Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 14 June 2013

Hillary Clinton has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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 Current status: Good article

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

How did this get in the article?

This is currently part of Hillary Clinton's article. How did it make it in the article if it's locked for editing? Clearly this is wrong: Admission of US support to terrorist groups Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the soviet union, and she even considers that as a good thing. But she claims that the Americans are fighting Al-Qaeda nowadays. She also admits that US funded Mujahaddin and then left it for Pakistan government to deal with.

It was just added by some editor a few hours ago and I've removed it. If you look at the actual YouTube clips, they are completely unexceptional - she just goes over the familiar history of the eventual blowback from the U.S. support of anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. The point she's making is that even good ideas at the time can turn out to have very unintended consequences down the road. The text the editor added is not a fair representation of what she was saying, and her real position (which is hardly controversial) belongs in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Images

We could use a discussion on updating images. I would like to see if we can replace the main infobox image, add at least one image (her official painting) and perhaps revisit whether or not to have the graphic poll images. I still see this as being given too much weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally open to replacing the top photo if you can come up with something more current that can pass for a portrait and is of good quality and that WP has rights to. The official painting of her as First Lady done by Simmie Knox was thrown out years ago as not being public domain or fair use. (I can't find the discussion that led to that right now, but I remember it clearly.) The Gallup Poll favorability ratings definitely belong, as they graphically tell her story vis à vis public opinion and several mainstream publications printed similar charts at the end of the Sec State tenure. However, I really need to update the chart for the most recent years. I'm also open to combining all the years in one chart, instead of having three or four ones for different time periods. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I remember that deletion discussion on the painting now. I believe it is because the copyright is still retained by the artist and there has been no attempt to OTRS it for permissions (which the artist may or may not be interested in doing). I think the charts are being given undue weight on her biography and can't help but wonder if the article could make it to FA if we split off into something like Public image of Hillary Rodham Clinton using those public poll in that article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In general, WP articles tend towards the wordy and need more charts, tables, and illustrations, not less. What is undue weight about graphically showing that she used to be very polarizing but now has widespread public acceptance? This evolution over time was dominant in the media coverage as she ended her Sec State tenure. And the existence of the chart has nothing to do with whether the article could make FA or not. The three previous FACs (one of them has a restart in the middle of it, so really counts as two) were all miserable experiences that ended in failure, in the last case because (IMO) the FAC delegates lost their nerve. The Mitt Romney FACs this past summer and fall were a miserable experience that ended in failure followed by an even more miserable experience that ended in success. The John McCain FACs five years ago were a miserable failure and a surprisingly easy success. Overall that's an 86 percent misery rate on FACs of active presidential candidates or possible candidates, which doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness to me. And in any case I still need to do more work on the Secretary of State section when I get the time, and there's a couple of books published in the last two years that I need to go through for useful content as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up – I have gone ahead and replaced the three separate favorable/unfavorable ratings charts with a single one, and updated that one to include the most recent results. I think this way the broad sweep of change in her ratings is easiest for the reader to see. I have added a caption and source that explains the biggest change points. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Impeachment committee role

Clinton's involvement in watergate is only briefly mentioned here, and the article only discusses how she was a member of the impeachment staff and was responsible for researching procedures of impeachment. Somehow, the part where she was "fired for lies and unethical behavior" is left out. There are multiple sources that confirm this: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621 http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/60962/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrockets (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

She was not fired by anyone. I have not seen any reliable, mainstream sources that say that Zeifman was even her supervisor on the committee. The Bernstein bio says that Bernard Nussbaum was her immediate supervisor (pp 96-97). The author of the piece you link to is a conservative op-ed writer who started his own news service which then folded. It's been republished by WorldNetDaily and by some site linked to Herman Cain, which are about as far from reliable sources as you can get. Were there differences of opinion on the committee about historical precedents and how those should influence the course in the Watergate case? No doubt. Did those amount to some grand conspiracy to do in Nixon while protecting the Kennedys, as Zeifman seems to think? There are no mainstream sources that support this that I have seen. Neither the Bernsein bio nor the Gerth/Van Natta bio say anything about this. They say mostly that Hillary like others worked long, sometimes tedious hours, and that she and the few other women on the staff had to post a sign telling the male staffers that they were not there to make coffee for them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"She is the most widely traveled secretary during her time in office" is awkward, both because of the verb tense (it's kind-of shifting between present and past) and because it's unclear whether it means just Sec'y of State or all kinds of secretaries. Please change it to "She became the most widely travelled Secretary of State during her time in office". 2001:18E8:2:1020:CDCA:8938:1F9F:A938 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 (June 2013)

The request to rename this article to Hillary Clinton has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – Per WP:COMMONNAME. I can't believe the current title has survived several requests to move it to the most common and concise name used to refer to this article's topic. I call WP:YOGURTRULE.

Anyone pointing out the current title is her "official" name really needs to read WP:OFFICIAL.

Besides the groundless "official name" argument, what basis is there to keep the current title? That some reliable sources use it some times? So what? More sources use the proposed title more often, and that's what matters. The longer title is not more recognizable - everyone knows who "Hillary Clinton" is. B2C 22:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify something for those who might not investigate it - the "Yogurt Rule" being invoked by the nominator is an essay that the nominator, Born2cycle, wrote a month ago. No one else has contributed to it and there is no discussion of it anywhere. And Born2cycle was an involved participant in the Yogurt name debate. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the nominator's "Yogurt Rule" essay is based a misstatement of fact, as I have pointed out on the essay's talk page. IMO this essay should not be invoked or used as any kind of "rule". --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get twisted into an argument over the YogurtRule, however one may feel about it's invocation. The are several solid reasons for changing the article name, as discussed in this thread. Dezastru (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose again. This is now the fifth time this has been raised. Everyone also knows who "Hillary" refers to, but we don't make that the name of the article. I don't have time right now to repeat the arguments against this move, nor do I think it is productive to keep bringing it up, with all respect. See Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, for starters. Tvoz/talk 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The community has decided that Hillary has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so the dab page is located there. If Hillary redirected to this article, you might have a point with that. As to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, she's originally notable, and more notable, for being a Kennedy; that is not the case for Mrs. Clinton. --B2C 23:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The community has also decided, four times - most recently just months ago - that this article is properly named. Wasted Time R's recap below sums up the arguments quite well, and I concur completely. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is the best title for this person, but the issues with Hillary Clinton are not identical. PatGallacher (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Wholeheartedly support this proposal. There's been a marked shift over the years in the most common name used for Clinton. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was very commonly used throughout the 1990s, but in the past 5 years or so, Hillary Clinton has become predominant. Sure, you'll still see that official name Hillary Rodham Clinton on her book covers, but most references to her now are just "Hillary Clinton," or "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." Jackie Kennedy was never better known as Jacqueline Onassis or Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis than as Jacqueline Kennedy, so that is not a comparable case. Dezastru (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for this "marked shift"? And the Jackie case is comparable. "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O" all get more Google hits than "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" does, and by the crude common name argument should win. But we correctly locate the article at "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" because that was the name she used in the latter stages of her life and the name that serious media refered to her by then and after her death. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My evidence comes from having lived through both periods and been generally aware of terms in common parlance in both periods. However, since you seem to want harder "evidence" than that, I see that a search of NewsBank's archives for mentions of text "hillary clinton" vs "hillary rodham clinton" in English-language news sources in the United States produces the following results:

before 2008

"hillary clinton"                   247,271

"hillary rodham clinton"      267,935

after 2008

"hillary clinton"                   330,384

"hillary rodham clinton"      159,883

NewsBank searches are a crude way of looking at this question, and are subject to a number of limitations, but these data accord with my general sense of how the terms are used more broadly. Dezastru (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

News searches often get misleading hits for the shorter form, as I discussed regarding your stats below. Anyway, I don't see these numbers as a compelling reason to change existing practice. In both cases they are in the same ballpark and as I've said below, correctness and serious/official use and BLP self-identification should be the determinant. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In the same ballpark? No, they are NOT in the same ballpark. In recent years, "Hillary Clinton" has been mentioned TWICE as often as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the NewsBank archives. A 200% higher number is not "in the same ballpark." Dezastru (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's 100%, not 200%. And I'm using the phrase in the sense that cities with populations of 100,000-200,000 are in the same league and can be grouped together, compared to say cities of 1-2 million or towns of 10,000-20,000. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that it's "200% of" (not "200% higher than"). The question is which name is most commonly used, so framing the numbers in terms of ranges of population is inappropriate. A more apt comparison would be similar to the question, "In each of these two periods, which political party has held more seats in Parliament, Labour or Tories?" Dezastru (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly yet again. This was already decided here and here and here and here, the last one being only six months ago. All the arguments for and against are going to be the same this time around. This is abuse of process, pure and simple, just like bringing an article to AfD five times because you didn't like the keep decision the first four times. It's basically hoping different people show up to !vote this time around and that you get lucky. That's not how consensus is supposed to work. And if you want a new argument, the Rodham biopic has been much in the news of late - see [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-

207_162-57588014/carey -mulligan-eyed-to-play-hillary-clinton-in-rodham-biopic/ this CBS news story] for example - and so that part of her name will be in even more use than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, just to recap, "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. That's why the biopic is being named Rodham. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a few days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. And we've been through this over and over. Don't people have something better to do here than re-litigate this? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, on all points. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As nom I resent the insinuations here that violate AGF. First, I was not part of any of the previous discussions. Second, the last one resulted in no consensus; nothing was "decided". Last I check the way we reach consensus on WP is through discussion, and that's what this proposal is supposed to encourage.

This is the quintessential case to invoke the WP:Yogurt Rule: currently, WP:COMMONNAME justifies the proposed move; once the article is moved to Hillary Clinton, there will be no good argument based in policy to move it back to this title.

As to your second paragraph, did you even read the proposal? You did not address any of the points there. Have you read WP:OFFICIAL? Then why do you mention that the title reflects her "official" name? WP:COMMONNAME? WP:CRITERIA?

And going by the name of her biopic? Seriously? By that "logic" we should move Margaret Thatcher to The Iron Lady.. or to Margaret "Iron Lady" Thatcher. Please. --B2C 04:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't implying lack of good faith, but you could have looked at the history and seen that this was discussed four times before and most recently six months ago. As for "no consensus", I believe all failed RM's get that designation, regardless of the margin. As for "Yogurt Rule", that's a non-binding essay that seems to translate to "We know we are right in our interpretation of all the rules and guidelines, we don't care what anyone else thinks." And I am bringing up the Rodham film not to indicate we name according to movie titles, but to counter the notion some have presented here that nobody knows about or cares about that part of her name. Wasted Time R (talk)

