she has purposely chosen to retain and use her maiden name. To drop it, in favour of her married name, perhaps defies the significance of her retaining it, that is, she is not owned by her husband, and that she retains her own name. Because of this, and because reliable sources tend to use the "Rodham", I think it is unacceptable to move the article to Hillary Clinton. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How has she "purposely chosen" to use a name that she purposely left out of tens of millions of primary election ballots in dozens of states? Does this sound like she is retaining and using it? Does this? bd2412 T 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that she hasn't used the "short form", however, she has also legally chosen to retain the "Rodham", and has also used the "Rodham", at least as much as solely the "Clinton". It hardly matters what is on the ballots, as it is quite possible that they dropped the "Rodham" for the sake of space, or for some other considering of which we are not aware. In fact, it is quite possible that the dropping of the "Rodham" from the ballots is some kind of systemic bias towards women who legally choose to retain their maiden names. RGloucester — ☎ 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have actually looked into the ballot issue quite intensely, and found that every state leaves it up to the candidate how they want their name to be presented on the ballot, so long as they are using some form of their legal name, and that there are quite often names on the ballot (for this or other offices) that are much longer than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". This is entirely the candidate's choice, and not one influenced by any consideration other than how the candidate wishes to present herself. bd2412 T 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BD2412, looking at your ballot images, I find it hard to believe that Biden variously chose Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Joe Biden, and "Joe" Biden (the ballot's quotes, not mine) to be on the ballots. And Richardson shows similar variations. I believe what you are saying about your research, and I'm legitimately impressed by all the effort you put into this, but my guess is that in practice, somebody other than the candidate or any high campaign official is deciding on the names. It might be the flunky who organizes the signature petition drives to get on the ballot in the first place, for example. And in the case of that New Hampshire ballot with all the quoting of diminutive first names, it's clearly some style sheet on the part of the New Hampshire clerk's office that's prevailing, not the candidates' wishes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

bd2412: Please note that Hillary has run for office as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as or more frequently than she has as "Hillary Clinton", as for the Senate. The dozens of ballots you cite are all from the same election. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, one of the things that I found most striking about Clinton and Obama was that they were the only candidates whose names appeared uniformly across all ballots on which they appeared. To me, this suggests a stronger hand at the top enforcing this conformity. Whether this is Clinton herself or a campaign director, we can't know, but I find it highly incongruous to think that the subject was somehow steamrolled into using this particular name against her will. I didn't check for all 50 states, but I looked up the election laws of about a dozen, and most specifically require that the actual candidate sign off on their candidacy filings, which include the name as it appears on the ballot. Moreover, the voiceovers for the campaign ads where she says "I'm Hillary Clinton" are her speaking in her own voice, and match the ballot presentation. Whatever else can be said, it is clear that the subject was at the very least allowing a concerted, multi-million dollar "Hillary Clinton" branding effort to go forward. As for her previous campaigns, note that the primary campaign is not one election, it is dozens of small elections across a wide range of different dates. As for the previous elections, do we have a ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race? There's a video of a campaign ad from 2006 where the subject says "I'm Hillary Clinton", so it seems that she was already identifying herself that way at that point. bd2412 T 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have the ballot image for the 2006 New York Senate race — it identifies her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

Frankly it seems that both the HC and HRC forms are used, and that she's hasn't been overly discriminating between them. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, profiles her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". ╠╣uw [talk] 09:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

2006 was eight years ago - that's a long time in politics (and on the Internet as well). We are not discussing what the article should have been called 8 years ago, we're discussing what it should be called now. BMK (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that both names have been used enhances the importance of other factors - for example, WP:CONCISE, which favors a shorter name between two equally informative possibilities. Here, it could be said that "Rodham" is the "and Providence Plantations" of Hillary Clinton. There is no other Hillary Clinton to confuse this subject with, so it is not needed for purposes of describing which Hillary Clinton is being referred to. Consistency is also an element of WP:TITLE, and as I point out on the subpage, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). The vast majority of American names are first-and-last-name only, with use of maiden names being very rare. In light of the fact that several participants in this discussion have indicated that they have heard of "Hillary Clinton" but never "Rodham", we would also have to consider WP:SURPRISE for the average person who watches the Kardashians rather than MacNeil-Lehrer (or who lives in a country where the "Rodham" is rarely reported). The chance of a reader arriving at "Hillary Clinton" and being surprised that the topic is at that title, or wondering if they have reached the wrong article, seems to be far lower than the chance of a reader reacting that way to a title with "Rodham" in it. bd2412 T 12:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BMK & BD2412: And 2008 was six years ago, yet we have some pretty lengthy posts dealing with those primaries above. If others choose to bring up past election ballots (as BD2412 has), then in fairness we'll look at them all.

Nonetheless, I do agree that current usage is important... which is why I examined a number of the most significant reliable sources relevant to the individual, as they're shown today, to gauge the preferred form:

• White House: HRC
• Congress: HRC
• State Department: HRC
• Clinton Foundation: HRC
• New York Times: HRC
• Washington Post: HRC
• Encyclopedia Britannica: HRC

Et cetera; more are linked elsewhere. Do all sources lead with HRC? Of course not. But many do, and those that do are among the most significant to this subject.

