Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Infobox and image captions

The recent RfC closed with the decision to change the title from HRC to HC. Was the RfC about changing the title of the article? Or did it discuss renaming the person herself as well. I thought it was just about the article title, and the thrust of the main argument in favour of the move was based on WP:AT.

Presently, a number of editors are edit-warring on this BLP to force controversial changes into it, in violation of WP:BLP, which is policy, and WP:BRD, which is sound advice. Please don't try to bully your POV into this BLP if others disagree with your bold change. It is best to engage in civil discussion on the talk page.

One of the edit-warriers, User:Calidum, said in one of his edit summaries, "Template says to use common name, which we just established is Hillary Clinton. stop wikilawyering." Calidum, would you please point me to the documentation you're referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected one day to allow for discussion. Note that edit summaries don't count as discussion. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it's a very good basis - it is true to the source . . . and do you still not understand that Rodham is not her middle name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
This, as far as I can see, is pointless. The previous version was clean and sharp presenting "Clinton in 2009". Now, after the title and infobox both present "Hillary Clinton" and the lead presents "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton", your caption is inexplicably edited to a third presentation as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". There seems to be no rhyme or reason for this and in my revert I commented on the WP:POINTy edit. It doesn't help the article. A full explanation of name usage is appropriately provided in the relevant section on biographical history which is well presented. Before this point we can't inexplicably just jump around with name usage. Content needs to be sensibly presented. I cannot believe that you do not realise that we all here understand here that Rodman is not Hillary's middle name and you should strike your "do you still not understand .." slur. GregKaye 17:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It's her name, Greg. The one she has expressly chosen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You're incorrect Greg. Your aesthetic argument is ridiculous as the infobox style guide says you may use various names in the infobox including what it calls "full name" and it's absurd to claim "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not the subject's name - it is also very well known -- in fact you had better know it [3] - and readers are not morons, as you seem to suggest - they know everyone, like themselves, has various appellations. The name is also sourced by the image it captions - and we are to reflect the source -- especially in a BLP. (Finally, you need to retract your "slur", "slur" as the question, not a slur, was asked because the person being questioned had just referenced someone's middle name, "Luther") Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker in the context of you addressing an editor who you know to have been very connected to this topic your question (with no question mark) was, within this context, very far from WP:CIVIL. Please, Please desist fro WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. If you have a point to make then make it. GregKaye 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing BATTLEGROUND, nor un-CIVIL about it. It would be good, if you would stop making baseless claims because that's uncivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This argument was rejected in the context of deciding the title. I see no reason why it should be accepted in the context of deciding what name to put on the info box. In every article I can recall (there may be exceptions), the info box name matches the title, except for disambiguation, if any. Unless there is good reason for the infobox name to not match the title, they should match. --В²C ☎ 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Name to put in the infobox? That's not even what we are discussing. There is, however, a sourced picture we use in the infobox and all information must be directly sourced in a BLP -- we are talking about a sourced caption for that image, just as lower down in the infobox we have also have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" - WP:Article Title has absolutely has no relevance here, and that discussion certainly did not cover image captions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it is an absurd and baseless interpretation of BLP policy to require matching the caption of a photo to the caption used by the source. --В²C ☎ 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
But of course BLP is at least relevant policy, whereas AT, the policy you rely on is not relevant at all. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is what is sourced for the image and whether you want to discuss it in terms of WP:V; WP:NOR; WP:NPOV or WP:BLP they all say follow the source directly. Alanscottwalker (talk)
BLP is relevant, but not with respect to this particular question. Notably absent from your argument is anything any policy says supporting your view that the image caption should match the caption at the source. In the mean time, almost every BLP article on WP captions the photo of the BLP subject with the BLP article title without regard to what the caption at the source of the image says. For example, the portrait we use of Joe Biden is captioned at the source as "V011013DL-0556"[4]. Are we required to use that caption in our article? Absurd. I call WP:COMMON sense. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Your the one with no policy, the policies I have quoted all say follow the source directly. And your irrelevant other stuff exists arguemnt shows you have no reason, nor common sense either - the image we are taking about is sourced to Hillary Rodham Clinton, not some numbers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking. I'm done with this inane discussion. --В²C ☎ 06:21, 13 June 2015
Good. Then leave the article alone, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I've just looked at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters which says the "name" parameter should be the common name (defaults to article title when left blank). So I'm OK with that part of your change, В²C. Please don't try to force a change of image captions without checking with your collaborators here first. --Anthonyhcole (talk · (UTC) contribs · email) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! I don't see why the decision process for the image caption should be any different than it is for the infobox name and the article title. Do we really need to formalize that too? --В²C ☎ 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
On the image caption, in the past there's either been no caption or "Clinton in 2009". The former is okay if you think the image is self-explanatory. The latter is appropriate if you think the image should be dated. The formulation that was used is the most succinct and avoids textual clutter in an area where you don't want it and is thus preferable to any form that uses more of her name. So the whole name debate really shouldn't come into play here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the anti-Rodham folks some want to eradicate as many mentions of "Rodham" as part of Hillary Clinton's full name as they can, seeking them out and poking at them. This is a photo identification. Photo captions allow for more information. There are plenty of infobox captions which give a lot more information than contained in their topics' title. There is nothing wrong with it. Why the passion on this, in removing a woman's maiden name from as many places as it can be found. This is an infobox caption, let it be. Randy Kryn 1:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Please Randy Kryn would you characterise the entire Hillary Clinton campaign team as being "anti-Rodham" folks. Please consider potential use of polarising language. Who are you referring to as "anti-Rodham folks"? Give names and specify or please drop use of such terminologies. GregKaye 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GregKaye for pointing that out, when I reread the line you refer to it sounded much harsher than how I meant it. At the time it seemed to me that trying to remove her family name in the caption and template was overkill, and I said it poorly. Randy Kryn 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing in that protracted move discussion or decision that suggested that Rodham should be removed from anywhere other than the title of this article. These attempts here and elsewhere to scrub it from any mention other than as an historic point of her so-called "maiden" name, is not justified. Tvoz/talk 02:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the title RfC was about the title, and the result of that title debate is not an imprimatur to change the woman's name anywhere else in the article. As with all changes not mandated by policy or already supported by clear consensus, get consensus for controversial changes, don't bully. As for the infobox image caption in this article, I defer to Wasted Time R. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that it is important that we present name usage and that this can best be done within an explanatory context. Tvoz the current case is an unexplained addition to the article. I am unsure how to present the wording but perhaps in the lead we could present:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and was a leading candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination to the 2008 presidential election and has announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
And then present the name Hillary Rodham Clinton somehow in association with:
She is a former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and author.
("and author" added)
GregKaye 03:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest not falling for the endless cycle of wikilayering by [[User:Born2cycle and his 'crew'. There was no consensus for his changes, they should be reverted to the version that was prior to his changes. Period. And is he and his 'move request' crew continue to disrupt this article, the people who are sick of this bullshit should file an ArbCom case. There is more than enough evidence and plenty of diffs to show that Born2cycle and his merry band of disruptors have put an incredible time-sink into this project that are absolutely useless. Just take this page the Sarah Jane Brown page to start. He should be banned from all move requests for 18 months and any gender based BLP indefinitely. Same with his crew. Enough is enough. There has been too much time wasted on this bullshit. There was no consensus to SCRUB the article from mentioning 'Rodham'. Either move on, or editors should file a case. No more trying to reason with the freaking unreasonable. Dave Dial (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Amen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And it's not just this article - it's the template, and other places. Tvoz/talk 04:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, stop with the drama already. The changes I made to this article are consistent with the kinds of changes that are typically made after any title change. See Caitlyn Jenner for a recent example. The reverts of the changes I made, and protestations here on this talk page, exemplify the kind of WP:Status quo stonewalling that causes so many people to get involved over such a long period to make trivial changes that are consistent with our polices and conventions. --В²C ☎ 06:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We cannot present disjointed, incoherent content: An potentially appropriate and explanatory caption for the picture might be "Hillary Rodham Clinton<br />whilst serving as [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] in 2009".
Dave Dial Please desist from and strike your WP:BATTLEGROUND content and your three offensive references to "crew". Similar and other comments could equally be made of other crews but are out of place here. If you have a relevant p and g based point to make then please make it directly. Taking a stand on policy issues is undertaken for the sake of building encyclopedic content. Accusations of Wikilawyering may similarly work in a variety of directions. This is not a free for all. We need to develop p and g based content.
I say "potentially appropriate" because, even during her time as secretary of state, she was most commonly known as "Hillary Clinton". Unless we are to go down the route of WP:ADVOCATE, we have to present representational, coherent and encyclopedic stuff. GregKaye 06:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
But that's what it already says. The text below her image right now says: "Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2009", next line, "67th United States Secretary of State" . Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The title says "Hillary Clinton"
The text then presents full name, so as to follow the common trend of many biography type articles, as "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton"
Then, and after an info box heading that again presents "Hillary Clinton", the next content has been changed, with no clear explanation, from presenting "Clinton" to presenting "Hillary Rodham Clinton". We need to present clearly understandable and coherent content. GregKaye 06:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It was changed to reflect the source, which was clearly explained. Indeed, it is perfectly coherent - any reader can see the names Hillary and Clinton are in Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton just as any reader can see the names Hillary and Clinton are in Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moreover Hillary and Rodham and Clinton are all in Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

TY Tvoz, for some reason I didn't get your ping. Re the picture caption what do you think would be better:

  1. Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] as Secretary of State in 2009
  2. Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] in 2009
  3. Hillary Rodham Clinton[nb 1] as Secretary of State
  4. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State in 2009
  5. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State
or something else?
I was also wondering whether the note ref would be best added somewhere like after the HDRC name in the first sentence. GregKaye 13:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC as SoS in 2009. We don't need the footnote in the caption - this is not some kind of obscure reference that begs for explanation, and by adding the ref we would be implying that it is odd or unusual that her actual name is being used. This is not what the RM concluded, and it's enough already. Even people in favor of moving the article TITLE didn't insist that all mentions of Rodham be removed or explained. No one is confused. I'm glad to see they haven't tried to alter her signature too. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox header (continued)

The header of the infobox should read "Hillary Rodham Clinton", as it always has done. There has been no consensus to remove the "Rodham" from the infobox, regardless of the article. Are people going to erase "Rodham" from history? This is a nonsense, and totally out of line with reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should; maybe it shouldn't. But there are thousands of readers of this article every day, so the status quo should remain until there is consensus to change it. Perhaps another RfC is needed.- MrX 21:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That status quo has been "Hillary Rodham Clinton" across the existence of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to change it. bd2412 T 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Omnedon (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I continue to agree. bd2412 T 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No one is pretending any such thing. This is not about the article title. Omnedon (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there examples where in a featured article for a person the infobox name doesn't match the article title? If not, then yes, people are using this as an end-run around that request. Calidum T|C 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The article title has no relevance whatsoever. Her name does not change merely because the article title changes. Her common name in reliable sources is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Even if the article title is to be "Hillary Clinton", "Hillary Rodham Clinton" cannot be eliminated from the article. It is the name most often used for her in reliable sources, such as The New York Times. If the article were to make no mention of said name, it would be confusing and misleading to the reader. This is a form of WP:SOAP advocacy on the part of some users that want to change reality. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester you are being disingenuous here. As anyone will see very clearly her most commonname as presented in reliable sources is "Hillary Clinton". Please take a look at opening evidence presented at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move, at evidence presented in discussion and the conclusion of the closing panel.
Comment placed out of chronological sequence at: GregKaye 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Calidum -- this discussion does not affect the article title, and thus is not an "end-run around that request". It is a separate issue. Omnedon (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
And there are absolutely articles that don't follow this - it's in no way some kind of fundamental or any other kind of policy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and just about every other member of the British royal family. There are more examples, but I don't have the time or inclination to waste on this. Give it up - her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that will be even clearer to anyone who claims to have been confused when they landed here, after the election if she wins. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This was never discussed in the move request, and certainly was never agreed to. Her full name should be at the top of the infobox, just as her signature is as shown. Nor did we discuss the categories or the templates - this wholesale attempt to scrub "Rodham" is unjustified and way out of line with major, quality sources who always include Rodham up front. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person#Parameters says to use the article title in Infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It does? I don't see that in your link. Can you provide the wording and/or the guideline? Dave Dial (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It does say to use the "common name." The lengthy RM discussion decided that "Hillary Clinton" is the subject's common name, so that should be the infobox header, especially since it matches the article title. Having separate titles for the infobox and article only causes confusion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back here sooner, DD2K, but Chasewc91 said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[ec] What confusion? Do you really think people are so dumb that seeing Hillary Rodham Clinton will confuse them? Think they are on the wrong page? Worry that it's a mistake? For heaven's sake, give our readers more credit than that. And, as Dave Dial might say, is not our purpose here to educate? Rodham is not an ancient reference that she used 50 years ago - it's her name, her signature, and it is amply explained throughout the article. There may be a guideline that advises what to do in infoboxes, but in no way is this some kind of firm requirement, and you can see that is is ignored when editors decide to ignore it - like most things around here. Rodham is not just her birthname, or her middle name, obscure and only of interest to biographers (oh yeah, I thought that's what we are) - it is the name as she uses it, and if anything it's more confusing to leave it off than to include it prominently for when people encounter it elsewhere, as they will if they read most reliable sources, and come here for enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 23:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the 'confusion' claim is ridiculous. Does anybody think Chester A. Arthur was the 21st President of the U.S. but that the "Chester Alan Arthur" of the infobox header is somebody else? Does anybody get to the George S. Patton article and see the infobox header "George Smith Patton, Jr." and then wander off thinking they haven't found the famous general yet? Or go to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress article and see the "B-29 Superfortress" infobox header and become perplexed about who made the plane? And regarding this last example, note that pretty much all military aircraft articles have different article titles and infobox headers – it's spelled out in the instructions in WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) and Template:Infobox aircraft begin. There's no reason this article can't be different between the two also. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality doesn't tell anyone what keeping the header as something that is no longer Clinton's common name does to benefit the reader. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It educates them, as I said. "No longer" her common name as decided by a group of Wikipedia editors doesn't make it no longer her name. The article is renamed for now, mistakenly in my opinion, but now some editors are trying to change reality citing confusion. Let it go already. (And don't go to any British royalty articles either, because you may be confused by the infobox headers that don't match the article titles.) Tvoz/talk 02:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No one is disputing that her full name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. But if we as a community have decided to title her article simply as her most common name "Hillary Clinton," there is no reason for the infobox not to share this article title. The "education" point is nonsensical as the very first words of the article are her full name. Why are you so opposed to consistency? –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in that link are there instructions that the infobox must contain the article Title or even the 'common name'. It's just giving suggestions. There was no consensus to change the infobox, and in fact there were several move supporters who(when voting) claimed that nothing but the Title would be changed and the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in the infobox would be left untouched. So once again, for people who wish to change the infobox image caption, and name, please gain consensus first. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Infobox header should match title, like for every other BLP on WP. There is no reason to make an exception in this case. The fact that the infobox used to say HRC simply reflects what the title was then. Do we really need an RFC for this? --В²C ☎ 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Chester A. Arthur. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. George S. Patton. Charles, Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Mary Todd Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hussein of Jordan. Benjamin Netanyahu. Many more, so "every other BLP on WP" is not true at all. And please spare me the definition of BLP being for living people - because that then begs the question how do they call themselves, these living people, and you probably don't want to go there on this particular article. Plain and simple, this is no pillar of Wikipedia, not firm policy, not followed everywhere at all, not a requirement. There is no reason to change this one. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no hard and fast rule that requires the infobox header to match the page title. Page titles are governed by WP:AT, which includes principles like conciseness and recognizability. No such strictures apply to infobox headers. It's fine as it is. bd2412 T 17:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • BD2412, there is no hard and fast rule because, as far as I know, nobody has ever challenged the common sense convention to simply reflect the title in the infobox. The desire by a few here to go against this convention for no apparent reason is the type of nonsense that causes us to have to create rules where none were ever needed before. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Your language here is emblematic of a bigger problem: the inability of some editors (most notably you) to accept that reasonable people can disagree on subjects such as this. It is not "nonsense" to leave the infobox title as it is. Omnedon (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    No, the bigger problem is the clinging to positions that are not based on policies or conventions. It's one thing to have a disagreement where we have no guidance, but that's not the case here. Convention is quite clear on this point. --В²C ☎ 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any good reason why the infobox header shouldn't match the title of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
So as not to confuse the reader, of course. Given that the vast majority of RS use "Hillary Rodham Clinton", eliminating mention of that name in the article will cause readers to wonder whether this article is about the person that they've read about in The New York Times or the Brittanica. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because "Hillary Clinton" is not a recognizable name at all. We just went through a lengthy discussion that determined her common name does not include Rodham. It's not like that fact is glossed over entirely. The first sentence of the article starts with "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" and there is a long footnote referenced multiple times in the article that addresses her name changes throughout her career. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I see it as more confusing to have the page at "HC" and the infobox header say "HRC" than if they were uniform. To think that people will come upon this article and not be sure if it's about the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" they're looking for is ludicrous. You can't possibly believe what you typed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you think it ludicrous when the argument was made repeatedly that people coming to a page titled "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would be confused and not know that they were on Hillary Clinton's page? Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I never supported that argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's really irrelevant. The "confusion" being mentioned here has to do with the inconsistency of having "Hillary Clinton" as the article title and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the infobox header. I'm pretty sure our readers are intelligent enough to figure out that HRC and HC are the same person. But I'm also pretty sure that the article in its present state will make our readers wonder why the title is one thing and the bold name on the side of the page is another. And there is no good reason to keep the infobox title as HRC. If there is, please enlighten me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Because it is the most common form of her name, as found in reliable source and in common usage. Leaving it out is both a lie of omission and a confusion for the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion that HRC "is the most common for of her name" is not supported by consensus. But thanks for confirming that you're just re-arguing the RM. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Which somehow involves yoghurt, I suppose. Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope. But now that you bring it up, even at Yogurt, after the title was changed, there was no objection to the corresponding change on the infobox[6]. --В²C ☎ 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Are some editors serious, are we going to have a full discussion on this? Seems disruptive, as even some of the prominent editors arguing for the HC name change say that the infobox including the full title is fine. It's clear that there will not be a consensus to move the title on this one, so why put Wikipedia through it? Then again, why not. One of those things I guess. Randy Kryn 00:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's SOP to change the infobox heading when a title changes to reflect the title change. The objection to following this convention here is truly bizarre. Nobody has explained why this article should be an exception. Instead, the same arguments are put forth that were rejected by consensus regarding the title. Unbelievable. --В²C ☎ 01:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, allow the infobox heading to match the article title. Any middle or maiden names are listed in the article intro. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I !voted to move the article, but we don't need to remove "Rodham" from the infobox. It's still part of her name, and it is not a "middle or maiden" name. Jonathunder (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't have separate rules for how to decide which name to use in the infobox because the convention is to use whatever we use for the title (minus any disambiguation). --В²C ☎ 01:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Diane" is part of her name too. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton," if you want to get technical, is her full name. Rodham is a maiden name, but Clinton has opted to make it a part of her full name. Middle names and occasionally maiden names are part of people's names. But we just had a lengthy discussion that determined "Hillary Clinton" is the subject's most common, recognizable name, and the title of the article has been changed as a result. The infobox heading should follow suit. No one is going to be confused about not seeing HRC in the infobox header when HRC is in the first sentence of the article. What people are going to be confused about is why the heading is one thing and the title is another. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I have not participated one iota in any of the reverts, and will support whatever infobox name/title will make the RM warriors unwatch this page and move on. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I found one exception, sort of. The infobox at Sarah Jane Brown says Sarah Brown. But that's because Jane is only there in the title for the purpose of disambiguation; it's not part of her common name. In contrast, the infobox headings on John Stuart Mill, Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan match the respective titles, as is the case in every other BLP I can find. Except this one. I continue to contend that the clear convention is to use the title in the infobox, minus any disambiguation, and using HRC here when the title is HC is unprecedented and unsupported by policy or convention. --В²C ☎ 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you missed my posts and WTR's above, seeing as you found "one exception". I'll re-post one for you. There are other examples as well.Tvoz/talk 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Chester A. Arthur. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. George S. Patton. Charles, Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. Mary Todd Lincoln. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hussein of Jordan. Benjamin Netanyahu. Many more, so "every other BLP on WP" is not true at all. And please spare me the definition of BLP being for living people - because that then begs the question how do they call themselves, these living people, and you probably don't want to go there on this particular article. Plain and simple, this is no pillar of Wikipedia, not firm policy, not followed everywhere at all, not a requirement. There is no reason to change this one. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I would add to that every single disambiguated personal name where an infobox is involved. For example, John Smith (Labour Party leader). bd2412 T 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledged the disambiguation situations ("minus any disambiguation"). But still, despite certain exceptions (especially among royalty, apparently), the convention is to reflect the title in the info box. After most RMs the info box is updated as well. The existence of exceptions (oversights?) does not contradict this point. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that most people are known almost exclusively by a single formulation of their name. We need to consider whether there is really a norm for people who have multiple commonly used formulations. bd2412 T 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good point. Another way to put it is if a topic has two very common names, maybe use one for the title and the other for the info box heading. But I don't think that's common practice, not for articles in general, and not for BLPs in particular, though there are exceptions, as noted. --В²C ☎ 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what BLP has to do with this at all. It is not a false, unsourced, or offensive usage. bd2412 T 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the acronym literally, not to the policy, in case you or anyone else felt the convention was different for articles about people, or living people, than for articles in general. This article is a BLP.