No, "no consensus" is different from "not moved". The latter means the present title has consensus support; the former indicates that there is no consensus either way. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at these RM's here and here and here and here and more, all were closed as "No consensus" despite complete or near-complete opposition to the move. Maybe the practice varies among person doing the closer, but I do not believe "No consensus" on an RM should be viewed as an invitation to bring it up again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Six months is not a long time when the previous discussion ended in no consensus. The fact that this keeps coming up and is brought up by different people suggests that the current title isn't the best and the fact that some irregular arguments such as WP:OFFICIAL get deployed support that. Yes it can be frustrating when an article title that one prefers is under challenge but that's a consequence of not having consensus for it. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WTR, I note that those close summaries said "no consensus to move page", not simply "no consensus". If no consensus is reached to move the page, then by default it is not moved. "Not moved" might have been better, but the effect seems to be the same. It doesn't say that there was no consensus not to move the page. In any case, I certainly agree that there seems to be no reason to bring this up yet again so quickly. Omnedon (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WTR says, "The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a few days ago." What about the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NPR, The Telegraph, The Guardian? Are these journals less "serious" than the "serious" media you selected? (Incidentally, your assertion that the NYT and WaPo always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention is not correct. The first mention, for articles that involve her as the primary focus, is usually the title, where it is usually rendered "Hillary Clinton," as in the WaPo article to which you have linked.) Dezastru (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are written by different staff than the reporters, and their main concern is to use up minimal space, so yes they take all kinds of shortcuts including with names, sentence forms, verbs without antecedents (the New York Daily News was famous for these), etc. That sheds no light on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question, in reference to your claim that "The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article ... or see any Washington Post story," which is the main argument that you and those who share your opposition to the rename proposal are making. Why are the New York Times and the Washington Post the only "serious media"? Aren't the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NPR, The Telegraph, and The Guardian, which DO NOT generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, just as serious media as the NYT and WaPo? The NYT after all couldn't bring themselves to use the honorific "Ms." or the word "gay" (rather than homosexual) until the mid 1980s. Dezastru (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get that you don't like the NYT, but nevertheless they are considered the most serious media of all the ones you mentioned. Possibly even more influential as a style leader though is the Associated Press, and they also use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference - see here and here and here and here and here and here and so forth. (Small exception: in their one-sentence breaking news alerts, they don't, such as this one and this one. I presume that's again a space issue.) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WTR says, "'Hillary Rodham Clinton' is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here." First, as has already been said in this discussion several times, WP:COMMONNAME is a governing policy. Official names do not hold priority over common names. The first mention in the body of the bio article is the place to put the official name. The title should be the common name. Second, her own preferences, as indicated by usage, have varied over time. Third, as I already pointed out above, there has been a shift in preferences among many media sources for her name in the past 5 years or so, and per Misplaced Pages policy (WP:COMMONNAME), "If the name of a person ... 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." So references to events in Clinton's life in 1993, or to Misplaced Pages discussions on whether to rename the article in 2007, or to "historical reasons" should carry less weight than what has been happening more recently, which is the period in which there has been a shift. Dezastru (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose it was because she so strongly prefers "Hillary Rodham Clinton" over "Hillary Clinton" that when she launched a Twitter account and made her first Tweet today, it was from "Hillary Clinton" @HillaryClinton. Right? Right? Same as when you go to her website, HillaryClintonOffice.com, the FIRST page you see, which has a huge picture of her, says, in large font, "Hillary Clinton." There are only 6 words on that page (two of which are "privacy" and "policy"), so the argument that somebody was making an editorial decision due to space constraints won't wash. Dezastru (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HillaryClintonOffice.com is a skeleton site (who makes a personal web site url with -Office at the end?) and Twitter is, well, Twitter, where if it can't be said in 140 characters it can't be said at all. (Even DYK hooks give you 200.) You can go to the Former Secretary Clinton's Remarks directory at the Department of State site and it, and every single page of hundreds underneath it, from her Arrival at the Department of State in January 2009 to Remarks at Final Town Hall Meeting With Department of State Personnel in January 2013, say "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The name of the person did not change, contrary to what you are asserting. Her new memoir is due out a year from now, per this AP report. If she drops the "Rodham" on the cover of that, then I'll concede she's decided to make a change in how she self-identifies. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're slightly inaccurate about Twitter. There is no character limit on display names as they're not part of the 140 character tweet and so she could easily display her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" if she wished. It's the Twitter username where space is a consideration (and there's a shorter character limit there - I cannot get my standard handle into it). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: WP:TITLE: Recognizability (suggestion is fine), Naturalness (suggestion is fine), Precision (suggestion is fine), Conciseness ("The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" – suggestion is an improvement), Consistency (suggestion has no obvious problem). And WP:YOGURTRULE (suggestion seems to resemble yogurt suggestion). —BarrelProof (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consensus can change, but there really should be a moratorium on bringing this up more than once per century. She has been well known as Hillary Rodham Clinton nationally for more than two decades now. Many reliable sources still refer to her with the inclusion of Rodham on first reference. And, while it's not a deciding factor for my opinion here, there is a biographical film in production called "Rodham" that's likely to have some impact on the continued common usage of her maiden name. user:j (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• To counter two common threads above: I don't find the "Yoghurt Rule" (which is an essay, not a guideline or a policy) compelling enough to trump WP:NCP, and I doubt the assumption that the matter would then be considered "settled for all time." Secondly, concision does not override the naming convention, either (see, for example, WP:MIDDLES). It's also worth pointing out that, in my opinion, a better example than Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is actually John F. Kennedy. It could just as easily be at John Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, or even JFK for that matter. But, his "official" name (at least as prescribed by his presidential library) and, arguably, his most "common" name, are both John F. Kennedy. The subject of this article has a stated preference for the inclusion of her maiden name, that's what is used in the most cited reliable sources on first reference, and it's been her name in common usage for quite some time now. Hence, my oppose. Just thought it would be helpful to elaborate.  :) user:j (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • John F. Kennedy is the title of that article per WP:COMMONNAME. That is, that's what is used most commonly to refer to the subject of that article (much more often than John Kennedy, which is rarely used). JFK is also commonly used, but not as commonly as John F. Kennedy.

    The same principle applies here. While Hillary Rodham Clinton is commonly used, it's not used as commonly as Hillary Clinton.

    I can't believe you too are bringing up the title of the biopic. See my comment about Thatcher above. --B2C 07:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    • I would actually argue JFK is more commonly used than John F. Kennedy, but I don't think concision is an improvement there (hence it not being the primary factor for WP:NCP). In any event, that's an argument for another article. Balancing common and "official" usage, I think the article is at the right title here, as I've said. Your response to the biopic title was more of a strawman than a rebuttal, but I did take note of it. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and your current arguments haven't changed mine, so we'll see where the discussion leads... user:j (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with J. And JFK is not the only such example. Lyndon B. Johnson is located there, even though there are more Google hits for each of "Lyndon Johnson" and "LBJ". Stephen E. Ambrose is located there, because that is the name he published under, even though "Stephen Ambrose" gets more Google hits. "Common name" does not trump correctness, and thus we have articles located at Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge even though more popular forms get far more hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support it appears the only argument those opposed to this move are making is that this has already been discussed before several times. A) Consensus can change. B) The fact that this continues to be brought up should show that there is much support for the move -- would anyone actually argue to move it to the current title if it were moved to "Hillary Clinton"? C) In recent years she's been almost exclusively referred to as "Hillary Clinton." D) Her now defunct campaign website doesn't use "Rodham" nor does her current website. Hot Stop 16:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, hillaryclintonoffice.com does use the longer form repeatedly in its own "remarks". ╠╣uw  18:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Rename per WP:COMMONNAME and my past comments. What her "official" name is should have no bearing here. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per J, Tvoz, Wasted Time R, and the many who've already elaborated clear reasons for the current title in this and previous proposals. Querying Google, I see that the current and proposed titles both get raw hits in the low eight-figures – and in both cases Google presents a sidebar labeled "Hillary Rodham Clinton". However, mindful that raw Google hits don't tell the whole story, I also clicked through the list of external links in the article and noticed that the sizable majority of them use the longer form: US Department of State, White House, US Congress directory, VoteSmart, Federal Election Commission, C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, IMDB, WorldCat, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Open Directory, etc. ╠╣uw  18:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Google's sidebar comes from us, so using it to argue for or against a particular title is circular. Powers 18:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  True, thanks for clarifying. I'll just content myself with the numerous other major sources. :) ╠╣uw  19:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