As for surprised reactions by readers coming across a page titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton", is there any evidence that people arriving here don't know who they've found? It's true that another editor did suggest that people outside the US "never" know her as Rodham, but (as I linked elsewhere) various international and foreign media like the BBC, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. do in fact use HRC, so I have to question whether that's really so. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Huw, I entirely agree. She is referred to using several variations of her name, as people often are. But HRC is clearly the correct name for this article, for the reasons you and others have given in this discussion and in previous ones. I don't understand why we are going through this yet again. Omnedon (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And to BD2412 -- you say that "Rodham" is "rarely reported" in some countries. Where's the data that supports this? Omnedon (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Perception can be about systemic bias, as this New York Times article, which was cited earlier, demonstrates. It is quite possible that she dropped the "Rodham" from ballots, merely so that she would not be perceived negatively, as she was in the past. I do not think it is right to continue this trend of systemic bias. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of speculation, and it seems to run against the persona of someone who thrusts themselves into the public spotlight at the highest levels. All we can know for sure is that the subject was in control of how her name appeared on the ballot and how she chose to announce her name in her own words in campaign ads, and that since 2006, she has done so as "Hillary Clinton". This also happens to coincide with how the vast majority of media outlets now report her name. bd2412 T 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

HRC is used by many media outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post[1], USA Today[2], The Huffington Post, etc. Certainly there are many that do not, but that's the point: usage is mixed. As for the overall prevalence of shorter forms like Hillary Clinton (or increasingly even just Hillary), I certainly wouldn't argue that those do appear more frequently, but what of it? Obama appears much more frequently than Barack Obama by volume, but despite Obama occupying that term we still redirect to the longer name. In cases of comparing longer and shorter forms of personal names, particularly those that often appear in news pieces (see headlinese), one can't simply rely on raw usage counts like you could if you were (say) comparing two variant spellings. That's why it's good to look to various other significant and reliable sources like the White House, Congress, State Department, Britannica, her own foundation, etc., all of which commonly favor HRC. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a large problem with WP:Systemic bias. I do not think it is appropriate to take the patriarchal point of view that women are not entitled to use their own names. She has, throughout her career, made a conscious choice to have the "Rodham" known. Even if it is dropped in some instances, because of bad press and societal stigmas, it remains her name. It really seems unacceptable to be reducing her to an accessory of her husband, the former President Clinton. RGloucester — ☎ 03:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "it is dropped" and her choosing to drop it. She also has the right, does she not, to choose to be known as "Hillary Clinton" if that is her wish. We are not mind-readers. We can't look at her ballot presentations and her "I'm Hillary Clinton" announcements and dismiss them as meaningless, although we can know fairly certainly that if she really wanted to continue using "Rodham" she could make sure that she uses it in her ads, on the ballot, and in many other venues. To presume otherwise suggests that women who choose to change their name, for whatever reason, are merely acting as weak-willed puppets of their circumstances, which certainly doesn't seem to describe this subject. I guess the question then becomes, at what point does a woman (or, really, any person) have the right to change their name without the choice being derided as "bad press and societal stigmas"? bd2412 T 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But, why did she choose to drop it? She has admitted in the past, as per that article, that she received terrible press with regard to her name in the Arkansas governor's election. In fact, to the point where, when Mr Clinton lost, his opponent said: "And my wife is 'Mrs. Frank White'." Knowing her past history, and the trouble she received because of retaining her name, knowing that the "Rodham" is used by a wide variety of reliable sources, and her self, I do not think it is appropriate to drop it in an effort to make the title more concise. If anything, this makes the title less concise, as it doesn't imply that she is the person that she is. "Hillary Clinton" can never truly describe who she is as a person. It is inappropriate to be saying that any woman who tries to retain their name, and enter politics, will be forced to drop it because people prefer a "shorter, more concise" name, despite the fact that this shorter name is ALWAYS the husband's name. RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not what conciseness is about, though. The elements of personal identity make an interesting philosophical question, but the question here is whether the title contains more information than necessary to inform the average reader of the subject of the article. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that anyone is going to see the title "Hillary Clinton" and wonder who the article is about. bd2412 T 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conciseness is wrong if it is a WP:BLP violation. I think that dropping the Rodham, in this case, is a great harm to the person being described by the article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is a tough one. There are good arguments on both sides. WP:COMMONNAME is not decisive in this case because "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is commonly used as is "Hillary Clinton". I typically say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and I was in the "oppose" camp when I came here. Since the arguments are good on either side, I decided to look at her official website [3]. Since the arguments are sound either way, I think we go with her preference as expressed on her official website. I am One of Many (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest Imaginable Support. If we go to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and search all the titles there (except for juvenile literature), we find "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 14 times, and "Hillary Clinton" 24 times. This confirms my sense that she is primarily referred to as "Hillary Clinton" in the mainstream media.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONAME. To those of us not from the US, I think it is a matter of suprise that this is even in issue. Globally, I suspect there is precious little knowledge that "Rodham" is her middle name let alone any usage of it. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't her middle name. It is part of her last name, or could be called her "maiden name". Her middle name is Diane. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Outside the US we don't even know what it is, it's so rarely used. WP:COMMONNAME DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well at least it isn't Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. And while, we are at it, we should rename all of these articles too:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State

Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors

List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton

Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that she isn't know that way outside the US. I'm British, and I know her that way. The BBC refers to her as such. RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and due to the seeming lack of "Rodham" on ballots. Times change, Zaire is now Congo, Beyonce was Beyonce Knowles, etc. Cdtew (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Hillary Clinton" is for more common than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in relevant sources, e.g.,142M versus 5M hits on the web and 21,000 versus 2,330 hits in the news. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, common sense and WP:COMMONNAME Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Journalists and Wikipedians refer to her as Hillary Clinton.[4][5] Article placement should reflect normal usage. — goethean 23:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the obvious reasons stated above (mostly WP:COMMONNAME). -- Visviva (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per current WP:COMMONNAME). Flatterworld (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1 April 2014

• Support - I've made my position clear on this. Nothing that needs to be trotted out again. Hillary Clinton is absolutely the common name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. As noted by Muboshgu (talk · contribs), "Rodham" is unnecessary disambiguation. It doesn't make the title more recognizable nor conform to WP:CRITERIA better than the more concise title does in any way. --B2C 00:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Further comment. The idea that "common name" always prevails over accuracy and formality is a WP myth. There are many exceptions carved out. Hence Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (far from the most common use for either) and United States presidential election, 2012 (who says it with that word order?) and United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2008 (absolutely nobody says it like that) and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (several more concise forms of that get more Google hits) and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council (common use would use US and UN and omit other words) and Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (say what? common use is "Bush tax cuts" or "first round of the Bush tax cuts") and so forth. These are not isolated cases but illustrations of where whole subject areas are exempt from "common name". Another good example is that "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O" all get more Google hits than "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" does, and by the crude common name argument should win. But we correctly locate the article at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis because that was the name she used in the latter stages of her life and the name that serious media refered to her by then and after her death. In practice we do not determine article titles solely by Google hit counts or other popularity metrics, and we often value correctness and other considerations, and this should be such a case too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Where WP:COMMONNAME is usurped, it's for a good reason. What's the good reason here? BMK (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the name she self-identifies as, especially in more formal settings (such as in the positions she holds, the books she authors, etc). WP believes in formal writing (no contractions, etc), why not here too? WP believes in giving BLP subjects the benefit of the doubt in terms of controversial material; why not in naming too? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BMK: It's also good to note that the longer form is favored by official sources from the White House, Congress, and the State Department, to papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, to HRC's own Clinton Foundation, to the Britannica, etc. (Links are earlier.) It's not really a question of "usurping" common name; it's recognizing that common name is in fact divided, with many of the most significant sources preferring the longer form. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A very America-centric list of sources. She's a global figure: outside of the US no one knows who this "Rodham" person is. DeCausa (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence, please? BBC News (known for being quite international) titles her profile as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" [6][7] A quick Google search reveals similar usage elsewhere (e.g. The Telegraph, Le Monde, Die Welt, The Times of India, etc.) ╠╣uw [talk] 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Classic cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF, none of which have a clear, commonly, and widely used alternative like Hillary Clinton. In the case of Diana, Diana arguably requires disambiguation anyway. The argument could be made for Princess Diana, and probably has. But at least there a specific royalty naming convention to which that current title corresponds. None such exists for this current title. Descriptive titles like "United States presidential election, 2012 are handled differently altogether. --B2C 01:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "Boeing B-17" and "P-51 Mustang" are clear, commonly and widely-used alternatives, but every single military aircraft article uses the longer form. Well, I'm saying this should be handled differently too. It's the proper version of her name and the one she self-identifies with in formal writing situations, like what we do here. It's the better choice. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving. Clearly Hillary Clinton is the WP:COMMON NAME, as this name now appears about 100 times as often in webhits generated in the past year. Also more WP:CONCISE, and more natural, precise, and consistent with names in general. In other words, the winner by every measure that WP:TITLE considers. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A Google News search and her official website do suggest the simpler name has become the common one. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Hillary Clinton is her common name, and the arguments cited against moving aren't convincing. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose By the same reasoning as has been stated over and over and over (8 times in fact) again, and sustained - this is her name, the name she uses most often, the name she chooses, the name serious reliable sources always use, her official name as Secy of State, Senator, etc. It is clear that this is one of the times that we should be following the same logic we employ at Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - the name she used, not the name with the most Google hits (see Lady Di, for example.) And this being brought up again, a month after the last time, seems abusive to the process. We are not supposed to lose a move attempt, or an AfD or anything like that and then turn around weeks later and try again. Further, as RGloucester and Wasted Time R say above, as a BLP we should respect the choice of the subject as we do regarding other facts. It is a conscious choice to use her full name officially, in her books, etc., and we should follow that as do most serious sources. Finally - User:BD2412 says that he/she notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project", yet I was not notified -and the last time I looked I was the editor with third highest number of article edits, and I have weighed in on just about every one of the previous move attempts that lasted more than a day - I wonder if other editors who have previously opposed this move were similarly passed over. I think this calls into question the nature of the canvass. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is totally different in that Kennedy part of her life is key to her notability. --B2C 05:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. So let's say that "Hillary Clinton" is searched. Will it turn up a completely different person than if you searched "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? I'm not so sure about that.
    And that's not her full name. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is. Epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, and in accordance with WP:OFFICIALNAMES. (I wrote in support of this move in a previous discussion, and I was not notified either, so the suggestion that only those who previously opposed the move were not notified is erroneous.) Dezastru (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "only" - but on a very quick look I see at least 4 opposes from recent move attempts - including one (other than me) who commented extensively in the June 2013 attempt - who were not notified. I haven't looked at each one, and I'm not saying this was deliberate - I am saying that if you say you've notified "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project" then you ought to have done so, or the canvass is questionable. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have responded in the discussion section. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• support per WP:CRITERIA, Article titles should be based on 5 criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness (specifically, "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."), and Consistency. Let's look at each of these:

• Recognizability BD2412's excellent research on ballots, which allow very long names (as evidenced above), suggest that there is no question "Hilary Clinton" is considered more recognizable - when you put your name on a ballot this is a careful decision informed by research, and I have no doubt that the decision to leave out the Rodham was an explicit one. Thus, HC is at least as recognizable as HRC, and quite likely more recognizeable. The missives from non-American editors also suggest that Rodham is much less well known outside of the US, so we have to be sure we're not showing an American bias here.
• Naturalness The search results above show that people are much more likely to search for HC than HRC. We see inverse results for other people with 3 names, whereby the 3-name is searched more often than the two-name, but that's not the case here. Winner for HC.
• Precision HC is equally precise as HRC, there are no other HCs that we need to worry about. Equal here.
• Conciseness HC is more concise than HRC, as it's NO LONGER THAN NECESSARY. Anyone who claims otherwise will not get a fair hearing from me. Winner for HC.
• Consistency There are 4 articles with HC in the title, and 7 with HRC. Slight edge to HRC, but it's a bit trivial as this is the head article, so if renamed those others will be as well.

COMMONNAME has also been adequately demonstrated. Even if we call COMMONNAME a wash, which I'm willing to do, on all the other criteria HC is equal or better, so we should clearly rename.

Finally, to the person who said this could be a BLP violation, that is potentially the worst and most ridiculous invocation of BLP I've ever seen in my time here, ever, especially given the frequency to which HC refers to herself as HC. The worst. Drop the bullshit stick please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistency is more about having the same sort of title as comparable subjects. I note on the subpage that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>" and that deviations from this convention occur "either because the person has no name in that form, or because they are much better known by some other name". (Emphasis added). bd2412 T 12:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Rodham" is part of her last name. I do not know why this is hard to understand. I also have two "words" in my last name, each being a separate name. Hence, the present title does not deviate from "first name last name" conventions. "Diane" is her middle name. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why is the subject's name ever seen without the "Rodham"? Why would she ever announce herself as "Hillary Clinton" in an ad? This is really an anthroponymy question, since virtually all married women have a maiden name, and many retain their maiden name as part of their name, without it being considered part of their last name. Moreover, there are people like Madonna, Cher, and Björk, who have a last name, but don't even have that included in their article title because the average reader knows them by their mononym. bd2412 T 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not her "maiden name", which would only apply if she had actually changed her name and dropped the Rodham entirely. In fact, it is quite possible that her legal name is "Hillary Rodham", as that's what it apparently was at the time of her marriage, according to the New York Times article linked above. "Clinton" is used by societal convention, not through legality, as far as we know. In a way, it is like a courtesy title. Regardless, even if "Clinton" is legally part of her name, it is by definition part of her "last name", her "family name", because it is a "family name", and not a "given name", like "Diane", or "Hillary". RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I've written many biographies where the article title is the common name and I lead off the article with the full name in text, which is by far our common and usual practice. Its not that there's not a case for Rodham version here, its just much weaker as of 2014.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support By far "Hillary Clinton" is the more common name for her, and what she usually goes by. Even her official website doesn't include "Rodham". TJ Spyke 15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the name used by her First Lady page and her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page. If you are referring to http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/, that is a mostly empty site that has three speeches from early 2013 and seems to have been abandoned after that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