Anyway, changing the infobox heading from what it is now is obviously controversial, and per the lock requires a consensus to change it. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not so at all. It was locked in an arbitrary state. But there was no consensus to change it to the state that it is in now. Omnedon (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Full protected due to edit warring

This article has been full protected for two weeks due to edit warring over the infobox. The above thread at ANI was cause for this admin action. Do not alter the article unless there is a very clear consensus to do so.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox heading survey

No consensus. I'm closing this per a request at WP:AN. There are about 20 people supporting "HC" and about 15 supporting "HRC". Arguments for both versions are defensible in the light of applicable policy, so it's not for me to say who has the stronger arguments. That means we have a majority for "HC", but not consensus, but even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC".  Sandstein  06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please state whether you think the Infobox heading should say Hillary Clinton (HC) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and specify the reason why. Facts to consider:

  1. While the title was Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Infobox heading matched it accordingly.
  2. The recent RM achieved a consensus to change the title, though did not specifically address the Infobox heading (that's why we're having this survey).
  3. The infobox heading matches the title on most but not all articles - there are exceptions (see discussions above).
  4. Template:Infobox_person#Parameters notes that the name field in the Infobox defaults to the article name if left blank, and should be the "Common name of person".
"Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name). If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."

--В²C ☎ 21:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Please specify HC or HRC, and specify the reason why.