╠╣uw says, "Querying Google, I see that the current and proposed titles both get raw hits in the low eight-figures." Well, let's dig a little deeper. I've run a few searches just now. Here's what they show:

Google (general search)

"hillary clinton"                   39,500,000

"hillary rodham clinton"      14,400,000

Google (general search)

"hillary clinton" -wikipedia                  146,000,000

"hillary rodham clinton" -wikipedia         7,720,000

Google, News

"hillary clinton" -wikipedia                  62,900

"hillary rodham clinton" -wikipedia     12,000

Google, Books

"hillary clinton" -wikipedia                  277,000

"hillary rodham clinton" -wikipedia     127,000

Bing (general search)

"hillary clinton"                   4,240,000

"hillary rodham clinton"         747,000

Bing (general search)

"hillary clinton" -wikipedia                  3,050,000

"hillary rodham clinton" -wikipedia        519,000

googlesearch of cnn.com

"hillary clinton"                   83,900

"hillary rodham clinton"        5,780

internal search of cnn.com

"hillary clinton"                   7,637

"hillary rodham clinton"         982

googlesearch of bbc.co.uk

"hillary clinton"                   16,000

"hillary rodham clinton"        3,040

internal search of abcnews.com

"hillary clinton"                   11,365

"hillary rodham clinton"        3,894

internal search of cbsnews.com

"hillary clinton"                   9,542

"hillary rodham clinton"      4,622

internal search of nbcnews.com

"hillary clinton"                   9,040

"hillary rodham clinton"      1,920

internal search of foxnews.com

"hillary clinton"                   9,814

"hillary rodham clinton"      9,107

googlesearch of site:charlierose.com

"hillary clinton"                   21,800

"hillary rodham clinton"             99

These search results show that "Hillary Clinton" references outnumber "Hillary Rodham Clinton" references by a very wide margin. Dezastru (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru, you've got to be careful with searches like this. A news article that uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as first reference will often also come up with a hit for "Hillary Clinton" too, due to a headline use or caption use (where space constraints overrule everything). If you look for this CBS News search, for example, the first article actually does use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, but the headline picks it up in the other count. Many of the rest of the first page of hits are to video streams where the brief caption is using "Hillary Clinton". If you look at this New York Times search result, for example, almost every one is using "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as first reference, but the headline picks it up. (And even with that, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" hits outnumber "Hillary Clinton" hits 61,200 to 47,600.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasted Time R: Quite so. Dezastru: Since there's significant overlap in the usage of variants (as WTR notes), it's not quite that simple. Note too that any search with fewer terms will almost always return a longer list of results than a search with more, but that by itself isn't a determinant: "Obama", for instance, returns several times the hits of "Barack Obama", but is not the title WP uses (even despite primary topic occupancy). In this case the prevalence of the longer form in so many of the external links, including major government sites, is significant. ╠╣uw  10:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The attempts to dismiss the higher numbers of "Hillary Clinton" mentions than of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" mentions would be persuasive -- if it weren't for the fact that the differences are so large. If the differences are all a matter of space constraints, as you claim, then one might allow for perhaps a 2:1 of "Hillary Clinton" to "Hillary Rodham Clinton," since, on average, an article will have one title and maybe a caption for a photo. But that's not the level of difference the data show. The differences, broadly speaking, are MUCH greater than that. And, WTR, selecting the NYT for a search is obviously going to produce results showing higher levels of HRC use, since that is that publication's editorial preference. (By the way, I'm curious how editorial decisions regarding space constraints affect searches for "Sandra O'Connor" vs "Sandra Day O'Connor".) Dezastru (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Although my gut tells me to support, I think the historical reasons and BLP user preferences still carry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this is clearly the most common and most recognizable name. Pitbull (entertainer) isn't listed by his real or official name, even though if he was arrested or testified in front of Congress or was elected to the Senate, the New York Times would doubtlessly use his real name in their write-up of the event and opinion pieces commenting on it. We go with Pitbull, even though this name requires a parenthetical disambiguafier (which we otherwise strive to avoid), because it's his most easily recognizable, concise, common name. As is the proposed title for the former Secretary of State's article. Red Slash 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against the location of Pitbull or Ringo Starr or or John Wayne or Jimmy Carter or any of those cases. Those are all names that those people self-identify as, that they release artistic works as or publish books by, and so forth. Hillary identifies as, and publishes books as, and is referred to in official documents as, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And this idea that we always use the "most easily recognizable, concise, common name" is a myth. There are many exceptions carved out. Hence Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (far from the most common use for either) and United States presidential election, 2012 (who says it with that word order?) and United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2008 (absolutely nobody says it like that) and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (several more concise forms of that get more Google hits) and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council (common use would use US and UN and omit other words) and Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (say what? common use is "Bush tax cuts" or "first round of the Bush tax cuts") and so forth. And as pointed out above, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Lyndon B. Johnson are examples of exceptions directly comparable to this one. In practice we do not determine article titles solely by Google hit counts, and we often value correctness and other considerations, and this should be such a case too. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But those are all long titles because there is no primary topic at the shorter version. Everyone called the election, well, the "election". Why didn't we have it there? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So we chose WP:NATURAL disambiguation. No such need here! Not a problem for Mrs. Clinton, who doubtlessly has primary topic on both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton (one will always redirect to the other). Misplaced Pages:NAMINGCRITERIA requires that the title be precise, recognizable, consistent, common, and natural. There are a fair few things we strive for in naming titles but those are the biggies. Both titles easily satisfy all of those, which means we have to choose which one does it best. That's easy. I assert (and sources seem to back up) that "Hillary Clinton" is more common. So that should be the title of the page. (And both Kate and Diana should have their pages moved, as well, as those titles flagrantly fail WP:COMMON... but there is a special guidelines specifically and explicitly for royalty and nobility that I personally think is baloney, but is located here. So that explains them. Where's the justification for HRC?) Red Slash 08:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding longer titles being used only because there's "no primary topic at the shorter version", that's not really so: see "Obama"→"Barack Obama", "Mao"→"Mao Zedong", "Beyoncé"→"Beyoncé Knowles", and a raft of others. In all these cases raw Google hits would seemingly favor the shorter form, but (per WP) hits alone are not the sole determinant of title. ╠╣uw  10:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support once again. By far the most common name used to refer to her. "Official" names and even the individual's preferred name are utterly irrelevant to what Misplaced Pages calls someone. All that matters is how she is most commonly referred to in English-language sources. That is far and away plain Hillary Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your evidence for "by far" and "far and away"? Most of Dezastru's news search figures above are skewed by counting headline and caption usages, as I explained below them. Perhaps the one of professional uses that is least skewed is the Google Books one, where headlines, personal pages, casual blogs, etc are not involved. It shows both usages in the low hundred thousands – the same ballpark. That's when I think other considerations can come into play, as they already do for the many exceptions to common name that have been brought up. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support. An ngram, taken from Google Books, shows that "Hillary Clinton" has always been more widely used than "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in books, and that the gap, through 2008, was widening. Support is weak because some of the discrepancy is likely due to second and third mentions omitting the middle name, and because both names are recognizable. On balance, though, I think there's enough evidence that the shorter name is more prevalent in reliable sources. Dohn joe (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Wasted Time R, Huw, and others. The current name is appropriate for reasons given by others, which I will not attempt to reiterate. As an aside, it is questionable for the nominator to refer to a rule that the nominator himself made up. Omnedon (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  What about the ngram I posted, that shows that "Hillary Clinton" has always been more widely used - in books, not websites - and that the gap has been widening, not lessening? Doesn't that indicate that reliable sources prefer the short form? Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Dezastru (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: the ngram shows usage throughout entire texts, which doesn't necessarily speak to the question of article title. After all, this ngram shows books using "Obama" far more than "Barack Obama" – yet the latter is our title. The reason, of course, is that names are often shortened after first use in contexts where the proper name is already established and understood; one doesn't have to say "Barack Obama" every time. The State Department, for instance, favors "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but once established uses other forms like "Secretary Clinton", "Senator Clinton", "Hillary Clinton"... and just "Clinton". ╠╣uw  10:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

