Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 10 April 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hillary Clinton. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hillary Clinton at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be? A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated. Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives? A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign. Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}! A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted. Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies? A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD. Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it. A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.

Hillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 21, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept February 28, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept May 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept June 6, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept December 13, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Arkansas / Cape Cod and the Islands / Presidential elections High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Pascal Harter (2008-04-08). The World Today, BBC World Service. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. . Jeopardy!. 2008-05-07. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary Clinton Discussions: RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move (admin panel closure), closed 21 April 2014 MR, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus, default to endorse, and procedural restrictions established: No further move request may be started until February 2015, and between February 2015 and February 2017, or the closure of the next valid move request, whichever is earlier, no move request is to be made unless it is at least 5,000 characters in length, closed 31 May 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Secretary Clinton, Speedy close since another RM open (non-admin closure), closed 17 April 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary (politician), Speedy close as unlikely and potentially disruptive (non-admin closure, rapidly endorsed by admin), closed 27 April 2014 Note: See moratorium (expiring February 2015) and additional restrictions (expiring February 2017) recorded above. Older discussions: RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 12 February 2007 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move (malformed move request, non-admin closure), closed 21 December 2007 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 18 June 2011 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 20 November 2012 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved to Hillary Clinton (non-admin closure), closed 18 June 2013 MR, Closure as move of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved back to Hillary Rodham Clinton (no clear consensus for the previous move), closed 28 June 2013 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Speedy close as no consensus (non-admin closure), closed 24 February 2014

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

2RR, no BRD, is Senator capitalized in context?

I'll admit to habitually failing to engage in edit war. Because as an editor I think I've grown past the stage of the arguments of a five year old's whine. "Call it a lifestyle."

However, If an FA says that United States Senator is spelled "United States Senator", I can go with that. If WP:MOS concurs, I can go with that. If every "notable person article" I check on WP also spells the term in the context with a capital S I can go with that.

As has recently happened, I've been hit with a 2RR, meaning my undo was undone, by user Cherkash whose skillful edits are beyond repute.

The sequence goes:

lowercase

uppercase

lowercase

Now for the evidence I wish to offer here, I thought I may have to go beyond WP, but I did not: WP:MOS is very clear on two levels:

1) The position is substituted for the person's name. This is particular to the subject heading. That is, the section heading refers back to the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is at at MOS:CAPS § 6 Titles of people, bullet 2.

2) A formal title is treated as a proper name (hence capitalized). As above, bullet 3.

Each bullet is a separate argument, and Cherkash does not address the second in his/her edit.

The above notwithstanding, within the the scope of FAs, the finest articles on WP, and no higher example to appeal, I find this:

In Barack Obama, § 2.3 is "As U.S. Senator from Illinois (2005–08)".

In John McCain, the sentence, "John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona."

Also, in the GA Joe Biden, § 3, "United States Senator"

But let's step out, and zoom out to the wider title, how about, List of current United States Senators?

If we should take Cherkash's learned advice, clearly the title of this article needs to be immediately moved. After all, he/she did argue that all the other articles are wrong (including FAs) in the edit as above and he/she is right of course? Will someone please fix this for me?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be uppercase per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 – a section header like "United States Senator" is a reference to a formal title that is a proper name. Note this uppercase usage appears in not just the List of current United States Senators article title but also in the title of many other lists, see Category:Lists of United States Senators for them, and also in the titles of scores of categories, see the many categories within Category:United States Senators by party and Category:United States Senators. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Under 1RR, BRD, etc., I cannot fix this myself.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a request for response on Cherkash's talk page a few days ago, but he or she seems to be pretty inactive lately. I've restored the upper case usage. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding here to both of the two points raised above (bullet points 2 & 3 of §6 of WP:MOS):

1) Bullet point 2 doesn't apply in the context of the article, as the section's name is not a substitute for Hillary's name: the section doesn't address "Hillary the person" (as would be suggested if indeed the section title were simply a substitute for her name, effectively making this section "Hillary Clinton"), but rather it addresses the position she had during a specific time in her career: "senator" in this case is a reference to a position she held, and not a generic reference to Hillary.

2) Bullet point 3 doesn't apply for a similar reason: "senator" is not a title, but a position. It may be used as a title in certain contexts, but such honorific use is mostly redundant in an encyclopedia: again, the title of the section clearly refers to the position she held at the time, not to her as a person.

Lastly, to address the issues with the naming of List of current United States Senators and other similar articles – indeed, they should probably be changed to the small letters. The example in WP:MOS (King of France vs. French king) is illustrative in this case. cherkash (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial language

"Congressional Republicans challenged her on several points, sometimes triggering emotional or angry responses from her."

The term "triggering" has odd and unverifiable connotations. It suggests her replies were unintentional and calls to mind contemporary debates over "triggers."

"Eliciting" would be a decent synonym, or perhaps replacing everything after the comma with "to which she sometimes responded angrily or emotionally." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.85.114 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of replacing everything after the comma with "to which she sometimes responded angrily or emotionally", or words to that effect. That would be more neutrally phrased than "sometimes triggering", IMO.--JayJasper (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the 'triggering' originally but I agree now that you bring it up that it has unintended connotations. I've reworded this to use 66.176.85.114 and JayJasper's suggestion.