  • HC - to match the title. --В²C ☎ 21:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC The infobox does not have to copy the article title, but can be labeled with another common name for the subject (this practice is quite common on Wikipedia, and provides more information about the subject to readers). The name Hillary Rodham Clinton is recognizable, acts as one of her two common names, and matches the signature and some of the history in the infobox. Maybe everyone who commented earlier should be pinged about this survey. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox_person#Parameters clearly indicates that the infobox does have to copy the article title and WP:COMMONNAME. Following an article title that presents "Hillary Clinton", an unexplained presentation of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" makes no sense. comment placed out of chronological sequence GregKaye 10:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HC to match the article's title. "Rodham" still appears in this article 116 times according to my Ctrl+F research. It's not getting short shrift. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC, no reason to upset the status quo ante. An infobox title serves a different function from the title at the top of the article. bd2412 T 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton – Infoboxes and article titles serve different functions, as said above. The purpose of an infobox is to provide information, hence the "info". As the standard formation of this woman's name is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", the infobox should display that name for the purposes of information. Whilst concision can be used to mutilate people's names in article titles, as it is an article title criterion, it cannot be used to justify said mutilation in the infobox. Article titles are matters of navigation, but infoboxes are not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The current article title is not a "mutilation." If no RSes referred to her as "Hillary Clinton" without her maiden name, or if it was extremely uncommon, WP:CONCISE wouldn't have even been relevant and the article title would have remained HRC. The article title was moved primarily because HC was determined to be her most common name. The infobox does a fine job of noting details about her name by indicating that she was born Hillary Diane Rodham (and there is a long footnote explaining the use of HR/HRC/HC attached to that). The infobox is meant to provide basic details, with greater detail reserved for the article body, where the use of HC vs. HRC is addressed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"Hillary Rodham Clinton" is not a detail. It is a vital fact. "Maiden name"? I wonder, would you be content if I asked for your "virgin name"? It is hard to believe that this is what I'm reading. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, well said, an infobox is for information. What better place to put her full name, which she used for most of her life and continues to identify with while on the job and as an author. Randy Kryn 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That's why the infobox has fields for "birth_name" and "native_name" etc. Common name goes at the top, and consensus is her common name is Hillary Clinton, which she obviously prefers or else her website would not hillaryclinton.com. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That she "prefers" HC is not obvious at all, as there are other reasons why her campaign website uses the shorter version of her name. Her preference for HRC is on the record, but some here don't think that should be a decisive factor. Tvoz/talk 03:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) HC. By matching the article title, this is less likely to confuse readers. Clinton is referred to by her full name in the opening sentence, and her usage of HC vs. HRC is discussed in a lengthy footnote. The extensive RM determined that HC is the subject's most common name and that is what the infobox heading should be. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Confusion? Readers will readily see Hillary and Clinton are in Hillary Rodham Clinton, there is nothing confusing about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Clinton. Per template:Infobox_person#Parameters we use the person's common name. We just reached a consensus in a well attended discussion that her common name is "Hillary Clinton." Arguing we shouldn't change the infobox title to reflect her common name is simply a refusal to get the point. "Hillary Clinton" is also the name that she is currently using to describe herself [7], which should be enough for us to reasonable rule out her preferring anything else. The idea that this somewhat wasn't part of the move discussion is hilarious to me. Calidum T|C 23:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC. As a practical matter, this is a nice consolation prize for people who wanted it to be the article title, and perhaps more importantly it tells the reader that HRC is very often used even though not as much as HC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton – This is the name she self-identified as while Secretary of State, while United States Senator, and while First Lady. It is the name she published all five of her books under. It is a name that many sources use on first reference to her. The article should have a prominent indication that this is a name often used for her, and this is the best way of giving that indication. There are no ironclad rules that say the infobox header must match the article title and there are a number of existing exceptions as noted above; this should be another. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC, because a Pyrrhic victory is better than none at all. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (FYI, this was humor; don't count it in the final tally Tarc (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC))
  • Either or both or neither or something else entirely Really, whatever makes this stupid discussion end forever, I'm all for. --Jayron32 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    Wiser words have never before been spoken, my friend. Seriously, this is beyond ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton exactly as Wasted R Time says above - it is her name as she self-identifies, her signature, the name she publishes under, the name many do recognize as her common name. It is the name people will encounter first in most reliable sources and should be reflected in this biography as well in a prominent position. The first line of the lead doesn't do that- it is not supposed to indicate the name the person is known by, rather is just the subject's complete historical name which rarely is how a person is known. Even some people who strongly favored the change of article name recognize and acknowledge here that she is at least often known by her chosen name and agree that the article should illustrate that clearly - this is a good way to do that. There is no absolute requirement that infobox title match article name, and as has been outlined in the discussion above, there are many exceptions across the encyclopedia from most articles about British royals to Franklin D. Roosevelt to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to a myriad of others. This article clearly should be another. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC. Maintain the status quo ante. It's the name she prefers, and we should respect our subjects when doing so won't unduly diminish the reader experience. And per Anythingyouwant, above, it's educational: it tells the reader the other common name. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole Re: "It's the name she prefers" how do you qualify this? have you seen her twitter feed, websites etc.? GregKaye 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy asked her people last year what name she preferred in her biography. She may prefer HC for campaigning but her preference in other situations such as biographies, signatures, official documents, etc. is clearly for HRC. It's the other common name, aside from HC. You know that. Why do you waste my time pinging me with questions you very well know the answer to (and making me navigate editing in an iPad mini which is just below root canal treatment in my hedonic scale)? Sorry. Mainly I'm just angry at this darn interface. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Clinton to match the article title (and per Calidum). This is a no-brainer – the Infobox title should pretty much always match the article title. There would need to be a really compelling reason for them to be different, and that burden's not met here. Her name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" can be amply referred to in the article text itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HC to match the article's title. By the way there has been some edit warring over wheter it should be HC or HRC in the infobox. Seems WP:LAME to me, but meh. --TL22 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Clinton, as the infobox heading should match the article title. This method of matching article title with infobox heading, was practiced before the article title was changed & so should be continued after the article title was changed. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point and one I didn't think of. If I had suggested changing the infobox to "Hillary Clinton" while the title was at the longer name, it would have been dismissed as POINTY. Calidum T|C 13:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually no, it would have been dismissed as pointless, because no one seeing "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as the article title could not get that it was an article about Hillary Clinton. HC on the infobox of an HRC article gives no new information. HRC on this article presently named HC, obviously does. And, once again, it is not some kind of historical "maiden name": it is the name she uses, as many late 20th/early 21st century women do. Tvoz/talk 22:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Rodham is the third word of the article - how is it "new information" if it's in the infobox? It's "a" name she's used, but consensus is against it as "the" name she uses. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"New" was not a good choice of word on my part - I meant that having Rodham included in the header on the infobox gives necessary added information to the article title Hillary Clinton. The first line does not do that - Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is not how she has ever been known, not used in RS reporting on her, etc. Certainly no one here claims that it is her common name. It is correct and appropriate for the first line, just as "Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" (Bouvier) Kennedy Onassis" is, but it does not convey the information that having HRC on the infobox does - namely that her use of HRC is not rare or obscure or historic, nor is the use of that name in most quality reliable sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post to this day rare or obscure or historic. Even most diehard supporters of HC as the article title have acknowledged that she is known as HRC as well - just as supporters of HRC acknowledge that she is known as HC as well - it is a difference of opinion about which common name is the most common name. Therefore to remove Rodham from the infobox header does a disservice to the truth and to our readers who come here for education and enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how not having her maiden name in the top of the infobox is a "disservice to the truth and to our readers who come here for education and enlightenment." That's a serious reach. The claim that it is a "disservice to the truth" indicates the argument is really about the people who didn't get their way (ie the truth) in the article title RM and can't accept that. By the way, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis should definitely be Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in the infobox, as it's her common name and the one she used for the last 20 years of her life. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
With all respect, wrong on both counts. It is not a reach at all. You seem not to understand that Rodham is not some kind of historical "maiden" name noted for the record. It's the name she chooses to continue to use - some editors here see lots of evidence that it should remain the title of the article, some don't. Despite the determination of some Wikipedia editors that HC is the more common usage, once again even diehard participants here acknowledge that she is also commonly known as HRC. Their arguments convinced three other editors that the article title should be changed to HC - but nowhere was it suggested that Rodham be removed from prominent mention. As for Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - the photo at the top of the infobox, and the first description of her role as First Lady, is from when she was known as Jacqueline Kennedy, and editors there decided that it would be confusing to have that material headed by JKO. But of course the article name should be JKO because it was the name she used for much more of her life than JK and the name most quality reliable sources use for her. So the infobox there should not be changed to JKO - and having the title and infobox not be identical is not at all confusing, and wouldn't be here either. As has been said elsewhere in this discussion, there are lots of other examples of infobox header not matching article name, so insistence that they match is not the most important consideration. Tvoz/talk 05:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Signatures don't mean much considering the hugely diverse way they appear (search for celebrities signatures and you'll see that - some are just initials basically). She also signs as Hillary R. Clinton or even just "Hillary." George W. Bush doesn't use the W in his signature but that's not his common name nor should it be at the top of his infobox.... —МандичкаYO 😜 21:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Her full name is "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton", not "Hillary Rodham Clinton". "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is an entirely separate form, the most common form of her name in good sources. RGloucester — ☎ 05:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton - It is her often stated preferred name, it is extremely common in high-quality reliable sources, and having an article named "Hillary Clinton" and an infobox with "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gives both "sides" a win, reducing the chances for more of this ridiculous bullshit to perpetuate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You realize your first two arguments were soundly rejected in the recent move discussion and the third one is just as weak, right? Calidum T|C 16:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