╠╣uw: Not even remotely comparable. You can't say that mentions of a surname in isolation are comparable to mentions of the combination of first and surname. The surname in isolation will be used multiple times in any article, while the combined first and surname will only be used, generally, about once (maybe slightly more if counting separate uses for title and captions), whether we are discussing Obama or Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Quite well-known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", as demonstrated by editors above. Hillary has had a notable life independent of her president husband, and has herself emphasized her given name over the last 2-3 decades. There are shades of parochialism here, similar to the Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) renaming discussion going on. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Parochialism how? The point about her having a notable life independent of her husband would only be relevant if the suggestion was to rename the article Hillary Rodham. Since she still uses her husband's surname with or without her maiden name, this is utterly irrelevant. And her given name is Hillary! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Seeing as the ngram goes only to 2008, I will do an update. Since 2009, "Hillary Clinton" -"Hillary Rodman Clinton yields 45,600 GBook results, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 10,500. During the 1992 campaign, she was always "Hillary Clinton." So she was quite well known under that moniker before she announced that she was "Hillary Rodham Clinton". For weeks afterwards everyone was confused, including Jesse Jackson. I had assumed people stopped using "Rodham" after that, although this ngram suggests that it was more common on first reference as recently as 2004. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: During the 1992 campaign, she was always "Hillary Clinton." So she was quite well known under that moniker before she announced that she was "Hillary Rodham Clinton" : This is incorrect. She was actually known as "Hillary Rodham," both professionally as a lawyer and as first lady of Arkansas; see this for example. She added the "Clinton" surname when Bill began to have national ambitions, becoming "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but she had NEVER gone by plain "Hillary Clinton" prior to that. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

She added Clinton in 1982. And it's true that nationally she was initially better known, by the broader public, as "Hillary Clinton," as a result of the 1992 campaign. Prior to the 1992 campaign, she was not known nationally.

before 1993

"hillary clinton"                   9,704

"hillary rodham"                    615

"hillary rodham clinton"         404

from NewsBank search (English language news sources, United States)

Dezastru (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for doing those ngrams. A picture is worth a thousand words. : ) Kinda like this picture, as already mentioned. Dezastru (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a picture, a domain name, a Twitter handle, etc. can be worth many fewer than a million words. If you click on "Remarks" on that picture, you'll see she's introduced as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" before the various listed speeches. For domain names or website header design, it could make sense to exclude "Rodham" to conserve space. Here on Misplaced Pages, we don't have the same constraints. user:j (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

J: Agreed, we don't base titles on pictures. For instance, here's another ngram showing the usage of "Obama" strongly outpacing "Barack Obama" by several times (and growing)... but even combined with Obama's primary topic status, I'd hardly see that as a compelling justification to rename our article to just "Obama". Titling really is about more than hits, people. ╠╣uw  10:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Userj: Not talking about domain names or Twitter handles. Talking about the FRONT page, the welcoming page, of the website. A page that has only 6 words ("contact," "remarks," "privacy," "policy," "hillary," "clinton"). It's the branding page; it's saying that this is her current brand name, the name that most people will think of first. Misplaced Pages bio articles use the common name for the title and put the official name in the first mention of the body of the article, similar to how a website would generally display the common name boldly on the welcoming page but use an official name elsewhere on the site. But we point this out only to counter the argument that Clinton herself prefers to be seen as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." Even if she changed her Twitter space name and her website's first page tomorrow, that wouldn't alter the fact that the name most commonly used for her by other users in a variety of media today is "Hillary Clinton." ╠╣uw: As I said above, mentions of a surname in isolation is not the same, so your ngram is not at all relevant. Dezastru (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Barack Obama's "brand name" was "OBAMA." A single website header image does not erase several decades of her stated preference, nor does a Twitter username or display name that technically could not include her preferred name. Just like countless media outlets have demonstrated, it's easier to just print "Hillary Clinton" sometimes. That doesn't make it her preference and it doesn't make it encyclopedic. user:j (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support With both titles recognizable, unambiguous, and common, I prefer the more WP:PRECISE form. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you mean concise rather than precise? I think they're equally precise. --B2C 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per BDD. "Hillary Clinton" is more precise than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The "Rodham" is an unnecessary disambiguator. Not to mention, she is better known without her maiden name than with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Hillary Clinton" is more precise than "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?? Did you write that backwards by mistake?
  "better known without her maiden name than with it" That depends on one's level of academic interest. Shortened versions are more likely in blogs. Longer versions are more likely to be used in introducing more serious coverage. Have you reviewed List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hillary_Rodham_Clinton is well recognised, well used, preferred in formal use by the subject, and preferred noting the subject's pre-Clinton notable life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But Hillary Clinton is at least as well recognized, used more, and WP article titles typically don't use formal names. Pre-Clinton her life was not sufficiently notable to be in any encyclopedia. --B2C 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Given the repeated references simply to "Rodham", Rodham probably would be wikipedia-notable. She was a notable person as Rodham. This article has been here a long time. This more precise is not over precise because it is well used. Of course shortened and abbreviated versions of anything are "used more", but usage counts are a poor measure of recognizability because repeated shortened versions follow an initial precise definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Whether the initial reference in an article is "Hillary Clinton" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton", subsequent references will be "Clinton" or "Ms.Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton", not "Hillary Clinton", so we can't ascribe the enormous usage discrepancy to that. Whichever is used more in initial references in articles is going to show up more often in usage counts. --B2C 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
        • In this very article, where the initial (title) reference is Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Hillary Clinton" occurs subsequently 98 times. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurs 49 times. This directly contradicts what you just said. Within a single document, there are often reasons to reintroduce the subject with intermediate precision. It should be expected that shortened versions, used only after an earlier long version introduction, can to be found several fold more often with a simple usage search. Occurrences in text is a poor measure of expected title for an encyclopedia title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I suggest the usage in this particular article is a non-professional rare anomaly. More typical is this article, which refers to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" twice, "Clinton" half a dozen times, and "Hillary Clinton" zero times.