I'll also say that at this point I agree with pulling the exchange-with-Ron-Johnson passage out of the Note and into the main text, which another editor did (I've fixed now up some glitches from that edit). From both the TruthRevolt piece (more on that next) and other cases, it's clear that Notes and their "nb" pointers tend to get missed – alas, I guess no one knows any Latin abbreviations any more. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

TruthRevolt piece

Wasted Time R should be banned from editing the Hillary Clinton page any further, especially in light of his clear POV bias for Secretary Clinton. See this new story - http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-gets-special-protection-wikipedia -- The left wing liberal machine's most loyal guards will do everything in their power to keep the wheel squeaky clean. Shame on you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.219.52 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was removed as a personal attack, but I'm restoring it (minus the directly personal invective) because the TruthRevolt piece by Bradford Thomas merits a response if not the rant around it by IP 99.113.219.52.

Most of the details of this TruthRevolt piece are actually pretty reasonable, but the headline, first sentence, and last sentence are slanted (maybe a website editor tagged those on?). On a couple of recent matters: Regarding the "What difference at this point does it make?" quote being missing, it was there but in a Note that was missed. Per the above section, this and its context have now been pulled into the main text. Regarding the downplaying of the e-mails controversy, that's not the intent; it's more a question of trying to wait for more facts to come out and to have a better chance of avoiding recentism and judging what will pass the WP:10 year test. There are now three different articles with material on this; I'll try to update them a bit over the next day or two.

The greater point, of course, is that this article has no 'special protection' as claimed by the headline. Well, all Misplaced Pages biographies of living people have the WP:BLP level of protection, so biographies here tend to lean a bit in the favorable direction, but that extends across the board. It should be clear that certainly have no special powers here. But it's also important to realize this isn't the only political article I've worked on. Besides being the main researcher and writer of this article and the one who brought it to Featured Article status, I'm also the main researcher and writer of John McCain, Early life and military career of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George W. Romney, all of which have also attained Featured Article status, and I'm the acting main editor on Nancy Reagan, also Featured. My Good Article credits include Joe Biden, Lenore Romney, Charles Rangel, Mike Gravel, and many other political figures. It's safe to assume that I admire some of these people and don't admire others, that I would vote for some of these and not for others, that I think some are undervalued by history while others don't know when to stop talking, and so forth. But I don't think you can tell which is which by looking at the articles.

Anyway, enough of that. I guess it's a badge of honor of sorts to be the subject of a Drudge Report main page link!  :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the bigger question, is whether this, and those pages linked above meet WP:NEU, whether those pages (and this one) have a slightly positive light, or a slightly negative light. Whether this page,or those pages mentioned above, carry the bias of their sources or not. I haven't really edited here (much, I don't remember).

WP:OUTING doesn't apply here as the above editor chose to reveal themselves, and was not outed by another editor. Whether the editor has a WP:COI is a matter of debate, but WP:AGF applies.

Either way, gooday.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely no WP:COI here. I've never worked for any campaign, I've never volunteered for any campaign (modulo a little leaflet distributing four decades ago), I've never donated to any campaign, I don't know any people in any campaign, I don't get paid for this, indeed I lose money if you count newspaper archive stories bought. I do vote, but that's it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A badge of honor indeed, WTR. You're one of the most even-handed editors I've worked with here in my nine years - this is utter nonsense. Congratulations. I'm jealous. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the TR article's reference to "special protection" in no way implies "special powers" (as described above). A straight reading of the TR text indicates simply that one person has committed himself to "shaping" the article to an unusual degree. While the TR article itself raises a debatable issue of WP:COI, as noted by another editor above, It is the mischaracterisation/subtle twisting of the TR article by its subject that one finds troubling. Is this introduction of a red herring an example of the Clinton "shape the article" The New Republic referenced in 2008, and that the TR alludes to in 2015? XavierItzm (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs a watcher, not an owner. WTR has spent years doing just that. It's an amazing job he's done.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"TruthRevolt is a politically conservative media watchdog and activist group founded by conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz". That's all I need to know. David Horowitz is as POV as they come. Wasted Time R, on the other hand, is even handed and fair. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why no one trusts Misplaced Pages anymore. A Hillary insider is outed, and you do nothing but deflect and make excuses. If a former Bush employee was found to be 'protecting' his article for almost a decade, he would be banned so fast that the servers would crash. We know you're biased. The world know it. 75.118.176.163 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I must've missed the part where it was verified that Wasted Time R is a "Hillary insider". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in the White House once in the mid-1990s, does that count? Well, since I waited a long line starting in pre-dawn hours to take the public tour, not exactly. But if I had been a Hillary insider, she wouldn't be in the soup she is now with the e-mails. As a computer professional I would have told her that using her own address and server and security setup was a terrible idea, as a quasi-sorta-historian I would have told her that missing the archival record was a bad idea (and as a computer person again I would have told State to save the things, which it turns out they weren't doing anyway), and as a longtime watcher of the political scene I would have told her that if it ever came to light the optics would be damaging. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Man, having read your old news articles above, and your recent comments on e-mailgate, I had already read your mind on those technical details. Thanks; you and I knew. The perspective from the sources will come.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to, "...quote being missing, it was there but in a Note that was missed. Per the above section, this and its context have now been pulled into the main text...", I disagree that this should be pulled from the Notes and in to the main text because the writer of a news story on another web site was incompetent and missed it. This is not a reason to edit this article. They did not do the simplest of research, or else materially misstated facts (lied). Either way, not our problem. As editors, we need to stand up to this simplest bullying tactic against our articles. They are very short summaries; they are not books. The TR article in question proceeds from an assumption of expecting a comprehensive biography; this is not the right place to get one.

That journalist proceeds from an assumption of unreasonable expectations of an encyclopedia. That is not the encyclopedia's function, to be comprehensive. It's just a quick overview of a subject. The example I give to critics around me: I use it to look up legal terms, but I did not come here expecting to earn a J.D.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"As such, she became the first secretary of state to methodically implement the smart power approach" - preposterous statement.