They were not "soundly rejected" at all, but you can go ahead and try to perpetuate that little bit of revisionism if you feel like it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HC - After brief reconsideration. Per User:Wikimandia; I've glanced a bunch of political biographies, and the infobox name almost always seems to match the article title. I know this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but in the absence of any guiding policy, it seems better than simple personal preference. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HC - per guidelines to match the article title. Rlendog (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC - Infoboxes can be contentious but their content is determined by consensus at the individual article. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes). HRC is well known, and for actually learning about her, there is nothing better.[8]. Agree with the other HRC folk's points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That an infobox's content is determined by discussion at the individual article is the point of this rfc - it's not an argument for why the infobox heading should be HRC rather than HC (or vice versa). The intro already mentions Rodham - so there is no "learning about her" that stems from it being included in the infobox heading. The issue here is whether there is a good reason to use a different name from the title. --В²C ☎ 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The infobox has always used HRC. The issue here is whether there is a compelling reason to change a longstanding status quo. As I said before, conciseness and commonality principles of WP:AT do not apply to infoboxes, so there would need to be some other reason. I'm not seeing it. bd2412 T 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Sigh, the default label for an infobox is to reflect the title of the article, so of course the infobox used HRC while the title was HRC. But to maintain the status quo, the infobox should continue to reflect the article title. Changing it to something other than the title would be a change to the status quo that requires consensus support. --В²C ☎ 01:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Your assumption is entirely unsupported, it was the name in the infobox because it was good, useful and quick information. As is noted there is no rule that they have to be the same - they are different issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
            • @Alanscottwalker: - re "entirely unsupported" - Out of curiosity, have you looked at other similar political BLPs? The vast, vast majority of them default to the title. Defaulting to the article is also what's decribed in the template instructions. I think your "entirely unsupported" characterization, is.... well...... entirely unsupported. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Well, then evidently, you assume that editors of this particular Featured Article did not carefully choose the information presented in this article, and your assumption is entirely unsupported along with being a seemingly disrespectful assumption to make. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                • The following evidence supports the position that the infobox heading reflects the article title: widespread practice and that being the default value for the heading in the infobox. What evidence supports the position that in this particular case the infobox heading was HRC not because of the title, but because it was "carefully chosen" as part of being a FA? Links to discussions about the heading? Anything other than your pure conjecture? --В²C ☎ 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • None of that matters. Local consensus trumps everything else on Wikipedia. If you are going to have "your way" that this article is titled "Hillary Clinton", then it is just plain good sense that the infobox uses the extremely common and subject preferred "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It's astonishing that people are making such a big deal over this! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • Yes, it is astonishing. The consensus is that HC meets our policies, guidelines and conventions better than does HRC, for the title. Now we're just updating the infobox heading to match that just like it always matched the title when it was HRC, and just like the infobox heading matches the title on most of our articles, but people continue to object. Astonishing indeed. --В²C ☎ 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • (e/c) So, your "evidence" is otherstuffexists and an unfilled template suggestion - that by definition is not evidence of anything having to do with editorial judgement at this article. I am basing my assumption on the good reputation of these writers, who wrote this featured article and sources [9]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • No, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Identifying cherry-picked isolated exceptions is WP:OTHERSTUFF. A widespread practice that is reflected in the vast majority of articles is an established convention, not OTHERSTUFF. In this case infobox headings matching the article's title is an established convention, with some exceptions. The issue here is whether HRC was used as the infobox heading to match the article title, as is the case on most articles, or that it was HRC for reasons independent of the match-the-title convention that continue apply after the title change. As far as I can tell the claim that it was the latter is not supported by any evidence. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --В²C ☎ 18:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                      • No, that's your issue, not "the" issue. Some editors here seem not to get that changing the title of the article, based on their belief that it is her more common name, does not change her name. Wikipedia does not determine what her name is. No one has credibly argued that she no longer uses Rodham - quite the contrary. She uses it herself all the time - campaign issues notwithstanding. She has a whole life that we are writing about, during which she has always included Rodham as part of her name. So having it included prominently makes perfect sense, and her lifetime continuing use is a good reason for an exception - like many others - to a suggestion in infobox parameters. This argument is absurd. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                        • She has multiple names. We debated about which name should be the title. We determined that should be HC. Now we're debating which name should be used in the infobox. And you're using the same arguments that failed for arguing that HRC should be the name used in the title. Your argument is absurd indeed. --В²C ☎ 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • You're wrong. You continue to rely on otherstuff. Moreover, you assume that encyclopedia writers don't do things for good reason - they just follow what you claim are conventions - that they by definition don't have to follow. Actually, good encyclopedia writers do things because they impart good information. That's what being a good encyclopedia writer is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) (fixed Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC))
                      • "Your wrong." Really? Does that exemplify the work of a "good encyclopedia writer" for you? I do not make the assumption you claim I make. Your reading comprehension is no better than your writing ability, apparently. --В²C ☎ 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                        • Oh, corrected, thanks. Focusing your commentary on nothing important does not improve this page but it does run through your arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                          • When a post consists entirely of claims that I've made assumptions that I have not made, there is nothing else to focus on other than the rich irony of someone making writing errors while sharing platitudes about good writing. --В²C ☎ 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                            • So, the article writers who took this to FA had good reason for presenting the extremely well referenced and quickly informative, Hilary Rodham Clinton, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                              • There is no question that HRC is "extremely well referenced and quickly informative" - but that's true for HC too. So that's not an argument for why one (but not the other) should be used in the infobox heading. --В²C ☎ 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                                • Sure, it is. There no point in being repetitive, as your proposal wants to be - to quickly provide new information is what should be done, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                                  • That's a different argument - that the infobox heading should present a different name (new information) when applicable. Curiously, it did not seem to be an important consideration when the title was HRC. So why is it now? --В²C ☎ 23:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                                    • It's not a new argument. There was no new useful information to put with the old set-up, her names were already there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
                                      • What do you mean? In the old set-up for title, intro and infobox we had HRC, HDRC and HRC respectively. In the current set-up we have HC, HDRC and HC... All her names are there in both set-ups, to the same degree (we used to not have HC, now we don't have HRC - but we had and still have HDRC). What you favor is HC, HDRC and HRC; isn't that different? --В²C ☎ 01:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
One more time. She is not and has never been known as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. No one who responsibly edits this article has ever suggested that this configuration should appear anywhere other than as the first line of the lede which is there to provide historical information about all names associated with her. See Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. She has been, and continues to be, known as Hillary Rodham Clinton - she never dropped Rodham from her name. Some Wikipedia editors convinced three other Wikipedia editors that this article should be named Hillary Clinton. But that did not change what her name, as she uses it, is, and therefore to leave off a prominent rendering of her name as quality reliable sources and even strong supporters of the article title change acknowledge is a common rendering of her name, reduces the value of this article as the educational tool it should be. Yes, this is explained in footnote and text, but nonetheless, for this biography to present an accurate picture of her life and career, the infobox should reflect the name that is and has been her name for many years. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that not showing her name as Hillary CLinton when the article was named Hillary Rodham Clinton is somehow the same.Tvoz/talk 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We are talking about the set-up regarding the title and the infobox -- that's what you have said you want changed not the lead. In the old set up it was Title=HRC and InfoboxField=HRC. In that configuration, "Hillary" and "Clinton" are in both places, as is the well known and informative "Rodham" information. When the title is changed to Title = HC and InfoboxField = HRC, the information of "Rodham" is lost from the Title, but remains in InfoboxField. When the Title is changed, the substance of the biography does not, but if there is a new configuration of Title=HC and InfoboxField=HC the "extremely well referenced and quickly informative" (as you called it) HRC is lost in the Title and the InfoboxField. Diane is of no consideration in this regard. I don't know why you even brought it up, as no one has proposed using it, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Some HC !voters above suggest there is some infobox policy besides WP:CONSENSUS at this article, and I am just noting there is not. Your other point just appears to be good reason to put Rodham in the infobox - it's her name, as you note, and its more quick info for the reader trying to learn, and as I note, it's the best [10] Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • re "Some HC !voters above suggest there is some infobox policy" - That's a mischaracterization. Some HC voters correctly noted that the instructions in the template suggest using HC. NickCT (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, where there is a "suggestion" then say there is a "suggestion" not a "policy" nor a "guideline." The template is not meant to write articles, editors, not acting as automaton, write articles in exercising good judgement based on extensive knowledge of the subject and of the sources[11] at this particular article - not otherstuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems a major point that's been mentioned but at the same time often overlooked is that unlike other pages and infoboxes the subject of this one uses the full name, and has used the Rodham part of it her entire life. She uses it as her name while on the job, uses it for all of the books she authors, and she made significant and prominent accomplishments before her marriage and the addition of the "Clinton" to the already known "Hillary Rodham" name. Not everyone does that, hence the confusion of why this is a valid exception to the suggestion (which, as pointed out, is neither a policy or even a guideline). So the full name, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is both prominent and acts as one of her two common names. There is certainly nothing wrong with including this full name as the title of the infobox, and much right with it. Randy Kryn 17:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • True, it is also extremely well referenced [12] additional information. The claim that some completely voluntary convention is more important than quickly conveying good information on this subject, is just poor reasoning, and poor encyclopedia editing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