2 April 2014

• Support. Can't see why this isn't a textbook case of where to apply WP:COMMONNAME ("not necessarily ... the subject's 'official' name as an article title"). Also can't see how the fact that the "Rodham" part is a second last name and not a middle name would necessarily make a difference in applying WP:COMMONNAME. If it's significantly more common than the longer alternative, and is found also in high quality sources, and is demonstrably also acceptable to the BLP subject herself, then that's what to use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For the life of me, I don't understand the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Maybe because people here are under 25 years old or something and haven't went through 20 years(1991-2011) of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" being mentioned every week on the news. Almost every time she was introduced at an event, or being referred to by the news anchor at the desk, she was referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". That is what she prefers to be referred to. So how is WP:COMMONNAME being used as a vote for just "Hillary Clinton"?
  • The Washington Post officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  • The Washington Times officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
  • Her official IMDB page refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
  • Her PBS biography officially refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
  • She released her novel(Living History) as Hillary Rodham Clinton
  • Her official First Lady White House biography refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton
• She also signs all her official documents as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Perhaps the press has moved away from that lately and going with just Hillary Clinton, but for the vast majority of the last 30+ years, she has been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". So after thinking about it, I oppose the move. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I should point out that here in Britain, she has never, ever been referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (probably because the continued use of a woman's maiden name in this way is alien to us). The British media has always called her plain "Hillary Clinton". I suspect this also goes for many other countries. And COMMONNAME doesn't just apply to the country of origin. International figures have to be taken in an international context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The BBC is not British media?[8][9] How about The Telegraph?[10] (See also Le Monde, Die Welt, etc.) ╠╣uw [talk] 12:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • All the British articles you cite are profiles, so do include her full name. However, searching for her on their websites [11][12] reveals rather a different story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, though HRC also appears in their news stories[13]. As you say, it does seem that HRC is the preferred form for profiles or dedicated articles. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
          • No, the context for those profiles is that they choose to head them with the full "official" name of the subject. But that is not Wikipedia policy. There is no way British media outlets habitually refer to her as "Rodham". Put BBC and "Hillary Clinton" into google and see what comes up. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I do understand that many articles need to reflect internationally, but an American politician? If the vast majority of British press referred to Tony Blair as Tony Blair, but American and South American press referred to him as Anthony Charles Blair, should equal weight be given to American and South American press coverage? No. He is a British politician and the weight goes to how he is referred to in the UK. Same goes with HRC. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That would be true if she was overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country, but I'm guessing that the majority of support votes above are coming from Americans, which suggests she isn't. But I was merely refuting your comment that people commenting must either be very young or not have seen the media over the last twenty years - neither applies to me, and until the renaming discussions here I wasn't really aware that Americans did know her as Hillary Rodham Clinton, since we don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • She is definitely, 100%, "overwhelmingly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton in her home country". Which is why I stated those using WP:COMMONNAME for the shortened "Hillary Clinton" must not have been paying attention to the news from 1991-2011. Her common name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ballots that are designed so they can take up as least of space as possible does not change that. Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Let me also add that the people using the sample ballots as a reason for a name change are making a mistake. Do we have an article names Joseph R. Biden, Jr. or is our article names Joe Biden? Do we have an article named Christopher J. Dodd or is our article named Chris Dodd? Do we have an article named Dennis J. Kucinich or is it Dennis Kucinich? And finally, do we have an article named William "Bill" Richardson III or is our article named Bill Richardson? Sample ballots are proof of nothing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Dave Dial: Or if ballots are used as proof, then we must remember that ballots show her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. As far as I can determine, she's run as or more frequently as HRC than as HC. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: COMMONNAME does seem to apply (and it doesn't really matter anyway as long as all the redirects are in place) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%2C%20hillary%20rodham%20clinton&cmpt=q --12.177.80.66 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaningless. When you type "Hillary" into the Google search box, it prefills the "Clinton" and lets you click that, so of course no one is going to type anything longer than that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What about her appearance as "Hillary Clinton" on the primary ballots, and in campaign ads stating "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message"? bd2412 T 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

One wonders why Google does not prompt the user to enter "Hillary Rodham Clinton", if that is the more commonly used name. — goethean 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

