User:TParis/Clinton naming

BD2142's Research

Worth noting, but not given additional weight, Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Move_rationale

Self identity

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_st_date-desc-rank?unfiltered=1&qid=1396913091&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AHillary+Clinton&sort=date-desc-rank - Amazon book search based on the most recent publications shows a preference for using "Rodham"
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton - Official Twitter drops "Rodham"
http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/ - Offical website drops "Rodham"
Regarding an email to Clinton's 'people' by Jimbo Wales regarding this issue, ""To your question, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be the preference." is the response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Policies

Type	Shortcut	Quote
Policy	WP:COMMONNAME	"Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." [6]"Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages"
Policy	WP:CONCISE	"The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area."
Policy	WP:FULLNAME	"While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph"
Policy	WP:TITLE	"Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary"
Policy	WP:CRITERIA	"A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles."
Policy	WP:TITLECHANGES	"Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" "If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense"
Policy	WP:IAR	"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Policy	WP:BLP	"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
Guideline	Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)	"The "<First Name> <Last Name>" format applies to the majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia." "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format." "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised."
Essay	WP:UNDAB	"Title minimization, (a.k.a. title concision, title succinctness, or avoiding unnecessary precision in titles) is generally preferred to help us achieve the goal of long-term title stability and reducing conflict about titles" "Like all WP:CRITERIA, consistency is but one consideration" "disambiguation is not necessary unless there are other articles that discuss a topic with the same name"
Essay	WP:SURPRISE	"The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."
Essay	WP:OFFICIALNAMES	"Official English names are candidates for what to call an article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." "Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current."
Essay	WP:Systematic bias	"The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited by systemic bias that discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia."

Arguments regarding WP:COMMONNAME

Reliable sources

"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)"
"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)"
"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"."
"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"
"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)"
"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)"
- "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."
"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...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)"
"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"-- Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)" (Endorsed by: Tonythetiger)
"The trends seem to be quite clear in moving away from routine use of her middle name. There's no reason we shouldn't follow suit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:CONCISE

"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. bd2412 T 12:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)"
"It does, and am glad you pointed that out. It shows the system here works and WP:CONCISE is not a reason to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". Look at the names in the disambiguation pages. Philip Hoffman (Broadway actor)(no article, how many characters in THAT title?). Mark Lindsay Chapman(Who?). Mark Chapman (broadcaster). Mark Chapman (cricketer). All with as many, or more, characters than this article. Dave Dial (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)"
"We are to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic". There is no question that in this case HC and HRC both identify the topic spectacularly well. --B2C 05:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:FULLNAME

"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. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "

Arguments regarding WP:TITLE

"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) "

Arguments regarding WP:CRITERIA

"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....--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:TITLECHANGES

"since the article was stable and there is no real controversy or reason to change the article title other than varying opinion....I would support this RFC being closed as disruptive.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:IAR

Misogyny

"I tend to agree with this point. It seems that all available evidence is that in this particular case it doesn't matter from the perspective of search engines being able to direct people appropriately. It probably does matter from the perspective of understanding - it's an important part of her public persona that she has chosen to keep her birth name in this fashion. (Naming conventions are changing, and she's an important catalyst in that.) And it certainly matters from a BLP perspective - and that's true even though it is a relatively minor matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"

Chosen name

"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)"
"Both names are commonly used. HRC is the name she has expressly said she prefers. Whenever we can do so without affecting the utility of the encyclopedia we should title a biography with the subject's preferred name. It's the human, respectful thing. Doing so in this case will not negatively affect the reader experience, so in this case we should do it. Doing otherwise - disregarding the subject's naming preference in deference to a trivial wiki-rule - diminishes the encyclopedia. This is an IAR argument.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)"
""To your question, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be the preference." is the response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"
- "I'm sorry Jimbo, but like me, you are not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, nor are "her people". As everyone knows, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources...."[1] Anyway, there's no indication what she prefers her longer name for. Just the Wikipedia article? For every public use?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:BLP

"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.--RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 31 March 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)"
"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)"
"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.Tvoz/talk 04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "
"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)"
"Unlike the Bradley Manning situation, I do not think one could claim that Mrs Clinton finds the use of 'Hillary Clinton' offensive in any way. If she had a meaningful personal preference for including Rodham (which does function merely as a middle name, whatever its origins), then she would ensure that all her material uses Rodham. Since this does not happen, and she regularly uses 'Hillary Clinton', we are violating WP:NPOV and WP:V by speculating on her personal feelings. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:Naming conventions (people)

Arguments regarding WP:UNDAB

""Rodham" is an unnecessary disambiguator, and she's most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"
"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)"

Arguments regarding WP:SURPRISE

"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. bd2412 T 12:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)"

Arguments regarding WP:OFFICIALNAMES

Legal Name

"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"
"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":" (Endorsed by: GabeMc, Davey2010)

Official Sources

"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."
"First, per the subject's name appearing as "Hillary Clinton" on all United States Democratic Presidential Primary ballots in 2008" (Endorsed by: GabeMc, Davey2010)
"Comment The Clinton Foundation website uses both names. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)"

Biographies/Autobiographioes

"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)"