B2C, your comment above about another editor's reading comprehension and writing ability is a direct attack on that editor. Please remember your pledge, which, given your contributions to this discussion, has been entirely forgotten. Omnedon (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - This debate is getting a little silly. Actually, this debate was always a little silly and now it's got a little sillier. It seems like a group of those opposed to the article title change are just using the infobox to attempt to take a second bite at the apple. I wonder if we're entering some kind of perverse battleground, where every single instance of HRC or HC is going to become a battleground. Someone should really consider filing this issue under lamest edit wars. NickCT (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that certain editors are claiming the infobox must match the article title, when in fact no policies or guidelines exist for such a thing. All that really matters is WP:CONSENSUS. As long as there is broad agreement the infobox can have "Hillary Rodham Clinton", I don't see why it shouldn't. We could have left this whole matter long behind us and moved on to more important things, but one or two editors are being completely and totally inflexible. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Scjessey: - There are no explicit policies or guidelines, but there is general practice and the template instructions. True all that matters is consensus, but consensus has to have some kind of coherent rationale behind it. At the moment the only rationales for HRC I'm hearing are the same ones given during the move request. The same ones which were ultimately rejected. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It was a very close decision. It actually attracted less support than the last move discussion, where it was not moved. Having HRC in the infobox and HC as the title will more or less eliminate much of the bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Coherent? The HRC position seems more than coherent NeilCT, it seems you actually agree with much of the the facts the HRC position relies on, that HRC is extremely well sourced, quick, useful information, and longstanding; the last fact the HRC folks rely on is it's even more so, now, because it is additional information. The HRC position is all very coherent.
You also agree that there is no policy, nor guidelines that force the decision. Do you really think it's a coherent argument that the editors' of this "individual article" in the words of Arbcom do not have editorial discretion, when there is neither policy nor guideline that forces them? As for other articles, that's an argument to vitiate discretion at the individual article, and therefore does not accord with current policy - as for the unfilled template suggestion, it's just a suggestion. Finally, with respect to the late MOVE REQUEST, this is not about a MOVE so the policy there simply does not apply to this decision. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The convention to reflect the title in the infobox is followed in the vast majority of our articles, including the vast majority of our BLP articles. There are exceptions, but that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The convention clearly supported by community consensus as reflected in normal practice in the vast majority of our articles, not to mention that being the default in the infobox template, is to use the same name in the infobox heading as in the title, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Why is this convention not documented in a guideline? Probably because nobody has ever seen the need for it. But maybe this case shows we do need to document this convention in a guideline? Especially to identify what constitutes a "good reason" to have the infobox heading differ from the title? --В²C ☎ 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You realize that WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletions, right? The infobox template defaults to using the article title if no name is specified; clearly this is an acknowledgment that sometimes there is a need to have a different name in the infobox. A default is not the same as a convention. The title and the infobox name are not linked. Omnedon (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Scjessey: - I agree with everything you're saying. But I think I'd question whether "eliminating bickering" is more important than following convention and template instructions. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Omnedon: - re "title and the infobox name are not linked" - And yet if you look at almost any similar political BLP, they seem to be. It is a convention by virtue of the fact that that's the general rule which seems to get followed everywhere. Bottom line is that the onus is on the HRCer's to explain why we shouldn't do what we usually do. Haven't seen a good explanation yet. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
They "seem" to be? They are not. And if you haven't seen a good explanation, then you haven't been looking. Omnedon (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
re "They are not." - You'd contest that the large majority of similar BLP's have info box titles which are the same as the article titles? NickCT (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Most BLPs only have one name that they are known by at all. We have here a unique circumstance, and it merits unique consideration. bd2412 T 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
NickCT, they are not linked. They are often the same but not necessarily. Clear enough? Please stop deliberately misinterpreting. Omnedon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
NickCT, Bottom line is the editors at this article have discretion to do in the infobox what they will based on what the subject of this individual article is. All your arguments about other articles are irrelevant - it demonstrates how in-apposite and poor your argument is that it relies on nothing actually having to do with the subject of this article (it's as if you don't care what the subject of this article is) - instead you want us to pretend there is a policy or guideline that constrains discretion at this article but there is not (eg. BLP certainly does not prevent referring to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton in the infobox). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Omnedon: - How am I misinterpreting? I said the article title and info box name seem to be linked in the great majority of cases. You said "They are not" in reply. I asked if you'd contest that the article title and info box name are linked. How is that a misinterpretation?
Regardless, you now seem to agree that as a general rule, the article title is the infobox name. So what's the rationale to do differently here? Any arguments which aren't just rehashing's of the ones at the RM? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - So, your argument then is that we should do whatever we feel like doing. Without justification, rationale or consideration for what is done elsewhere? You don't feel the need to explain why HC is different from a thousand other similar BLPs? NickCT (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you pinged me, so I take it you want me to respond - as has been said over and over again by the HRC folks there are multiple good reasons. I will not list them all again, but if it will help you, view this again, for one. What I am saying is that, as bindingly construed by Arbcom, consensus at the individual article on infoboxes is the current policy - so, you engage in a pretense, when you claim we are prevented. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - With respect my friend, I think your good judgement is being clouded by some kind of desire to hand out a consolation prize over the RM debate. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: - My friend, I do not believe that my judgment is clouded at all. Article titles are navigational tools intended to identify the subject to the broadest audience. Infoboxes are not navigational, but informational; that's why the infobox at an article like Paul Simon (politician) does not contain "(politican)". You know that no editor has been a stronger advocate of retitling this article than I, but the infobox question was not a part of the RM, and should not be an automatic consequence of it. I think that it is an error to compare this to BLPs for which there is only one well-known name of the subject. We could just as easily say that because most BLPs have a single known date of birth, there should be only one date listed for the handful for which there are multiple conflicting accounts of date of birth; in practice, however, we list them all to provide the most information where there is more information to be provided. Also, doesn't it seem odd to you that the phrase "Hillary Rodham Clinton" currently doesn't appear in the article until the "Later Arkansas years" section? You could read up to that point without ever getting the sense that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is a variation in use at all. Placing it in the infobox gives it an appropriate prominence relative to the article as a whole - not the most common usage, but still a common and informative usage. bd2412 T 15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - The disambig analogy seems a little extraneous to this conversation.
re "we list them all to provide ..... doesn't it seem odd to you" - Ok. Maybe that is odd. But I'd probably suggest using the Template:Infobox_person "other_names" parameter is the right resolution.
I don't think the HRC position is outlandish here. But I get the nagging feeling we're treating HC like she's special (as evidenced by the fact that here BLP would differ notably from others in regards to infobox titling). I'm having difficulty seeing the rationale. NickCT (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
BLP? For the last several days the Wikipedia main page has prominently featured this recently deceased person's article, so therefore covered by BLP, and the title and the infobox are different. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - Ironically the example you've offered seems to be a recently made erroneous edit. "Sir" should probably be an "honorific" parameter, as prescribed in the template instructions. The same instructions which dictate we use "Hillary Clinton" for the infobox here. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
? I mentioned it as an example of the Infobox and the Title being different in a BLP -- regardless of where the Sir goes, they are still are different -- the Infobox at the top has more info, than the Title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - I don't think how we treat honorofics is relevant to this conversation. They aren't technically part of your name. But even if you do consider them part of your name, my point still holds. The template contains specific instructions on how to include honorifics. And those instructions do not include putting the honorific in the actual name parameter. So technically the "name" should still match the article title. NickCT (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
So, BLP is not relevant, like it is not relevant to compare this BLP, to BLPs for which there is only one well-known name of the subject, and the other articles are irrelevant because current policy is determine the infobox issues at the individual article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - re "So, BLP is not relevant" - Not what I said. I said honorifics weren't relevant.
re "determine the infobox issues at the individual article" - Yet again, I agree on this point. Local consensus can trump general practice. But again, local consensus has to have some kind of logic or rationale behind it. We can't just say "This is what we're going to do here, because this is what we feel like doing here". I still don't see what makes HC different or special from other BLPs. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm? Well, as the HRC folks are not in your judgement making outlandish arguments, and your recent point is a "nagging feeling", about what you claim is our motives, than it's your 'nagging feeling' that is the basis for doing "what you want to do", not anything having to do with consensus. Instead, you suspect us of bad motive, for our good reasons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - "not anything having to do with consensus" - There's a clear global consensus on this issue (as evidenced by the fact that other BLPs almost always match infobox title to article title). Again, I'd agree we could use a local consensus to override that.
I'm simply pointing out what the rule on this issue seems to be and asking why we shouldn't follow the general rule. All I'm hearing so far, is "I don't like the rule" which isn't good enough. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't make claims like that about motives, where our reasons are things such as the sources (or just look at [13] in this individual article, where HRC, and Rodham, are more often used than anything else) and the fact that it is very well known, and are tied to the facts of her life. It has nothing to do with consensus because you are assuming bad faith. As for Global, the binding arbitration on policy is it is not Global, that is made clear by there being no policy, nor guideline - so you are just incorrect, about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: - I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm assuming bad rationale. Cherry picking sources is the same rationale that was used during the RM debate. That rationale was rejected. re "so you are just incorrect" - Ok Alan. So out of curiosity, if there is no policy or guideline, why do you think virtually all other BLPs follow the same general rule, which is to make the info box title match the article title? NickCT (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the multiple sources in the international authority file and in this article's cited bibliography is the opposite of cherry picking, but once again you assume bad faith. This is not an RM, so that policy does not apply. There is no "if" about no policy nor guideline, there is none - as for other articles, as multiple HRC folks have noted, they don't have the well established circumstances that are here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - Alan! Again, I'm sure you're acting in good faith. I just think your rationale is a bit off. The RM established that HC is the WP:COMMONNAME among reliable sources. I'm sure you can point to multiple "authoritative" sources which use HRC, but if HC is the WP:COMMONNAME then when you point to those sources you are cherry-picking by definition.
re "they don't have the well established circumstances" - Ok. So tell me what circumstances rationalize treating HC differently than those other BLP's. Any arguments beyond what was presented at the RM? NickCT (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand that Commonname is part of a policy for move requests, and we are not discussing a move request? You are arguing in contravention of that Article Title policy which specifies it covers Article Title (while at the same time AT expressly acknowledges that sometimes there is more than one name for a subject) -- we are not discussing what the article title should be, here. There is no cherry picking going on - your bad faith claim makes no sense -- HRC is well sourced (hence multiple sources), quick, useful, longstanding, additional information - no one is picking HRC it out of a hat, here. It actually does not improve your argument to keep bringing up irrelevant policies -- it's not like they are meant by consensus do things they don't say, and rule things, they don't rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As as been noted and cited here multiple times, the guidelines for the infobox state that the heading is normally the common name of the topic. Further, the default value for the info box is the title. The only reason to be able to override the default is to omit disambiguation in the title in those cases where the title is disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No. A voluntary template suggestion is not a Wikipedia Guideline. Your, "the only reason", is just something you made up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - re "your bad faith claim makes no sense" - Alan, you seem to be throwing the term "bad faith" around quite a bit with multiple editors. You might want to try to address the central point of peoples' arguments a bit more, instead of just claiming that their argument "make no sense". Clearly the argument seems to make sense to a lot of people (as evidenced by the number of people supporting HC). Perhaps if it doesn't make sense to you, you should spend a little more time trying to understand it?
I do understand that WP:COMMONNAME relates specifically to article titles. I was pointing out that the argument you're offering for the info box (i.e. some authoritative sources use HRC) is the same argument that was offered at the RM, and the same argument that was rejected because HRC was not the WP:COMMONNAME. Even if WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to info box titles, there is no policy which tells us to use the un-commonname for infoboxes. Your pointing out that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't determine info box titles only says that the rationale for using HC for the infobox isn't dictated by policy. It doesn't say that HRC is dictated by policy.
All I ask is that you point to some policy or simple piece of logic which would support doing something different from the norm in this BLP. Saying that "some authoritative sources use HRC so we should put it in the info box", isn't good enough. NickCT (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep asking me for the same things, over and over, again, when I have stated multiple reasons - not just that HRC is well sourced, which everyone in reason must agree it is. Then too, well sourced, is, of course, a universally well regarded and policy compliant reason for article content. I said you assume bad faith because you speculated on motive -- as I said, you suspect us of bad motive, for our good reasons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - No one disagrees that HRC is used in a bunch of "good sources". But HC is used in a bunch of good sources too. The RM suggested that HC is used in more good sources. If HC is better sourced than HRC I'm struggling to understand what the justification can be to use HRC.
Again, do you have some argument that goes beyond, "some good sources use HRC". NickCT (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Again you ask me for the multiple reasons that have been stated multiple times - that's just impolite. But just to remind you (as there is little sense in going over other old ground, again and again) HC is already very prominently displayed, which is one of the multiple good reasons to use HRC below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: - re "HC is already very prominently displayed" - That's not a bad rationale. HRC is fairly common name. It makes sense that it be displayed prominently somewhere. I'm just not sure it's a good enough rationale to go against the general practice, which is to keep the article title and info box the same. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have much time but I am not ignoring your ping. What you have said is probably why, I did not understand your objection to looking at sources. I assumed the context of this article and understood that "HRC is fairly common name." Presenting good, useful information, "fairly", being in the editorial purpose of Wikipedia. So, when people look, at something like [14], Wikipedia reflects well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody? That appears not to be actually the case. [15] [16] [17] [18] Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
[19], [20], [21], [22]. Repeatedly introduced as such to Australian readers, catchy tabloid titles notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC - Honestly, I don't understand the push for the infobox to contain less information. It's only 6 more letters, and it's preferred full version of her name supported by numerous reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC because it really doesn't matter, either in the title or the infobox title. Now that the title is HC, maybe putting the R in the infobox will make this whole stupid, pointless dispute go away. It's worth a try, anyway. Neutron (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There being nothing new going on here, I have requested closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Infobox heading survey. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • HC Match the article title as is standard on biography articles and which has been the practice on this article for years. Do we have to have this debate endlessly across Wikipedia? Whatever is done it should be for the interests of readers and not a compromise designed to appease vocal editors. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HC per Muboshgu, NickCT, and others. I don't see any convincing arguments for HRC. They seem to fall roughly into these groups:
    • Personal opinions with no demonstrated community consensus; e.g., "An infobox title serves a different function from the title at the top of the article."
    • Patently false ideas; e.g., "Article titles are matters of navigation."
    • Re-hashing of many of the HRC arguments from the move debates, which, by the way, failed. Those sticks should have been dropped.
    • Disregard for Other Stuff Exists. This is far less acceptable when the Other Stuff is in a clear minority and lacks de facto community consensus.
    • Gee, what's the big deal? You guys are taking things way too seriously! (said while taking things just as seriously)
The fact is that this heading matches the title in a majority of articles, and I see no reason to deviate from that in this case. If the article gets moved to HRC in the future, I'll obviously support changing the infobox heading to HRC at that time. I'm not going to be drawn into pointless, circular TL;DR like I see above; anyone is welcome to a last word here if they want it and they can say it before this closes. I've said my piece and the closer is free to disregard my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