            Can you find any professional reliable sources that use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to refer to her (not the biopic) initially, and use "Hillary Clinton" later on? --B2C 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

            • Beginning at List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Mostly_neutral, I'm finding that access to text is behind paywalls, or to be located in physical form. There is some text to browse here: http://www.amazon.com/Opinion-Ladyship-Hillary-Clinton-Politics/dp/0815335997 Yes, it introduces here as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and includes multiple instances of lesser reintroductions as "Hillary Clinton".
              I think the references at List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" are sufficient to make the case for preferring "Hillary Rodham Clinton". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
              • As to the question of whether Hillary Rodham would have been notable enough for inclusion here, by early 1982 (when she first started publicly using the 'Clinton' last name), she was: a former First Lady of Arkansas, and a somewhat controversial one (in part due to her not adopting her husband's name); the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, where she expanded the budget from $90 million to $300 million and successfully fought off the Reagan Administration's attempts to cut it; chair of the Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee; co-founder of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families; the first female full partner at Rose Law Firm, the third oldest law firm in the nation and a bastion of Arkansas power; a former law professor who had published several journal articles on children's law, including one that was influential and frequently cited; a staff member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate; and the subject of a profile in highly-visible Life magazine for her college commencement address. So if a 4-million-article Misplaced Pages had existed in 1982, then yes I think Hillary Rodham would have had an article in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Okay, maybe she was sufficiently notable to be in WP (had it existed) prior to adopting the Clinton surname. So what? Once she became more frequently referenced as "Hillary Clinton", the same arguments would apply to change the article title accordingly. --B2C 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Misplaced Pages has a definition for which sources are the "most reliable sources," and by those sorts of publications, she is more often referred to as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference. We're not being overly precise, we're simply being accurate. Just because someone is "more frequently referenced" by a given name does not mean we should be moving any given article. It's one factor, not the deciding one. user:j (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm asking for articles like this one about her. The first reference is to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The rest are "Mrs. Clinton" and "Secretary Clinton", not "Hillary Clinton". This is typical. --B2C 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Newspaper stories are not academic reference material, aka encylcopedic. We should not be trying to replicate newspaper articles.

Newspaper articles are easy to retrieve, but for quality you should be looking more at stuff like is found here: List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that list of books and articles by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton to which you refer confirms the pattern that we have been pointing out throughout this discussion: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was more common prior to a few years ago. Most of the Hillary Rodham Clinton's on that list are from the 1990s. Over the past few years, "Hillary Clinton" has become preferred. So that is one further bit of evidence in support of a need for a renaming of the article. Dezastru (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TITLE: "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." Also "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Misplaced Pages." This title has been in place for more than a decade; Hillary Clinton redirects to it; there is simply no reason to change. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The comment above about John F. Kennedy got me to thinking about the names of U.S. presidents. They tend to be known to history, and to encyclopedias, under the name they chose to be known by as president. This may take the form first-middle-last (William Howard Taft), first-middleinitial-last (Lyndon B. Johnson, Dwight D. Eisenhower), first-last (Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama), or even nickname-last (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). In the case of Hillary, I don't think we need a crystal ball to figure out that if she were elected president she would choose to be known as President Hillary Rodham Clinton. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Her Twitter handle begs to disagree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As noted below, Twitter handles are limited to 15 characters. She couldn't have used Hillary Rodham Clinton even if she wanted to.--MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That, plus WP:CRYSTAL. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the present moment, she is using the "Hillary Clinton" brand a lot, such as at Twitter and at www.hillaryclintonoffice.com. Dezastru (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just noting this here so that the Twitter handle and display name don't continue to be used as ammunition for a bad move: Twitter usernames are limited to fifteen characters and Twitter display names are limited to twenty characters. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" could not have been used for either for technical reasons. It doesn't demonstrated a sudden sea change in her name. user:j (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

HillaryRodhamClinton is nineteen characters. Just saying. bd2412 T 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"And there is no good reason to change it" is the operative phrase here. We've shown that there are several good reasons to change it, so that part of the policy does not apply. "This title has been in place for more than a decade," yes it has. However, as we have shown, usage patterns, which Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect, have been changing over the decade. So it's time the title changed as well. Dezastru (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment B2C, you say in the initial request, "I can't believe the current title has survived several requests to move it," which is very dismissive of all the previous discussions. That there were such discussions all ending in the same result surely indicates that there is good reason to keep the current title. I also question the application of "The Yogurt Rule"; as far as I am concerned there is no such "rule", just a recently-written essay expressing one editor's opinion. In any case, it must be clear that there is yet again no consensus to move. Omnedon (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"That there were such discussions all ending in the same result surely indicates that there is good reason to keep the current title." That would be so, if no other facts had changed. However, as we have shown, usage patterns, which Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect, have been shifting. Discussions on this topic from 6 years ago are no longer as relevant because the usage is different. (It's also interesting to note the changes even in the discussions. In the February 2007 discussion, to the 2 contributors in favor of a change of the title, there were 10 opposed. Each time this topic has been reconsidered, the numbers of those arguing for the a change has grown, to the point that there were more arguing for than against a change last November.) Dezastru (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The last one was just months ago. To discuss it yet again so quickly is problematic. You seem to be suggesting that it should continue to be brought up until the change you desire is finally made. But as you can see from this discussion, there is still no consensus to move, and many still that feel this move is unwarranted. Omnedon (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. Changes should be considered whenever there are developments that warrant reconsideration. If absolutely nothing has changed, then there is no need for reconsideration. But when new information becomes available, or additional points of contention become apparent, there should be a reconsideration. That's one of the main advantages of an electronic encyclopedia that can be edited in real-time over a static, printed encyclopedia. Dezastru (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, I agree with your second and third sentences. But there have been no new developments on this issue since the last time, and so it's a waste of editors' time. Omnedon (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion did not provide data showing that there has been a shift in usage. As for wasting editors' time, editors who have better things to do should feel free to do those other things rather than waste time contributing to this discussion. Dezastru (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If a move request is made, and editors have a problem with it, they may well choose to get involved; but this has been discussed many times before including just recently. Yes, it's a waste of our time. There is clearly no consensus to move. Omnedon (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised by this title and the lack of consensus support to bring it better in line with title policy in previous discussions, hence, "I can't believe ...". I'm still not sure what's going on. There is no evidence that the longer form unnecessarily disambiguated with "Rodham" is more commonly used than the concise form even in first references in reliable sources.