Any of the prior Secretaries of State had at their disposal, in theory, the manifestations of both hard and soft power, and many wielded these manifestations in verying combinations to achieve the will of their respective US administrations.

As an example, George P Shultz, working for the Reagan administrations in the 1980's, was profoundly responsible for the economic and political demise of the former Soviet Union. During that time, Shultz was also instrumental in securing liberation of numerous Jewish detainees from Soviet prisons through the use of soft power much more so than hard power. It doesn't get much "smarter" than that.

To portray Ms Rodham Clinton, as Secretary of State, as the originator of the deft utilization of hard and soft power (the combination of which being "smart power") is preposterous as a concept, and doing so diminishes the accomplishments of the many highly effective women and men who preceded her in the role.

69.146.62.115 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Jack W Reeve

I agree that everything old is new again and that the things now called hard and soft power have been around for a long time and that of course they can be combined. And yes you can point to past historical eras and point out where the United States in effect used it, including at various stages of the Cold War. But the term itself dates only to the early 2000s and the point here is simply that she was the first secretary to be methodically and consciously operating based on that framework. I think you oversell Shultz's actions as a primary cause for the collapse of Communism, as there are many theories that seek to explain that event (which in reality, came as a surprise to virtually everyone). But for sure it's not her intent to downgrade Shultz's efforts - here at her farewell speech at the CFR she praises his actions during the Cold War. Indeed she has talked about the Secretary of State position as being a relay race where you do the best you can and then pass the baton onto the next person. Also please note that the article doesn't claim she originated the theory and that she is never called Ms (or Mrs) Rodham Clinton - it's not a compound last name. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for a vague and noncommittal response to a clear and simple point. But let's dig into this a little deeper: "But the term itself dates only to the early 2000s and the point here is simply that she was the first secretary to be methodically and consciously operating based on that framework." - so you're stating that Ms Clinton based her "framework" {whatever that means) upon a supposedly chic new entry into the political lexicon? And regarding Mr Shultz, who served as Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and as Secretary of State for nearly SEVEN years, I'll not trade shallow banter about the significance of his astonishing contributions - they are public record. Suffice to say that Mr Shultz's performance and effect in public service outshines Ms Clinton's by unfettered leaps and bounds. I hope I didn't "oversell" this point.69.146.62.115 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Jack W Reeve

Thank you for following up on this, and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, since you raise some good points even though your rhetoric is a bit overheated. Did Clinton base her approach on a chic new entry in the political lexicon? Yes, in part she did, but she's hardly the first secretary to do so; you could consider détente to fall into the same category ... but both could also be considered common sense under a new name, as we each alluded to above. At other times, like all diplomats, she was coping with difficult problems with no easy answers and just trying to find the best path she could regardless of framework or overall philosophy.

Regarding comparisons with other secretaries, the article already states: "Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs or domination of war and peace issues in the mold of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger." That was based on two sources, but I could also add this Foreign Affairs piece to it, which also names Marshall, Acheson, and Kissinger as the fairly recent ones that she is not in the company of. You would clearly like to see Shultz added to this list in the article text. Doing so can't be done based on your opinion or mine, but on reputation, reasonable neutral third-party assessments. There was this recent Foreign Policy poll of IR scholars (scroll down), but it puts Shultz in sixth, behind Hillary and others. In reaction there was this Foreign Policy column by a UT professor which objected mightily to Shultz's low placement, saying "Many foreign policy practitioners and diplomatic historians regard Shultz in the same pantheon as Acheson and Marshall ..." But he didn't supply any sources for that. If you can find a couple of sources that say this about Shultz and explicitly say that Clinton was not in the same pantheon, then I can add Shultz to the comparison in the article.

Regarding comparing Shultz's role in government overall (three Cabinet positions and one Cabinet-level position, all in a low-profile manner) to Clinton's (a First Lady who was sometimes more powerful than a Cabinet officer but sometimes less, a senator, and a Cabinet position, all as one of the most famous people in the world), that would be tough – no really commensurate terms to evaluate them on. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to 69.146.62.115, I feel that as an editor, were I to include any of that in the HRC article, since the term did not come in to existence until the 2000s, that I would blatantly run afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policy. As an editor, I can't "back-write" history; the terminology just did not come in to play that way. Development of words goes forward; Misplaced Pages editors are not allowed to reverse it, regardless of the achievements of a previous SoS.

It seems like most of this discussion belongs to the George P. Shultz article anyway; there's very little room here for comparisons to other SoSes, and what is here in this article, should be adequate to the article already, I feel. Nearly this whole article is essentially a WP:SS, with daughter articles going more in depth on each phase of this biography.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps mislead by the above discussion, which was due to my writing was a bit loose about comparisons and pantheons, @Cwobeel: has tagged the above passage for needing inline attribution due to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But the statement that is in the article – "Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs or domination of war and peace issues in the mold of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger." – is a statement of observational fact, not opinion. It is already sourced to Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times and George Packer in The New Yorker. As mentioned above it can additionally be sourced to this Foreign Affairs piece by Michael Hirsh. It can be sourced to this piece by John Cassidy in The New Yorker. And I'm sure I can find more like this. All of these mention that Clinton did not have huge diplomatic breakthroughs like Nixon going to China or establishing dominating strategies like containment against the Soviet Union or changing the immediate course of history by saving Europe economically. This is just a fact; her supporters would not claim that she did. As the article then says, "Instead, she focused on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect." If those goals end up having a significantly beneficial effect down the road, she might indeed be viewed as a great secretary, but it won't be in the Kissinger/Acheson/Marshall mold.