• Note: per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, I have notified all relevant Wikiprojects, and all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project, other than those who have already weighed in here, or are currently blocked. In light of the previous issue arising from a contentious non-admin closure, I have also requested a three-administrator panel to oversee and close this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, but you didn't notify me. I'm deeply hurt. Dezastru (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn't need to - here you are! bd2412 T 04:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not notify "all non-IP editors who have participated in previous discussions on this project". Tvoz/talk 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to both of you. In order to avoid sending a notice to anyone who had already weighed in on the conversation, I filtered out names of editors that already appeared on this talk page. Unfortunately, this was too broad a brush, as it caught some people who had commented in other discussions on this page, but not in this one. For the record, this notice went to 33 of the 46 editors who had previously participated in these discussions. Of those 33 editors, 16 had previously opposed the move and 17 had previously supported it, which roughly reflects total participation in the previous discussions (a substantial number of the remaining editors who have previously opposed this move had already weighed in on this discussion before I got here, and obviously did not require a notification). I have now rectified this error, and in an abundance of caution, I have now notified every registered editor who (so far as I can determine) has ever participated in a move discussion on this topic prior to this one (except for two - Kauffner, and GoodDay - who are currently indef-banned). I have also included a few editors who have previously commented on one or more proposed moves without having specifically registered support or opposition. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only did you NOT notify other editors who previously discussed this, you deleted your user Talk page and moved it without providing links. I don't remember which Admin warned you, but you were warned on your last move request to wait 6 months before starting a new one, or you would be blocked for disruptive editing. Now those warnings are gone from your user Talk page, with no mention of HRC. Now it's barely 1 month later and here we are again. With you so obsessed with this that your edits on this page take up swaths of sections. This move request should be closed. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused with someone else. You can search through the history of this talk page, and all of the previous discussions, and you will see that I have never started a move request with respect to this article. I have never received any warning from any admin, on my talk page or anywhere else, relating to any proposed move of this page. Furthermore, I didn't start the current move request. An anon IP did; I merely supported the move, and provided a detailed rationale in support of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've struck the accusations, because now I am not sure. My apologies. Dave Dial (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. These discussions can get heated. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that I have gotten very involved in this discussion. I have said everything I wanted to say, and will leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've also brought up another move discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State#Requested move. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't think you should have waited until this one is settled? I do. Tvoz/talk 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

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

It was an IP address with about 10 lifetime edits that started RM8! And another IP address who started RM7. Who may or may not be the same and may or may not be a real editor. I think the taint you want to prevent is already there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about comments like the IP who popped in to say "She's trying to coast into office on Bill's name"; whether true or not, this is irrelevant to the discussion and aimed to provoke an off-topic response. Further issues along these lines may not arise at all, but I have seen them come up in high-profile move discussions more than once. bd2412 T 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Law episode

Should Hillary's story about not going to Harvard Law School and the reason why be in the main text or a Note? User:Dezastru says main text, because it's "more than just an aside - she's made the fight for gender equality a key focus of her political career, and this recollection shows how important it was for her even at that early point in her youth". I say it belongs in a Note, because:

• even women who didn't focus on gender politics would be put off by comments like this
• Yale didn't treat her this way, a school just as good, so she didn't suffer any loss (compared to, say, Sandra Day O'Connor or Ruth Bader Ginsberg, both of whom were shut out of the most desirable jobs early in their careers)
• it's only her version of the tale, there's no corroboration or other side of the story that I've seen, which means we should probably give it a little less weight
• it disrupts the flow of the narrative - instead of the reader getting into her time and accomplishments at Yale, they are immediately disrupted by thinking about Harvard
• it's less important than other things that the article shows in Notes (such as the full "Tammy Wynette" and "baking cookies" remarks, or the details behind the "vast right-wing conspiracy", or the "What difference at this point does it make?" statement at Senate hearings, just to pick three).

The structure of the article is to keep the narrative moving forward without getting bogged down in matters like this, and I think the Harvard Law episode is thus best dealt with in a Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Even women who didn't focus on gender politics would be put off by similar comments, but that doesn't mean that they would have decided to go to a different law school based on those comments, or that they would have made a point many years later, when recalling moments in their lives that left lasting impressions, of sharing the experience with others. It's only her version of the tale – and attributed as such in the text; only her version matters because it's the recollection, her understanding of events that shaped her life, that matters, not whether the incident occurred exactly as she says it did. If she says this incident strongly influenced a major decision she made in life, then that should be what we report. (If some other evidence were to surface that would pose a reasonable challenge to the accuracy of her recollection, then we would report that too.) The Tammy Wynette, baking cookies, and "vast right-wing conspiracy" incidents are all at least mentioned in the text, even if additional details are provided in the notes; yet you are arguing to put everything the article says about her recollection of the Harvard professor's remark in the notes. If there is an issue with 'breaking the flow' and getting the reader right into her time at Yale, just move the mention of the Harvard professor's remark to the beginning - ie, talk about how she decided which law school to attend before getting into which one she actually enrolled at and what happened while she was there. Dezastru (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WTR, I may as well chime in before my latest ArbCom appearance precludes it. Perhaps there is an analogy here to be made with her choice to attend college where no males were allowed at all. If the Harvard incident goes in main text, maybe this Wellesley aspect should go with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Hillary says in Living History page 38 that "I was leaning towards Yale anyway, but this encounter removed any doubts about my choice." So it wasn't the deciding factor. Secondly, whether to go to Harvard Law or Yale Law is not really a major life decision - the two are practically identical in terms of quality and getting you on the inside track to the upper crust of American life. You could flip a coin and your general future would be the same either way (modulo the random accidents of who you happen to meet in either place, such as future spouses). By contrast, for example, marrying and going to Arkansas with Bill versus staying single in Washington where she had promising career prospects was a major life decision. As for Wellesley, in Living History, she says that she applied to it and to Smith based upon the recommendation of two of her high school teachers because "if [you] go to a women's college, [you] could concentrate on your studies during the week and have fun on the weekends." She didn't visit either college and picked Wellesley based on liking photographs of its campus. (Things were simpler back then; I picked the college I went to on roughly the same criteria, and also never visited it.) So User:Anythingyouwant, I don't think there are any reasons to delve into this either. But I do think you're an absolute masochist, ending up at ArbCom over gun control articles!? After all your issues with abortion articles?? Next I suggest you get into Israeli-Palestinian topics as well as naming disputes in the Balkans ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a masochist who will probably soon face the ultimate pleasure at Wikipedia, though undeservedly so I might add. And just why does Hillary begrudge Professor Charles Kingsfield wanting his students to study during the week and play on the weekends?  :-) Take it easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasted, you might want to look up the definition of "deciding factor" in a good dictionary. Dezastru (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No sympathy for my predicament, Dezastru? BTW, I'm with Wasted on this one, it's just some filler for her six-figure speeches.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dezastru, I don't see this phrase in any of the dictionaries I have, but if factor A is 75% responsible for a decision and factor B is 25% responsible, seems to me that if we mention either factor, it should be A. In this case I think we should just say she went to Yale and be done with it, which is why I never put the Harvard episode in the article in the first place. But I'm willing to compromise and include it as a Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add any other factors Clinton has said contributed to her decision to attend Yale instead of Harvard, and feel free to put those other ones in a note. Her specific remark about how the Harvard professor's comment affected her decision-making on this issue should be in the body of the article, not in a note. She has recounted the incident a number of times in public. She mentioned it in her 2003 memoir; she mentioned it at a visit to her undergraduate alma mater, Wellesley, in 2007;[14] she brought it up again as she talked about the course of her life during a black-tie gala just 3 months ago.[15] Dezastru (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Political positions