The WP:Yogurt Rule essay speaks for itself. Whether a closing admin agrees with the essay's author (yours truly) that its application in cases like this where all three conditions are met improves titles and title stability on WP is entirely up to that admin, of course. --B2C 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're not sure what's going on, then you are not comprehending the arguments given here in opposition to this move. There are reasons why some of us feel strongly that the current title is best, and that the move is entirely unnecessary. Omnedon (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Rodham" isn't an "unnecessar disambiguat." It's not just a part of her legal name, it's the name she was born with, the name she kept for long after she was married, and the name that she has chosen to continue to use for nearly three decades now. In addition to being her legal name, it's the name she preferred to be known by when she was First Lady, when she was a Senator, and when she was Secretary of State. There's no reliable indication this has changed her mind on this, and given the widespread use of "Rodham" in scholarly works, there's no a reasonable basis for us to change the title of this encyclopedic article. What you're asking for is not more precise, it's just shorter. And given our ability to redirect Hillary Clinton here, there's really no reason for us to pretend "Rodham" isn't an important part of her name and public identity as verifiable through reliable sources. Hence why every discussion about this ends up going nowhere. user:j (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say more PREcise; I said more CONcise. Last I checked concision was one of our WP:CRITERIA.

Rodham is unnecessary disambiguation because, if there was another notable "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be a reasonable and natural way to disambiguate this use. But since there is no such other use; the disambiguation is unnecessary. Now, you may argue it's necessary for other reasons, but by "unnecessary disambiguation" I'm simply pointing out that as disambiguation "Rodham" is unnecessary. You can't argue with that.

Whether "Rodham" is or is not "an important part of her name and public identity" is not relevant. What is relevant is whether she is referenced more commonly in reliable sources with or without "Rodham". --B2C 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We could argue over the definition of concision... It essentially means as brief as possible, and I think most everyone opposed here presents a very compelling argument that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is as brief as is encyclopedically possible. (To compare that to, for example, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton," which is truly not concise enough by our standards, given there's no need to diambiguate.) But if the crux of your argument is wp:commonname, I would point out that the absolute shortest possible title, "most Google Hits," etc. are not the only factors to be considered by there. In fact, the policy specifically suggest considering other encyclopedias to help gauge the best encyclopedic title when there is doubt. Britannica, for example, includes Rodham in its title. user:j (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We agree concision means "as brief as possible". I point out that Hillary Clinton is both more brief than the current title, and encyclopedically possible (as it currently redirects to this article). Therefore, it's the more concise choice. WP often does not use titles typical of traditional enyclopedias (and what might be considered "encyclopedic"). In cases where one name is clearly most often used in reliable sources to refer to the topic in question, we usually go with it. There is no question that both names are commonly used and acceptable per our policies, guidelines and conventions, but the more concise option meets WP:CRITERIA better than the unnecessarily long current title. --B2C 00:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that "concise" means "as brief as possible". It means, to use one definition, "Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive." It's not only about brevity -- concision strikes the balance between brevity and comprehensiveness. Shortest is not necessarily best, and in any case "concise" doesn't mean "shortest". The current title here is the best one, for the various reasons already given here. It is also a concise title. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hillary is new on Twitter, and her handle and display names are simply "Hillary Clinton", not "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Shouldn't we take it directly from her? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeeed. As noted earlier in the thread. She could very easily have selected "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for the display name, yet she chose "Hillary Clinton." Dezastru (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Originally was going to place this in the area above where Twitter came up, but might as well place it here.) Twitter limits usernames to fifteen characters. Display names are limited to twenty. Her chosen name would not have fit in either. We don't need a crystal ball, just a time machine, to know that she has chosen (time and again) to be known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. user:j (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Twitter display names. Dezastru (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, significant imbalance of Google hits plus Twitter handle = common name. bd2412 T 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read the preceding discussion before !voting; the "Twitter handle" argument has been debunked half a dozen times. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, the Google hits argument - which is a strong argument on its own, and certainly the stronger of the two I mentioned - has not been "debunked", and is fairly conclusive. However, I also noted above that HillaryRodhamClinton is nineteen characters, so I am not sure how the Twitter handle argument can be "debunked". As a matter of common sense, we can only assign weight to arguments, we can not deem them to be proved or disproved in any absolute sense. bd2412 T 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Twitter handles are limited to 15 characters. The 19 character handle HillaryRodhamClinton would have been impossible. So the fact that she used HillaryClinton for her Twitter handle adds nothing to this discussion; she did not have the option of using HillaryRodhamClinton. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And, as pointed out at WP:NCP, Google should not be the deciding factor. As has been discussed above, going on Google hits alone, we'd be moving John F. Kennedy to JFK and Johann Sebastian Bach to Bach (both of which could be accomplished readily given that the latter redirects to the former in both cases). We don't, because our article titles are not decided by Google keywords. We are an encyclopedia, not a search engine optimization experiment. user:j (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over Twitter handles vs Twitter display names. The display name limit is 20 characters, so HillaryRodhamClinton would have worked for a display name. (I think it's actually 40 characters, but without special expertise, a user wouldn't be able to access that higher character count.) user:j Nobody is saying that Google counts alone should be the deciding factor. And you're ignoring other arguments that have already been made refuting your points about JFK and Bach. WP:Title, which says precision is a top criterion for selection of titles ("Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"), would have kept JS Bach's article from being named "Bach," and would have been one of several reasons to not name JF Kennedy's article "JFK." Dezastru (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There's another new data point besides Twitter. The Clinton Foundation recently incorporated Hillary and Chelsea into it (previously it had just been Bill). The "About" menu on its website now has new bio's of Hillary and Chelsea, and the bio for Hillary uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on both its header and first reference. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a point worth considering, but not nearly as significant. Likelihood that Clinton herself was directly involved in deciding how the front page of her website looks and what her Twitter display name is? I'd say 100%. Likelihood that she was directly involved in what her bio page looks like on the Clinton Foundation website? Much lower than that. A bio page like that is something that an assistant would throw together. Clinton herself may or may not have reviewed it. Dezastru (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Much lower"? Pure speculation on both points. What we do know is that the site in question does list her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Omnedon (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Wasted R said it well, so I just repeat his/her comments for those who would get lost in the discussion above. But before I do that, 2 other points:

The Twitter handle argument doesnt make sense because of the need for handle brevity in a max space of 140 characters.

Shouldnt there be the equivalent of a 3RR rule for repeatedly bringing this name change up without any new evidence?

OK, here is Wasted R's stuff again. May you read in peace:

Oppose strongly yet again. This was already decided here and here and here and here, the last one being only six months ago. All the arguments for and against are going to be the same this time around. This is abuse of process, pure and simple, just like bringing an article to AfD five times because you didn't like the keep decision the first four times. It's basically hoping different people show up to !vote this time around and that you get lucky. That's not how consensus is supposed to work. And if you want a new argument, the Rodham biopic has been much in the news of late - see this CBS news story for example - and so that part of her name will be in even more use than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, just to recap, "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. That's why the biopic is being named Rodham. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official former Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a week ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a few days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. And we've been through this over and over. Don't people have something better to do here than re-litigate this?

Bellagio99 (talk)

"That's why the biopic is being named Rodham." Why do people keep bringing up a biopic that hasn't even been made yet and that is about the period of her life before she became a national figure with enough notability to warrant her own Misplaced Pages article? ("I became even more interested after talking to Young-Il Kim on the phone: He told me that the script begins when Hillary Rodham is selected for the House judiciary committee, and that it ends with the moment that Nixon resigns. During this six or seven month period, Kim told me, Bill Clinton was making his first campaign for political office, running for the U.S. Congress in Arkansas." Slate)

And again, WTR argued that this has been discussed multiple times before and nothing has changed -- an incorrect assertion. There has been a shift in usage patterns in the time since several of those previous discussions occurred. No one presented data in any of the previous discussions documenting this shift. Dezastru (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If there has been a shift in usage patterns, it would not be an event but a trend; and I question how much of a shift there has been since the last RM, whether or not such data was presented then. In any case, as has been said by others, there is more to this than trends in usage. This is a stable title. No compelling information has been presented that shows that we should now change that stable title, when in the past we have not changed it. Omnedon (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

To characterize a title so frequently and strongly challenged by such large numbers as "stable" is to use a pretty useless meaning of "stable" in the context of WP title decisions. Once again, I call WP:Yogurt rule: if the article is moved as proposed, there would be no strong argument to move it back to this less concise and less commonly used title, and, so, peace and stability (in a useful sense) will ensue. I accurately predicted this at Yogurt, and I predict it here for very similar reasons. --B2C 20:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's stable in that it has not changed for many years. Just because you wish it to change, and have requested a move just months after the last failed request, doesn't mean it is not stable. There is no consensus to move it, and so it won't move. Your predictions as to what might happen if it was moved are meaningless. Since it has survived five move requests and will survive a sixth, that makes it very stable indeed. Omnedon (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

B2C, are you saying that if this article is not moved, there will be no peace -- that you will not accept that it has not moved and continue to fight this? Omnedon (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is the WP:Yogurt Rule so hard to understand, and so easy to misunderstand? I had people ask me very similar things at Talk:Yogurt. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I never participated in any of these discussions that have been going on and on for years until a week ago when I made this proposal after running into it somewhere and being shocked by it.

History showed at Yoghurt that people would continue to fight that title because they had good reason to fight that title, and that the conflict would be resolved with a move, because, once moved, there would be no good reason for people to fight to revert it. The exact same situation as here.

I understand how you're using "stable", and it's not unreasonable, but, like I said, it's a pretty useless definition of "stable" in this context. The majority of titles proposed for moving at WP:RM are probably "stable" in this sense. So what? That's not an argument to not move.

The closing admin decides if there is consensus to move, and it's not by counting !votes. It's by evaluating arguments. One of the arguments to move is that the current title is not stable (in the useful sense that includes not being seriously/significantly challenged in a long time), and that it would be stable (in all relevant senses) if moved as proposed, because there is no strong argument, and there would be no strong argument, to move Hillary Clinton to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This is not merely a prediction. It's a claim that could be easily disproven by presenting a strong argument for such a move. There is no such argument. --B2C 21:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

...because there is no strong argument, and there would be no strong argument, to move Hillary Clinton to Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is not merely a prediction. It's a claim that could be easily disproven by presenting a strong argument for such a move. There is no such argument. There is absolutely a strong argument, and it has been made here over and over: Hillary Rodham Clinton is her name. This is the name she goes by and has gone by since the 1980s and continues to go by. It was her name as first lady, as senator, as secretary of state. If she should be elected president she would certainly choose to be known as President Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then we would HAVE to change it back, since we always list U.S. presidents according to the name they choose to be known by as president (see William Howard Taft above). This is why we have Dwight D. Eisenhower (the D. is unnecessary disambiguation since there are no other Dwight Eisenhowers); same with Lyndon B. Johnson and many others. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a strong argument because a similar one could be made for the more concise name. Hillary Clinton is her name. This is the name used most commonly to refer to her in reliable sources, especially in the last decade. It was her name as first lady, as senator, as secretary of state.

A similar argument could not be made for Dwight D. Eisenhower or Lyndon B. Johnson, who were only very rarely referenced without the middle initials/names. It's not a strong argument. Not for this person. --B2C 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-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
• GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• GA-Class Arkansas articles
• High-importance Arkansas articles
• WikiProject Arkansas articles
• GA-Class Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• Mid-importance Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• GA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Requested moves