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies to "Biased statements of opinion", which would be something like "Clinton was not as good a secretary of state as George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger." Yes, that would need inline attribution, because it is not equivalent to the first statement. A lot of people, for example, would conclude that for all of Kissinger's dramatic breakthroughs as de facto and de jure secretary, his prolonging of the Vietnam War and his destruction of the stability of Cambodia and his complicity in the overthrow in Chile and his selling out of the Kurds make him one of the worst in that position, not one of the best. But for what the article is actually saying, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an opinion, nonetheless, and as such it requires attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And to add to it, it is a comparison and all comparisons have a point to make. Either we let the facts speak for themselves, or if we are adding commentary about a comparison, we need to say who is making the comparison. Otherwise it is read in Misplaced Pages's voice and that is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to fix this with a slight attribution to remove the concern of Misplaced Pages's voice, and also re-ordered that paragraph to let facts speak first and the opinions later. Hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk)

If it is an opinion, there are others who hold the opposite opinion. Show me some sources to that effect.

Your version is, to my eyes, worse – it implies that all previous secretaries had signature diplomatic breakthroughs and she didn't. And it comes after the examples of less tangible but more lasting goals, when it should come before them as a lead-in. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is worse. I think it is different; maybe worse. I read the two versions side by side several times. Putting the analysis at the end makes some sense. It suggests that the paragraph may need to fission in to two, for more historical analysis to come.

I do regret losing three wikilinks, it hurts the educational value of the article. I thought we could fit a fourth in, if a comparison to Shultz were found in the sources (another reason to fission the paragraph). We did not lose any source with Cwobeel's changes, that would be verboten to my mind. I guess I'm weebling on the change.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

'However'

@Cwobeel: has removed the word "however" from the article on the grounds that it is "editorializing". Only in Misplaced Pages! Yes, I know it makes an appearance somewhere on the WP:WTA list, but really ... I'd like you to find a book, anywhere, that does not include "however" in it. Does that mean all books are editorializing?

One way this article used it is as an informative connective. Consider the instance you pulled out of the lead. The difference here is essentially between:

"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. However, in Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."

"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. In Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."

The first version indicates to the reader that B and C are related to A in some way and that in some partial way Alice's initial failure was made up for by later successes. In the second version, the reader doesn't know if B and C are related to A at all; it could just be a chronological narrative of things that happened.

In this case, the first version is the correct one historically: passage of SCHIP, the Adoption act, and the Foster Care act represented Clinton's political comeback in her second term as First Lady, after the collapse of her health care plan in the first term.

The other way this article used it is to indicate a significant turn of events, such as Giuliani suddenly withdrawing from the senate race or Clinton winning the New Hampshire primary after being down in the polls and on the ropes after the Iowa loss. It's not editorializing! It's the normal English writing of narrative, just like countless authors have always used it.

Only in Misplaced Pages ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some "howevers" are OK, others are not. The sentences you refer to read really well without the artifact. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to care about grammar, maybe you can fix this horrendous sentence.

Giuliani withdrew from the race in May 2000 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and having developments in his personal life become very public.

- Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess that the sentence is attempting to describe this (from Giuliani's article): Then followed four tumultuous weeks, in which Giuliani's medical life, romantic life, marital life, and political life all collided at once in a most visible fashion. Giuliani discovered that he had prostate cancer and needed treatment; his extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan became public and the subject of a media frenzy; he announced a separation from his wife Donna Hanover; and, after much indecision, on May 19, 2000 he announced his withdrawal from the Senate race. There must be a better, simpler way to describe it in this article than the current rendition. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is trying to convey. I've changed it to "Giuliani withdrew from the race in May 2000 after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and matters related to his failing marriage became public, ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Comment: I do not want to start a new section here. I do not want to address this on your talk page.

What is going on here is post-FA improvement to this article. While some of us recognize and applaud WTR's contributions that brought this article to FA, this is not the time to discuss post-FA improvements. This is the time to appreciate what has been achieved so far.

Editors such as 69.146.62.115 (seen above) will not understand what I'm about to write, and will bring up their criticisms regardless, such as the 'smart power' criticism above, at this time anyway. This is a burden we editors must confront. We must also keep in mind that WTR did not bring this article to FA alone; dozens of editors contributed to the current quality of this article.

In the recent archive, among many criticisms I brought up, a temporal incongruity was found (Tuzla), and hopefully fixed. That went on in the Feb-Mar 2015 time-frame. The article hit FA in Dec 2014. Between Dec 2014 and Mar 2015, we, the editors of Misplaced Pages, did all we could in terms of post-FA improvements.

April 1 is the start of a new fiscal quarter, at which time the FEC mandates U.S. candidates, and potential candidates, admit to their actions, and non-actions, with regard to their fund raising related activities in relation their announced, unannounced, and séance-related activities. According to the news stories I've read, the (non-)candidates optimize their fund-raising numbers by announcing candidacy as close to Apr 1 as possible. In other words, it's going to get really busy around here, real soon, from now until November 2016.

Since the article is at FA, I suggest that we editors do all we can to maintain the status quo on this FA, and reserve our improvement-related suggestions for a later time, when the heat of the American Presidential campaign is no longer affecting this article's editing stance.

I actually have suggestions for improvement to the article that I am withholding due to this issue, quote, "There's a time and a place for everything." The critics and the trolls need the editor's energies now and until the final vote is cast (or in the case the subject of this BLP declines to run in the race).