Arguments regarding WP:Systematic bias

"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) "

Votes


Argument	Vote	Comment	WP:Commonname	WP:Concise	Argument based on frequency in sources	Biographies prefer one form over another	Recentism	Hillary Rodham was a notable person before Hillary Clinton	Subject prefers/uses one name over the other	Higher quality sources prefer one over the other	Past consensus	Legal Name	WP:OFFICIALNAMES	Sources are divided	More significant sources prefer the "Rodham"	Name usage on voting ballots	Examples of subject being introduced	Self-identification in campaign ads	I have heard X	Other reason
12.177.80.66	1						1
AjaxSmack												-1
Red Slash	1		1	1
In Ictu Oculi	1				1
SmokeyJoe	-1					-1	-1	-1
Wasted TimeR	-1								-1	-1						-1	-1	-1
Tarc	-1										-1
Irn			1
Timrolpickering	1		1	1									1
Zarcadia	1		1
Muboshgu	1		1
Huwmanbeing	-1		-1		-1						-1			-1	-1	-1	-1
bd2412	1															1	1	1
GabeMc	1	"Per bd2412"																		Use the version she uses for politics
Omnedon	-1	Per Huw									-1
XXSNUGGUMSXX												-1
Torquemama007	1																		1
Epicgenius	1	Full name not necessary			1						1
Davey2010	1	Per bd2412	1	1
Gareth E Kegg	-1	Per Huw								-1
RGloucester					-1	-1	-1												-1
I am one of many	1		1						1						1
Anythingyouwant	1					1
DeCausa	1		1																1
BMK	1		1
OhNoitsJamie	1		1	1
Cdtew	1		1													1
Msnicki	1		1		1
Cwobeel	1		1
Goethean	1
Visviva	1	Per above	1

Mark Schierbecker	1		1
B2C	1	Per Undab
- WPGA2345 -	1		1	1
Dralwik	1		1
Hot Stop (Edits)	1		1	1
Tvoz	-1					-1			-1	-1	-1
Dezastru	1		1	1									1
Yaksar	1		1
Necrothesp	1		1
James	1		1
Obi-Wan Kenobi	1	WP:CRITERIA
-Milowent	1		1				1
TJ Spyke	1		1
BDD	1			1
Wolbo	1		1	1

Fut.Perf. ☼	1		1
Dave Dial	-1		-1						-1	-1					-1		-1		-1
AdamBMorgan	1		1
TonyTheTiger	-1	Per DD2K
Flatterworld	1		1
Kreznik	1	SPA?	1

Knowledgekid87	1		1
doncram	0	Flip a coin
Kennithhaw88	1		1
MelanieN	-1							-1	-1
ColonelHenry	-1	Equally common
DeistCosmos		Oppose HRC
Mark Miller	-1								-1
Cas Liber	-1								-1
Cullen328	-1									-1
NorthBySouthBaranof	1						1
Lankiveil	1		1
Torchiest	-1	mixed	-1				-1
Anthonyhcole	-1								-1

Neotarf	-1								-1
DHeyward	-1								-1
Orser67	1		1
86.170.98.9	1		1																1
Alanscottwalker	-1		-1
Total Support	45		34	9	3	1	3	0	1	0	1	0	2	0	1	2	1	1	3
Total Oppose	-19		-4	0	-2	-3	-3	-2	-9	-5	-4	-2	0	-1	-2	-2	-3	-1	-2
NET	26	0	30	9	1	-2	0	-2	-8	-5	-3	-2	2	-1	-1	0	-2	0	1

Notes so far

None of this is representative of my final overview of the consensus, I am just noting bits and pieces that will compromise the final outcome.

The WP:BLP argument seems to fall flat at face value. Clinton has shown no opposition to the use of "Hillary Clinton" and the already wide usage in reliable sources really dampens any damage Wikipedia could cause. The real WP:BLP violation is the insinuation that either Hillary or Bill Clinton believe that he "owns" her if she drops the use of "Rodham". No evidence of such an abusive relationship is presented and the assertion is rejected in the strongest sense.
The subject seems to prefer "Hillary Clinton" for publicity and political advocacy, but prefers "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for official items and biographies based on the subject's own campaign ads and website, as well as the subject's own books and personal correspondence with Jimbo.
Recentism is opposed by some !voters, however, WP:Article titles specifically calls for special adherence to recentism. "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change." However (again), no official name change or declaration of a change of preferred name has occurred; only a change by the media.
The trend of recent results use "Hillary Clinton" using multiple searches and multiple search engines. This trend evens out when looked at in a longer perspective.
COMMONNAME appears to be satisfied for both "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
Wikipedia has a systematic bias which tends to promote male persuasion. This persuasion may contribute to an insensitivity toward the importance of a family or maiden name.
"Rodham" is a part of her public persona
WP:TITLECHANGE recommends not changing from one controversial title to another
"Hillary Clinton" is supported by !voters a net 26 more than opposes
This naming question differs from the Chelsea Manning case and is not comparative. This case does not deal with questions of gender identity and the Chelsea Manning case can therefore not be used as precedent. That would be an oversimplification of the issues with both article titles.