break (added 7/9/15)

  • HC, come on guys, this is basic. Please can you either work towards a change in policy or follow it. Template:Infobox_person#Parameters clearly indicates to use commonname / article title in the infobox. Within instruction regarding commonname we read: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." In addition to the commonname argument there we also have an argument for the consistent presentation of information. What sense is there in presenting an article title and then, with no coherent explanation, presenting something else as a title for the infobox? How does this not make us look stupid??
I am saddened to think that the proposal to place an inconsistent title in the infobox is solely born from editor discontent in regard to the consensus decision to move the article. I do not know of any other encyclopedia that chops and changes between titling and editors that against policy support the application of this unexplained inconsistency are not, on this issue, WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Instead they are choosing an argument that flagrantly ignores the instruction at, "WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". GregKaye 10:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's your assumption a bad faith that is disruption of the consensus process. While consensus at this "individual article" (in the words of Arbcom) can readily use HRC in the infobox (as for example it is used all over this article's Cited Bibliography), one thing consensus absolutely cannot do in this discussion, is elevate a voluntary template suggestion to a policy, as you would do. Moreover, your implication that Wikipedia never uses anything else in the infobox is false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: - re "solely born from editor discontent in regard to the consensus decision to move the article." - Yes. Sad. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker "What sense is there in presenting an article title and then, with no coherent explanation, presenting something else as a title for the infobox? How does this not make us look stupid??" GregKaye 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that argument is rather senseless. Article content has more information than Article Title. HRC provides more information - it's far from "stupid" to use both -- it's regularly done, in fact. Everyone can see that HC is in HRC, it hardly even takes any thinking to see that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, there are valid reasons for this and they have been presented. There's a difference of opinion here. It is entirely unfair, and an assumption of bad faith, to portray it as sour grapes. The infobox is a separate issue from the article title. The two are often the same, but (as has been shown) not always. Omnedon (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A sensible approach is to provide explanation for content. You are proposing to have one title as "Hillary Clinton" in one place and (without rhyme, reason and clear explanation) to present "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in another adjacent location. This, as far as I can see, really is fuck up by committee. In an above thread (Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Opening_sentence) I have suggested using the explanatory text, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Rodham; born October 26, 1947, also known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) is an American politician." This kind of thing would be genuinely informative for readers. There is nothing that I have seen pointed out to say that Hillary has ever had a legal name change from "Hillary Diane Rodham". All we have is a most commonly used name as "Hillary Clinton" and a less commonly used name as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
We are now in a situation in which a consensus decision has been taken to use "Hillary Clinton" as article title. Especially in the context of commonname, WP P and G is clear in regard to what should be done with the infobox title.
Omnedon then I am bewildered by the stance presented. I have proposed a method of presenting names within the context of explanation and yet editors are choosing only to push for the use of differing titles on the same page without explanation. "What sense is there in presenting an article title and then, with no coherent explanation, presenting something else as a title for the infobox? How does this not make us look stupid??" GregKaye 13:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
How many times will you repeat that absurd sentence? Explanations have indeed been provided here. It doesn't help for you to ignore what has been said. And what have you to say of the other examples of articles where the infobox differs from the article title? This is not an isolated occurrence. Omnedon (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
For honestly as long as I don't want us to look stupid with some half cocked, incoherent, unexplained content presentation.

The examples presented are rare and are not parallel.

The examples given all present rare exceptions that don't apply. In the case that we don't have any certainty that Hillary has ever changed her name officially from "Hillary Diane Rodham" all we have are names that are variously attested as far as usage but we have nothing authoritative. There is no reason to assert any new content into the infobox. We already have two name presentations in title and opening sentence. There is no reason to place a less used name in the infobox. WP P and G is clear on what should be done. GregKaye 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon, of course there is cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF. But if you do an objective survey of randomly-chosen articles, as we have going below, the existence of a convention is obvious. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the existence of a default is obvious. That's not the same as a convention. Omnedon (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, please. Convention and defaults often go hand in hand, and this case is no exception. The default reflects the most common way it is used; the convention. Of course it's possible that the default is normally overridden, in which case the default would not reflect the convention. But of course that's not what we have here. --В²C ☎ 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg, Thanks for explaining, but your "stupid" argument is still rather senseless. It does not even take the slightest bit of reasoning to see the connection without extended explanation:

  • Hilary Clinton
    • Hilary Rodham Clinton

makes perfect sense, as they readily share much in common, without any explanation.

(Setting aside !votes) There are several points in this discussion which we appear to have agreement on, including that HRC is well sourced, useful, longstanding, additional information. Your point that the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" belongs prominently in the first sentence of the HC article but not a few centimeters away in the infobox, is an aesthetic argument, not one of substance. Aesthetics can sometimes be difficult to come to agreement on, which is probably why you use the inarticulate epithet, "stupid."

Your listing of other articles makes obvious that other articles also have up-top-infobox different or additional information from the Article title. Your list contradicts completely your unsubstantiated claim that it cannot be done on Wikipedia. That you are able to articulate hair-spitting and rather nugatory differences in other articles is to be expected of different articles, and merely shows the limited utility of looking at other articles, other than to acknowledge that it is done on Wikipedia. This is made plain by your hand wave at unidentified other articles, which you claim support your position but somehow you fail to acknowledge that those articles are also different, in subject, fact, and substance.

Lastly, your "legal name" argument is odd, as nowhere is there anything to suggest legal name matters, and we are not lawyers, and you somehow miss the multiple times, over decades, this very subject uses HRC for herself. You end-up by hand waiving at "WP P and G", which is plainly poor argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Alan, Re: "senseless", you are always at liberty to reply directly to the question: "What sense is there in presenting an article title and then, with no coherent explanation, presenting something else as a title for the infobox?" Your presentation of bullet points notably different from a way in which the content would be presented within the article which would appear similar to the following:

Hillary Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hillary Rodham Clinton
< There are two titles presented here with no coherent explanation given for their against WP P and G difference. >

If you do not think that it will unproductively consume yet more editor time and if you now want to present an argument making reference to the philosophy of Aesthetics, then you at liberty to do so.

My claim is that the current proposal is against WP P and G and (both in line with the use of Articulation (phonetics) and in provision of a fitting description of the situation), IMO, makes us look "stupid". Within the context of two different titles being presented without explanation being given and in the context of what I look to me to be the tendentiously driven proposals above I think that my question "How does this not make us look stupid??" is valid.

There is nothing "odd" in my raising of the "legal name" issue. The odd thing is that many editors have repeatedly and erroneously been pushing the unfounded argument of "Hillary Rodman Clinton" as, in some unspecified way, having more validity than name presentation as "Hillary Clinton". On this editors have been engaged in a WP:ASSERTive field day. The truth is that "Hillary Rodman Clinton" is her name/self designation in some circumstances some of the time. "Hillary Clinton", however, is the name/self designation that she uses most publicly and which is most commonly known. We need subjectivity and my mention of the legal situation was in an attempt, as I see it, to try to help editors form a less subjectively based perspective.

GregKaye 07:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see a huge overarching Hillary Clinton and a smaller Hillary Rodham Clinton underneath? It takes no explanation for anyone with reason to see the connection between the two. It's not "Hillary Clinton", then "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" below. Your aesthetic presentation does not help your argument be any more than about aesthetics - it's certainly not about a handwave at policy. There is nothing stupid about additionally referring to her a Hilary Rodham Clinton, not to these reliable people, nor these reliable people, nor this reliable person - it should go without saying, that your "assertive" ideas of stupidity are not to be relied upon, and are inherently "subjective". Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Born2cycle:'s random article survey makes a good point here, although not the one B2C intends. About half of all articles already have a difference between the title and the infobox header. Oh, but you say, most of those are disambig situations. But do you really think the average reader understands disambig or what our policies about it are? Why some cities have a state after them in the title and some don't? Why some song articles have nothing in parens after the title, some articles have "(song)" after, and some have "(So-and-so song)" after? Why the "(song)" isn't repeated on the upper right? Why some sports teams have a longer expression in one place and a shorter one in the other? We understand it, because we work with this stuff, but average readers almost certainly don't. They just accept that Wikipedia articles often have multiple ways of phrasing the name. They certainly will accept that here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Wasted Time R That would be a salient point if our choice made a difference to readers. I contend it does not; not to any significant degree anyway. If this infobox heading, for example, is HRC or HC probably makes no difference to any readers (same with titles, by the way, a related but different issue). Therefore, it only matters to us. And what I think matters to us is that we have, as much as reasonably possible, a deterministic method for determining infobox headings (and titles, again, for that matter) so that we can avoid these long and ultimately meaningless debates. You might ask, if they're meaningless, why do I participate? The reason I participate is to help establish the deterministic method, as much as reasonably possible. Why do you participate? --В²C ☎ 21:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC, per reasons already expressed by Wasted Time R, Omnedon, RGlouster, Tvoz, et al. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a name by which the subject is widely known and which is often used to identify her – and in fact is the form most often favored in encyclopedic, biographic, and official contexts, as the great many examples provided in the previous more request show. Though the title itself is now HC, the wide and continued prevalence of HRC makes it reasonable to continue to present it prominently. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

SPECIAL:RANDOM selected examples

How widely followed is the convention to reflect the title in the infobox heading on Wikipedia? Let's find out! Feel free to add to the list below per the following objective rules.

Rules:

  1. No cherry-picking (only use SPECIAL:RANDOM to find examples that are added to the list below)
  2. Skip dab pages or any articles without info boxes
  3. Don't skip any articles with info boxes just because it doesn't favor your position or any other reason
  4. Any example where the info box heading matches the title (minus any disambiguation in the title), gets a Green tickY ({{aye}})
  5. Any example where the info box heading does not match the title (minus any disambiguation in the title), gets a Red XN ({{nay}}), followed by whatever the heading is in parentheses.