Or, to put it more simply, let's leave well enough alone for now, OK?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, and shall leave the article alone for now. Happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When I looked through the edit, the only one of Cwobeel's removals of howevers I really agreed with was the one in the lede: There, it can be let go for brevity's sake. The rest of the howevers seem to make perfect sense to me, in the sequential "but" chronological linking sense of the word (and good style, at that).   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2015 (retracted on a technicality)

The following is a closed 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: Summarily closed as per the agreement after the last move. The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately, must be far more in-depth. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – Well its a major article

• http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...".
• Ngrams raw data also favours Hillary Clinton
• "hillary clinton" gets "About 34,100 results" in Scholar

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 13,300 results" in Scholar

• "hillary clinton" gets "About 250,000 results"

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 167,000 results" in books

However this also shows that she has published as "hillary rodham clinton" and may not show quality of results

Also on the other side of the story:

• site:state.gov/ "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets "About 10,500 results" while

site:state.gov/ "Hillary Clinton" gets "About 4,420 results"

Clearly Clinton has a level of recognition that WP:UCRN does not greatly apply but I thought it might be worth considering best name for this and related articles.

• The first line of text starts, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton ...". While I think there is no great loss either way, I think there is a case for presenting common name in title. A current proposal for the text of naturalness would certainly support the change. GregKaye 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but I think it would have been better to wait until she announced (or non-announced) her candidacy, at which point it would become clear what name she was planning to use to prosecute the campaign. Also, this probably would have better been done on a subpage. This is likely to get lengthy, if history is any guide. bd2412 T 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as last time. I see nothing that has changed. In addition, this move violates the terms specified at the top of this talk page. Omnedon (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the 5,000 characters restriction? I agree, this falls short of that. I would suggest that @GregKaye: withdraw the request and initiate a collaborative effort to write up a proposal, to be launched at some future date, but ideally not until there has been a particularly major news event with new information to trigger such a proposition. bd2412 T 03:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• BD2412 the last RM for Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton was over a year ago and, on a purely numbers basis, it got 47 in support and just ~20 in opposition one of whom was Omnedon. I am curious about the claim "there has been no consensus to move it" and will be interested to look into what this may mean. I think that the stronger argument for caution is your noting of a potential announcement of candidacy. The last RM was not introduced with a run through of relevant data. The content of the proposal took a fair amount of research and thought. Depending on immediate responses I would be more than happy to add more content. GregKaye 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, have you read the information about the moves at the top of this page? This move request does not meet the requirements currently in effect and should be withdrawn. Omnedon (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let the request be withdrawn so that I can add another 2429 characters of whatever value to the existing 2571 character content for later use. Any other editor will also be welcome to make use of the content above GregKaye 04:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process. Omnedon (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2015 (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.

edit conflict: Omnedon, The last RM got 47 in support and just ~20 in opposition. You mention there being problems without specifying what they are, you don't propose an option of developing the content, when I have been straightforward in my actions here and have not previously been involved in the page, you talk of "gaming the system". I would not even expect democrats to speak like this . GregKaye 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, the "gaming the system" to which I referred is the proposed act of adding a specified number of characters ("of whatever value") so as to reach the threshold of 5,000. The whole point of that restriction is that new requests should be thorough and in-depth. Also, there is no need to bring national politics into this procedural issue. Omnedon (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon It amazes me when people reply to a name yet can't be bothered to ping. Your words were, "Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process." Please cite a guidelines content so as to justify your claim. Having never before edited this widely accessed page I was very surprised to find that it was not written under the articles natural WP:commonname. Reference to Hilary Clinton's personal website then confirmed this view as did a great amount of my own research. I then submitted a succinct and thought filled request to move. In most situations in which something like this had happened an editor might inform a person to retract and then help them follow the the proper procedure for submission. You have been anything but helpful. All you have done is state that there was some nameless objection and then, with no citation of reasoning why I should not resubmit you talk of gaming the system as with the quoted wording. It may be wise to be careful of WP:boomerang as you issue your unsubstantiated warnings. GregKaye 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon please also note the comment made on close, "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately, must be far more in-depth." You applied a ruling that you didn't specify while, even without trying, I was more than halfway there. What is your justification for saying not to resubmit. GregKaye 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that my reference to national politics was solely in contemplation of the fact that real-world events can have an enduring influence on the common name of an involved subject (for example, the "Sears Tower" being renamed the "Willis Tower", or "Jenna-Louise Coleman" starting to be credited as "Jenna Coleman"). bd2412 T 12:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. I was thinking of the reference to Democrats. Omnedon (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A Hillary Clinton move request, considering it is the umpteenth iteration as well as being very close to the upcoming election cycle, smacks of bad-faith and partisan politics. Tarc (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tarc Of course its being raised. The article title is not her common name. Please strike your aspersion of bad faith. Check edit histories. I have not been involved in editing in relation to topics related to Hillary Clinton. Please at least make some kind of rudimentary checks before your mud slinging bad faith slurs. The practice that led me to the article was by reading through the list of popular Misplaced Pages articles to see if any of the titles seemed inappropriate and this one jumped out at me. Its not common name. Please strike. GregKaye 18:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of motivation, rehashing this for the umpteenth time is a bad idea. Everyone's time could be better spent elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The request has been withdrawn, so there's no rehashing going on at this point. Of course, this is Misplaced Pages, so any editor can propose to move any page, pretty much at any time. If you want to avoid rehashing of this particular issue, I would think that the thing to do would be to make a proposal at WP:VPP or WP:ANI to extend the moratorium for some reasonable additional period. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has changed since the last MR, it is absurd to present the same request with no new shift or name change. Seems to me just another editor with too much time on their hands. Such a freaking waste of time. Dave Dial (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's Assume Good Faith. Not everybody knows the backstory, or the history of this talk page. To THEM it is a new idea, and we do encourage people to WP:Be bold. Closing it was the right thing to do, but there's no need to bash the person who proposed it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial All I saw when I was directed withdraw the RM (and warned about gaming should I resubmit) was that the last RM got 47 in support and just ~20 in opposition. This was after seeing evidence of usage which is very indicative of co indicative of common name as hillary clinton. The RM to her commonname was over a year ago. The whole thing seems bizarre to me. GregKaye 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, not everyone likes pinging. As for what I've said already, I stand by it. As for the rest -- what was not helpful was this move request and your attitude. You are not a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, and it is not my job to help you reformulate a bad move request when I don't even agree with it. In any case, all you had to do was read the notes at the top of this page to see that this was problematic, but your research did not go in that direction. There is no policy that states that you cannot file one request after another; but that doesn't mean it is helpful to the process. It is not. Omnedon (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon Now you are casting slurs about my attitude. Please justify your comments or strike them. You still have not made sense of your statement "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process.". In the Non-admin closure it was even said "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately,.." Please cite which part of the system you have been working within here. My attitude is regularly fine until people start making unsubstantiated insinuations and making, as I see it, false restrictions. Which precise process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM? GregKaye 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not insinuated anything, nor have I slurred you. I have simply made an observation. I also did not "direct" you to do anything. Let's move on. Omnedon (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon In a context in which people are being accused of partisan politics I have asked, I think fairly, you to justify your content. Your words were: "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process.". What gaming? What process? "Which precise process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM?" If we are talking about a system please do not make allusion to content that just is not there. GregKaye 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Omnedon (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon "Asked" yes! and again "Which ... process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM?" What are you talking about? I am asking a straightforward question regarding qualification of what seems to me to be an utterly unreasonable and I am beginning to assume partisan objection. GregKaye 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye:, just to follow up on one point, I realize you haven't been involved in this article before, but if you expand the full history at the top of the talk page, there have been at least 9 move requests in the past, all of which have ended up with the article staying where it is. So for those of us who have been working on the content of this article during all this time, you can imagine that going through these move debates again and again gets more than a little tiresome, especially since the same arguments for and against keep getting repeated. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasted Time R While "past" includes pretty much the entirety of known time I think that it is specifically worth pointing out that the first presented move request was in 2007 and a number of the requests didn't progress into substantial discussions as, for various reasons, they were closed down early. Also, I think, of note was that one RM (with 11 in support and 10 in opposition) was temporarily regarded as a successful move. On the basis of information presented below I think that the results of previous RMs have been borderline at best. This is a high traffic article. The title is important. GregKaye 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sand tub for a potential RM.