On 5 March 2014, Clinton saw parallels between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler, in the former's position on the 2014 Crimean crisis: “Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s. Hitler kept saying: ‘They’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.’ And that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous. The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe,”

69.60.247.253 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with the proposed wording ("saw parallels"?), this request raises an interesting point. There really is no section covering what could be called (for lack of a better term) Clinton's post-political career. Granted, it may only be temporary, but although she is neither an office-holder nor a candidate at this point, she is still a newsmaker whose activities and opinions are widely reported. There should be at least a brief section mentioning what she has been doing since leaving the State Department, including her weighing in on the Crimea situation. bd2412 T 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is such a section, "Subsequent activities". As for weighing in on Crimea, I'm reluctant to include that here, because what she thinks doesn't matter that much now that she's out of office. It could be included in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, however, where there's more space. The thing here is that she subsequently clarified her initial remark, see for example this Reuters story. So she's not comparing Putin to Hitler (I'm sure at some point she's heard about Godwin's Law), but she is saying that this particular Putin tactic was one of the ones used by Germany in the late 1930s. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, indeed there is. Perhaps there should be a line there indicating that, although Clinton is not presently active as a politician, her public comments have continued to be widely reported. bd2412 T 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary and the bin Laden raid decision

User:Dezastru, here are the relevant passages from the Mark Bowden book The Finish, which you have misinterpreted from that CNN interview. It concerns the big, final approval meeting of April 28 in the White House Situation Room, where many advisors were present.

page 198: "In fact, there was overwhelming support [in the meeting] for launching the raid."

page 201: "Nearly everyone present favored the raid." [Then describes the three who objected - Biden (no raid at all), Gates and Cartwright (wanted a specialized drone strike instead of the special forces raid]

page 203: "Everyone else favored sending in the SEALs. At first it didn't seem like Clinton would. She had famously faulted Obama years earlier for asserting that he would take a shot in Pakistan unilaterally if there was a good chance of getting bin Laden, and now, as secretary of state, she would bear the brunt of the diplomatic fallout if he did. Presenting a detailed assessment of pros and cons, she outlined the likely dire consequences for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship but wound up concluding that, because it was built more on mutual dependence than friendship and trust, it would likely survive. Someone pointed out that if going after bin Laden was enough to destroy the relationship, it was probably doomed anyway. Suspense built as Clinton worked her way around to her surprising bottom line. They could not ignore a chance to get Osama bin Laden. It was too important to the country. It outweighed the risks. Send in the SEALs."

page 203: "Admiral Mullen, the president's top military adviser, gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation before delivering his verdict. McRaven's rehearsals for him and the others had achieved the desired effect. Mullen said he had such high confidence in the SEAL team that he advocated launching the raid."

page 203-4: "Brennan, Donilon, Clapper, Panetta, and Morell all agreed. Brennan had long believed in his bones that it was bin Laden hiding in the compound, and if they indeed had found him, he argued, they had to go after him. The CIA director felt particularly strongly about it, which was not unexpected. This had been his project all along, and the analysts who worked for him were so eager to go in that they would have felt betrayed by their boss if he hadn't supported them. The former congressman told Obama that he ought to ask himself, "What would the average American say if he knew we had the best chance of getting bin Laden since Tora Bora and we didn't take a shot?" And going in on the ground would give them the proof they needed to make the mission worthwhile, or, possibly, gave them a chance of slipping out if bin Laden was not there."