Hi, I'm Greg. I'm not here gaming the system as has been, I think, distastefully mentioned. I am certainly not here with partisan politics and I equally find that aspersion to be utterly uncalled for and bizarre. The only thing that, from my perspective, I do feel partisan for is that Misplaced Pages should be a reliable source of unbiased representational information. I am a reasonable fan of Hilary/Hilary Rodham Clinton and was more than surprised at the fuss kicked up through the various very occasional RMs. Depending on candidacy running name I suggest that consideration be given to a potential RM.

I am happy for my text to form a basis of an RM or for another completely different text to be adopted. Anyway I am pasting my content below and am happy for anyone to add content or comment. I will add a comments sub heading below the "sand tub" text incase anyone wants to report on additions of amendments to this text. Do with it what you will.

GregKaye 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything below this point can be edited

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – ...

• http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...".
• Ngrams raw data also favours Hillary Clinton
• "hillary clinton" gets "About 34,100 results" in Scholar

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 13,300 results" in Scholar

• "hillary clinton" gets "About 250,000 results"

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 167,000 results" in books

However this also shows that she has published as "hillary rodham clinton" and may not show quality of results

Also on the other side of the story:

• site:state.gov/ "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets "About 10,500 results" while

site:state.gov/ "Hillary Clinton" gets "About 4,420 results"

Clearly Clinton has a level of recognition that WP:UCRN does not greatly apply but I thought it might be worth considering best name for this and related articles.

• The first line of text starts, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton ...". ...

Comments regarding the development of a potential RM text

feel free to add further comments about the development of a text

• There is nothing new here. Maybe a campaign launch for president abandoning "Rodham" would be significant new information. As it is, it has all been said before, it is disruptive to a talk page supposedly used to discuss improvements to the article, move it to a subpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe see, I think, new argument in relation to official name below. GregKaye 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• An RM for this article is pretty much d.o.a. Move on and find something worthwhile to do. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tarc In the previous thread you presented insinuation of "partisan politics" and are asked to strike. Now you lay claim, with evocative language, that a move would be: "d.o.a.". Again please justify or strike as an unsubstantiated and I think questionably motivated assertion.

As a Neutral and if anything favourable observer who simply wants to build encyclopedic content I would say that this issue was very much alive. I would say that efforts to find an optimal name for a highly traffic Misplaced Pages should not neutrally be insinuated as being something not worthwhile to do and I would question whether you have a conflict of interest in regard to this topic.

• The last RM had closing comments including: "70% of editors who expressed a support/oppose opinion supported the move, and about 76% of those supporting did so at least in part on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. While a lot of evidence was presented on both sides, neither was able to establish that one version was in fact the common name (determined by prevalence in reliable sources). This was partially due to a split in the sources, with official, print, and biographical sources more often preferring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and news, online, and political sources more often preferring Hillary Clinton." I have started with presentation of content which I think is clearly indicative of commonly recognisable name as supportive of "Hillary Clinton" (and please note that I compiled this from the perspective of being a big fan of the likes of Obama and both Clinton's - there is nothing partisan - please strike earlier comment).
• WP:CONCISE was also raised in favour of title as "Hillary Clinton" but I do not personally think that it is in any way encyclopedic to argue for name changes just on the basis that you can hack out words.
• WP:OFFICIALNAME was raised in favour of the title "Hillary Rodman Clinton" but I have presented, I believe, new evidence that the site http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents: "Hillary Clinton" and to this I can add that the site http://hillaryclinton.com/ simply presents "Hillary". (Note: the domain: http://hillaryrodmanclinton.com/ has been in private hands as an advertising site since 16-jun-2011).

GregKaye 07:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not "Rodman". Omnedon (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Which may go to show, from an outsiders perspective, the utter unfamiliarity of the name. GregKaye 14:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

When the name "Rodham" is all over the page, and in the title? Omnedon (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Coffee (Not User:Coffee, though, he's fine) almost sprayed the keyboard on that one. Rodman, heh. Anyways, if the arguments are boiling down to length of URLs now, then that's a sign that the pro-rename crowd is getting a bit thin in the rationale department. Nothing has changed sine the last discussion, where a 3-admin panel found a split in sources using one name vs the other. What Clinton has chosen for her official website name and later on her likely 2016 campaign name does not tip the scales at all. Short URLs are favored because of brevity and that they are easier for potential visitors to remember, they have notihng to do with one's legal or common name. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: - You mean, where a 3-admin overturned a consensus from 70% of respondents for a rename? As I'd said at the time, consensus being ignored by BLP fundamentalists (e.g. User:Tarc) would simply lead to this debate getting rehashed.

Tarc - You give "disingenuous" and "misleading" new meaning. You know exactly how controversial that "3-admin" decision was, and to say something like "An RM for this article is pretty much d.o.a." is so ridiculous and so bigoted as to simply be dishonest.

Get ready for the rehash.

@GregKaye: - Good work on working setting this up, and posting it here for review. I might do a little to formalize the RM, and reference past conversations on this topic. Standby...... NickCT (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, a percentage does not define consensus. There was no consensus to be "overturned". You seem to be making a personal attack here. Omnedon (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon With no justification or citation you have said "what was not helpful was ... your attitude" please consider carefully your views on personal attack. You, on the other hand, still refuse to answer questions and justify your own extreme comments. Welcome to U.S. style politics eh. Famously this has not been about presenting the merits of your own position but attacking the opposition and undermining the opposition. No one here should say things they cannot verify. Honestly IMO the assertion by Tarc re: d.o.a. was one of the most unnecessarily dramatic, bizarre and unjusified things I have seen on Wiki. I have shown new content. GregKaye 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Omnedon: - With due respect, you were opposed in the last move discussion. What you, and folks like Tarc seem to consistently fail to accept or admit is that the so called "3-admin panel" came to their opinion against a fairly overwhelming majority of respondents (whether you want to call it a "consensus" or not, I really don't care). Until you begin to acknowledge the that fact, statements like "RM's are D.O.A" are simply dishonest. If feel saying such is a personal attack, please, please report me. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, to say that I was opposed is an odd way to state it; there were many people on both sides. But what I'm referring to is you calling another editor disingenuous and misleading and applying the term bigoted. Please moderate. Omnedon (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Omnedon: - re "Odd way" - What? How is it odd. You were opposed. Do you want me to point at the exact line where you wrote opposed?

re "Please moderate." - I'll tell you what Omnedon. I'll moderate as soon as you or Tarc acknowledge that the 3-admin panel over turned a large majority of respondents. The term "bigoted" means one who is obstinately stuck to one opinion. Being unable to acknowledge your opponents' points is the exact behavior of a bigot. The term applies, and is appropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The results of the panel decision speak for themselves. The undisputed fact that there were more on one side than the other does not speak to whether the decision was right or wrong. There being no consensus to make the move, the article was not moved. If you choose to engage in name-calling, that will speak for itself too. Omnedon (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The broader community spoke, and there seemed to be a clear indication from the broader community that the higher quality argument was the move argument. This was evidenced not by the fact that there were more on one side, but by the fact that there were overwhelmingly more on one side.

I'm not name calling. "Doody head" is an example of name-calling. "I think you're a bigot because you fail to acknowledge others' points", is not an example of name calling. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see now the source of the confusion on the first issue you mentioned. I read it that I was opposed by others. I see now that you meant that I opposed the move. Of course -- that's not disputed. But that has no relevance in the current discussion. There naturally tend to be people on various sides of any issue. Omnedon (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It does have relevance, because, oddly, everyone who was opposed (i.e. you and Tarc), doesn't seem to think this discussion is worth having again. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely that is not surprising. The article is where we believe it should be, so naturally I do not think yet another rehash of past rehashes is worth anyone's time. But that does not exclude me from this discussion. It's irrelevant. And I see you are not stopping after all. Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Omnedon: - Even if I stood opposed, if I recognized that consensus on the topic was tenuous, I'd support more discussion, not oppose it. Establishing consensus through discussion to resolve contentious issues is what WP is all about...... Regardless, Omne, I'm really not trying to call anyone names. Now stopped....  ;-) NickCT (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to note - there was a discussion about having a moratorium on future move requests, with various lengths of time being proposed. I supported that moratorium (I think most of us did), and the amount of time that the community agreed to has now passed. The fact that longer periods were proposed and not accepted suggests to me that the community is not averse to reconsidering the facts on the ground as they evolve over a period of months (in this case, the nine months imposed by the community). Editors who have opposed in the past are likely to continue opposing, and I doubt any new information will change that. The same for editors who have supported in the past. I am frankly most curious to find out what established editors who have not previously participated in this debate think about the matter. bd2412 T 16:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick, if there hadn't already been reams of discussion, I would agree. I am a proponent of discussion. But there seems to be nothing new here and it's all been gone over many times. If it's discussed, fine -- but I don't see the need in this case, and I'm hardly the only one. Omnedon (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It was only "controversial" to the grouches who didn't like it. Everyone at the time agreed that it'd be better and fairer if 3 reputable admins were chosen to close the RM so that the result would be on more solid ground and more resistant to whiners who didn't get their way. You don't get to attack the closing admin panel and their findings just because you disagree with the end result; THAT is what is disingenuous. If you have no respect for the community and its members when it reaches a decision on a dispute, then you really have no business participating in a collaborative editing environment. Go blog. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Tarc in addition to your previous misconduct please strike whiners. You have previously assumed bad faith against someone with no previous connection to the topic. From an outsiders perspective I don't see justification for common name and it seems to me that the topic has been misrepresented. Do not be surprised if people complain. GregKaye 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: - Again mis-characterizing the argument. Again strawman argument. I didn't say I was attacking the admin panel because I didn't like their argument. II was attacking the admin panel b/c they overturned the opinion of an overwhelming majority of respondents.