So when you say that "Clinton was one of two senior national security advisors, the other being CIA Director Leon Panetta, who argued most strongly for President Obama to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid to capture or kill Osama bin Laden", yes that it true about Pannetta, but is natural and unremarkable given his institutional representation. It is not true about Hillary - yes she favored doing it, but so did nearly every other advisor, and often just as strongly, such as Mullen and Brennan just to name two.

The CNN interview you are using as a source does not contradict this - Amanpour asks "Who do you think amongst his circle were those who were egging him on or agreeing with him? And who were those pulling back? Who did he really listen to?" and Bowden responds that Pannetta was the "was the most enthusiastic advocate of sending in the SEALs" and then goes on about Hillary "surprised everyone in the room". In any case, the definitive source is what Bowden wrote in his book, not what he was trying to cram into the little sound bites that TV interviews give you. The other source, the LA Times article about some Q-and-A Hillary did after a recent speech, is useless as a source - it's some reporter saying what some other reporter said what some state legislator said about what Hillary said about the April 28 meeting. Even if it is correct that Hillary's playing up her role compared to Biden, that just bears out JFK's famous saying, "Victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan." Hillary was right about going ahead with the bin Laden raid, but so were a lot of other advisors, and this article should not overstate her role. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The decision to go after bin Laden – in Pakistan without advance notification of Pakistani authorities, and with a fairly high degree of uncertainty in the intelligence on whether the person they had been monitoring at the target site was actually bin Laden – was one of the most significant foreign policy and national security events of Obama's presidency, and of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. The potential diplomatic (not to mention domestic) fallout that would have resulted from a failed mission could have been overwhelming. Yet the version of the article you are arguing for devotes a mere single line to the whole incident, and only says that Clinton played a role in the decision to not release the photographs of bin Laden's remains after the mission had been completed. Do you really think that the one thing about the mission that readers of this article will be interested in is that Clinton argued against releasing the photographs? And of those of us who were closely following the news of these events at the time, how many even recall the debate about whether to release the photos? Or paid attention to the fact that Clinton had argued against releasing them, once that information was made public?

I've rewritten[16] the section to include the point that a number of advisors apart from Clinton favored ordering the raid. The section does need to mention that this was a difficult decision for the administration and that Clinton argued in favor of the raid. Bowen's is not the only account available; Bowen was not in the room at the time (other who were have said that the advice was conflicting); and Bowen himself has said that Clinton's opinion was very influential.

In April 2011 internal deliberations of the president's innermost circle of advisors over whether to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid into Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Obama had received conflicting advice.[17][18] Clinton was among those who argued that the President should order the raid.[19][20] Following completion of the mission, which resulted in bin Laden's death, Clinton played a key role in the administration's decision not to release photographs of the dead al-Qaeda leader.[21]

Dezastru (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we are making progress. You are right that the article needs to say where Clinton stood on the raid decision; I didn't add it originally, because this kind of background wasn't known then, but it was an omission on my part not to add it later.

I've consulted another source, the recent Allen and Parnes Sec State years bio HRC, pages 233 to 238. Of course it focuses on the role of Hillary more than others, but generally agrees with Bowden's narrative, and indeed the back matter notes indicate Bowden's magazine article version was a main source. The main area whether they differ is that they say Hillary's decision in favor was not a surprise, that her support for taking action was known all along. They also play up the importance of Hillary being in favor, given that the Veep and Sec Def were against. They quote an unnamed Hillary inner circle person as saying, "I don't think the president needed her [support] per se, but I do know that other people in the room were either swayed or comforted by her confidence and her certainty." Well, that's what a Hillary inner circle person would say ... we'd need people outside her circle who said that in order to state in the article that her support was especially influential.

I have changed the wording to avoid explicitly saying Obama received conflicting advice - I think that's already implicit given the "internal deliberations" and "among those who argued in favor". I've used the space to give the nature of Hillary's advice, that she thought the benefits outweighed the diplomatic risk, since that was her institutional territory.

I have also changed the wording of the text to avoid "capture or kill". This wasn't a mission to capture and that only would have happened under very unlikely circumstances. Nobody wanted that - the problems of where to keep him, how to try him, etc would have been very difficult to deal with. If capture was discussed, it was mostly as a fig leaf. See Daniel Klaidman, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, for example. Fortunately, we don't have to get into this question here, just avoid it. So now the text is:

In April 2011 internal deliberations of the president's innermost circle of advisors over whether to order U.S. special forces to conduct a raid into Pakistan against Osama bin Laden, Clinton was among those who argued in favor, saying the importance of getting bin Laden outweighed the risks to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Following completion of the mission on May 2, which resulted in bin Laden's death, Clinton played a key role in the administration's decision not to release photographs of the dead al-Qaeda leader.

I have also only used book cites for the first part of this. That's because books are generally valued more as sources than news articles are; because they are shorter, take less space, and have faster load times; and because they don't have links that go bad or disappear behind paywalls. Past FACs have urged the use of book cites as much as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)