Regardless, I should have learned by now that trying to get rational, level headed, and fair debate from you is like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. I'll quit beating this dead horse, and simply wish you the best in the coming rehash of this debate. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The admin panel did not "overturn" a consensus, they found no conesnsus in the overall discussion. That one side had a numerical advantage shows how weak their argument was, if a smaller number of opinions were able to counterbalance it. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this avenue of discussion does not pertain to the content of the article, I would suggest calling a stop to it until there is something to discuss. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: - Seconded and stopped. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Prior to the campaign fought with BO, Hillary... announced "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President". I think that this and anything similar could be added to an OP. GregKaye 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  So every time Mrs. Clinton does not utter the word "Rodham" when self-referencing, that's like another tally mark on the sheet for you to "prove" Hillary Clinton is the common name? Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming campaign

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

Thanks for the heads-up, mysterious IP from the UK. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have all received the "reliable information". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - Shhhhhh..... It's secret. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note article title "Hillary Clinton To Announce Presidential Bid On Sunday". GregKaye 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Hillary Clinton" AND Announce AND (Presidential OR President) AND Sunday gets "About 37,600 results" in news for the last month

"Hillary Rodham Clinton" AND Announce AND (Presidential OR President) AND Sunday gets "About 5,490 results" in news for the last month

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

GregKaye 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) edited GregKaye 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And the headline of yesterday's WaPo article was A new campaign slogan for Hillary Rodham Clinton: Think small. This is the sort of game we could do all day, cite examples of usage of both names. Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton bring readers to the same exact article; this has really always been a solution in search of a problem. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You could play this game all day, and then you could just follow policy and do what WP:COMMONNAME tells us to do. That is to check all English language sources and figure out which one is the most common name. As was made clear, again and again in the last debate, when you do that, you'll find Hillary Clinton is the most common name. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT I agree and view any gameplaying to be uncalled for.

• Tarc yet the "WaPo" produces the following results:

• site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 67,100 results"

site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 16,700 results"

• site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary clinton" gets "About 3,600 results" in the last month

site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 791 results" in the last month

Also see actual references for searches:

• site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary clinton" OR "hillary rodham clinton" anytime and
• site:www.washingtonpost.com/ "hillary clinton" OR "hillary rodham clinton" for the last month

Even here the vast majority of titles make their reference to "Hillary Clinton".

Similar searches should also be done for newspapers across the English speaking world.

I think that whatever happens on Sunday an RM may be called for on what seems to me to be an extremely suspect title.

GregKaye 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We already followed policy the last time, when 3 admins closed the discussion as such. After a point this just becomes like an AfD, when partisans nominate and re-nominate and re-nominate an article year after year, hoping that the Wiki-Slot Machine will come up in the combination of editors and closing admin(s) that will produced the result that they already think should happen. This is gaming the system. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that a new move request should not be allowed, the thing to do is propose at WP:VPP or WP:ANI to extend the moratorium on proposed moves, or make it permanent. bd2412 T 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to clear the air on this question, I have initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair notification of pending RM

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

• Obviously, in order to avoid any appearance of bias, any admins who have previously closed discussions on this subject should refrain from participating in the closing of any new discussion. There are more than enough admins to go around to accomplish that. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously. Though I'd be interested to hear from the old admins on whether any opinions have changed, or on whether they have any reflections. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as this old admin goes - I never had an opinion to begin with, and I have even less of an opinion now that I am retired. Good luck.--v/r - TP 17:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about common name

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

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jonathan Swift would give the endless WP debate over her name the contempt it deserves, IMO. Absolutely and utterly unbelievable. Does it really matter? WP is full of editors who have no sense of proportion, or clearly nothing better to do with their free time. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Tarc's editing restriction

Tarc is currently under editing restrictions from gender-related issues. I have asked at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement whether his continued involvement here is affected by that. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

propose change to opening sentence

At present it reads:

• Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is a former United States Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady of the United States.

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

Hillary Rodham Clinton or Hillary Clinton :

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

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

GregKaye 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's way to convoluted. Current version is preferred. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Awkward and unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• FA-Class Arkansas articles
• High-importance Arkansas articles
• WikiProject Arkansas articles
• FA-Class Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• Mid-importance Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• FA-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• FA-Class Women writers articles
• Mid-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press