--В²C ☎ 16:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————

  1. Skomarje Green tickY
  2. Bill Wallace (American football) Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  3. Abdul Aziz Mirza Green tickY
  4. Loubens, Ariège Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  5. Narasin Green tickY
  6. Edir Macedo Green tickY
  7. Bhiloda Green tickY
  8. Kevin Callan Green tickY
  9. Make It Big Green tickY
  10. Aura (Miles Davis album) Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  11. RiceTec Red XN (RiceTec Inc.)
  12. Mecyclothorax ata Green tickY
  13. Jeff Baca Green tickY
  14. Seh Chah, Kuhak Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  15. 1981 TANFL season Red XN (1981 TANFL Premiership Season)
  16. First inauguration of Bill Clinton Red XN (First Presidential Inauguration of Bill Clinton)
  17. Mamucium Green tickY
  18. José Cancela Green tickY
  19. Göynük, Kemer Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  20. Van Allen Plexico Green tickY
  21. Sigoghin Green tickY
  22. Harsimrat Kaur Badal Green tickY
  23. Sadequain Red XN (Sadequain Naqqash)
  24. Runan, Côtes-d'Armor Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  25. Azerbaijani Armed Forces Green tickY
  26. Pad, Roane County, West Virginia Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  27. Kırcaklı, Nazilli Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  28. Armand de Vignerot du Plessis Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain shortened heading, Armand)
  29. Bonner Springs High School Green tickY
  30. Koshikijima Prefectural Natural Park Green tickY
  31. Tuchlin, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  32. Gilan Province League Green tickY
  33. Hangar 18 (song) Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading)
  34. Carahsoft Green tickY
  35. Roy Samaha Green tickY
  36. 2007–08 Chicago Blackhawks season Red XN (2007–08 Chicago Blackhawks)
  37. Ken Stimpson Community School Green tickY
  38. WRHA Green tickY
  39. Sumaré Atlético Clube Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading, Sumaré)
  40. O Globo Green tickY
  41. D. W. Brooks Red XN (David William Brooks)
  42. Daniel Carr Green tickY
  43. Pyskowice, Lower Silesian Voivodeship {{aye} (disambiguated title, plain heading, Pyskowice)
  44. Murder of April Jones Green tickY
  45. James Farragher Green tickY
  46. Sévaz Green tickY
  47. Tom Brown (American football, born 1964) {{aye} (disambiguated title, plain heading, Tom Brown)
  48. Spring Valley, New Jersey Green tickY
  49. The Cheetah Girls: Pop Star Sensations Green tickY
  50. Myanmar snub-nosed monkey Green tickY
  51. Matilda Hansen Green tickY
  52. Marc Blitzstein Green tickY
  53. Leason Ellis Red XN (Leason Ellis, LLP)
  54. El Salvador Red XN (Republic of El Salvador)
  55. East Germany national ice hockey team Green tickY (naturally disambiguated title, plain heading, East Germany)
  56. Ennio Mattarelli Green tickY
  57. Ken Wookey (footballer, born 1946) Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading, Ken Wookey)
  58. Karagöl, Çelikhan Green tickY (disambiguated title, plain heading, Karagöl)
  • The difference here is that the community chose the wrong title. You are now attempting it seems to perpetuate the absurdity, the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" appears nowhere, except for the sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The point of this section is to establish how strong the convention of matching the infobox heading to the title is in general. That's all. How you think establishing something like that could be an "attempt to perpetuate" something like HRC "appears nowhere" is beyond me.

      Also there is no right or wrong title. It's not a moral issue, LOL. It's a matter of following policy per consensus. --В²C ☎ 01:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

      • Note that your point has no connection to serving the readers. Outside of recent campaigning, she is virtually always referred to in introductions has "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in reliable sources. Removing prominent instances of "Hillary Rodham Clinton", whether by reoving the Rodham or including the Dianne, breaks the link with what should be expected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I presume following policy and conventions serves the readers. If policy and convention does not serve the readers, then that needs to change. Absent good arguments to change applicable policy or conventions, and absent strong WP:IAR arguments, as is the situation here, to serve readers we should follow applicable policy and conventions. In this case that means reflect the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic in the infobox heading as well as the title. To serve the readers. --В²C ☎ 16:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
          • B2C, yes, this is an interesting and important point, and I challenge you to question it. Does the policy or convention serve readers. Yes, one might think it does, or should, or that the early wikipedians meant it to. However, I see some few cases where it is very questionable. The main cases are titling (especially minimalist titling), and the MOS. In both, there is a slippage of rules to serve the readership, to rules that serve the rules. And some conventions appear to the editors over the readers. Not many, admittedly. Here I think you want to enforce a rule that the infobox header must match the title (not sure if that is exactly right). I suggest that such a rule is not reader oriented, as there may be reason for a particular title, and a different reason for a particular infobox title.
Actually, I am not much attached to this question of the infobox title, not having even accepted that an infobox title is even necessary or good. I just think that HRC should appear at the top of the article, and if it can't be the title, well it better be soon after.
You may be right about wrong being the wrong word. However, I think you understand my meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This childish game proves exactly nothing and is a waste of time. Even strong advocates of HC as the article title acknowledge that HRC is a common name for her - as cited by many, many reliable sources. The decision to move the article was made based on a belief that HC was more commonly used than HRC, not that HRC was not a name she has used for many years. I disagree with that conclusion, but that has nothing to do with how the article infobox should read, which was not a part of the move request. Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt 's infobox is Franklin Delano Roosevelt - giving our readers information about how he is frequently known, and Chester A. Arthur is Chester Alan Arthur, and George S. Patton is George Smith Patton, Jr., and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and many other examples in BLPs, exceptions to the infobox-matching-title happen all over the encyclopedia when it is warranted by the circumstances. This should be one of those times. It is not a matter of a booby prize, it's a special circumstance like other special circumstances - that she is known by more than one formulation of her name. This is a good way to accommodate that fact. Tvoz/talk 02:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: - re "appears nowhere, except for the sources?" - This is a fair point. HRC should probably appear somewhere, even if it doesn't appear at the head of the infobox. I suggested above that HRC might be included under the Template:Infobox_Person other_name parameter. Any takers on that idea? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sounds good. Thanks for finding that, NickCT. Makes sense. Tvoz, as to what this exercise proves; it demonstrates that there is a strong (undocumented) convention to reflect the title in the infobox heading (minus any disambiguation) in our articles. That doesn't obligate us to follow that convention in this or any other article, but it should be the default choice (and is indeed the default of the infobox), and there should be a good reason to go against convention. It means that the key question here is whether there is a good reason to against that convention, or whether we just follow the convention used in the vast majority of our articles. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • HRC in (1) |other_name= and (2) the first sentence, as in GregKaye's example, per WP:LEADSENTENCE. I think that gives HRC very fair representation, while being consistent with guideline and the more common usage. Please, if that helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we have consensus for this. I suggest you (or anyone else not as heavily involved as I am) go ahead and make the edit request for this. --В²C ☎ 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::: How do you figure that you have consensus for this? Tvoz/talk 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC) see below Tvoz/talk 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • SmokeyJoe Re: "The difference here is that the community chose the wrong title." Please do not make tendentious, WP:ASSERTive statements without justification. Arguments were presented and, after much deliberation, a decision was taken. If you disagree then please take it to MR or take some other direct action. In the UK I have frequently asked others the crudely formed question "Do you know Hillary Clinton's middle name?" and I have not heard the name "Rodham", or any suggestion, by reply.
In context of statement by Tvoz "Even strong advocates of HC as the article title acknowledge that HRC is a common name for her" I think I may also start asking "who is Hilary Rodham Clinton?" However I honestly thought that this debate was over following the extremely extensive RM discussion. GregKaye 06:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye. The community made the wrong decision because the title is the best place to put the long form of the subject's name (HRC), with the lede giving the full name (HDRC), and the rest of the article using standard shortform (H or R or C, depending on context), and this difficulty with the infobox, and the fact that the name used in most of the reference (HRC) does not even occur in the article until far into it, demonstrates the mistake. Anyone who has not heard of "Rodham" clearly has read next to nothing reliable, and should not be getting involved in the editing.
Also clear is that this notion of "common name" is undefined, mis-defined or poorly defined. Some think there is a "common name" that is singularly defined. Others point out that the subject may have multiple names commonly used. I content that most involved don't consider the begged question "most used where?" Yes, the community engaged in a lengthy debate, and I recognize a clear calling of a rough consensus, and agree that it should be respected until after the presidential election, but I maintain that the community made the wrong decision, and that it was a bad decision with negative consequences. I think the wrong decision was made because editors have placed editing convenience over service to the readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe. You are again I think manipulative presenting your interpretation of what should be done and your personal WP:ASSERTion of your view of wrong. Please, please look at policy and present anything that you think applies. The community made its decision based on policy content and you are familiar with the content and close presented at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. There may be various consequences both positive and negative of any decision. Our job is to accurately present sources in an NPOV way which is exactly, I think, what the community has done. As an editor presenting a minority opinion please consider backing away from your judgement both of the majority view and of the decision of the closing panel. Please drop your use of absolutes. You are not the pope. GregKaye 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, I think you think wrong. I have stated a clear opinion, and I stand by it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Per RfC consensus above.

1. Add to the infobox: other_name = Hillary Rodham Clinton

2. Replace existing first sentence with: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Rodham; born October 26, 1947, also known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) is an American politician.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn - Apparently this is incorrect, per inclusion in Category:Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this. Omnedon (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that it was withdrawn. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But only for a technical reason, yes? It should not have been put forward in the first place. Omnedon (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the place for that discussion is at the bottom of the preceding subsection, where the disputed consensus was reached. This subsection effectively never happened. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But of course it did. We're looking at it. Please do not put forward this edit request again in the absence of consensus. Omnedon (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, just tell me how I can know when consensus is reached, if the above ain't it. Is it when you declare consensus? Do we need a closer to declare consensus? And why on earth would I "put forward this request again", when it was and will remain invalid for technical reasons? What is the point of all this? Some of us are working hard to reach a solution acceptable to all, or at least most. Others are being contentious just for the sake of being contentious. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The idea of the "other_name" parameter was discussed extremely late in the conversation and only among a very small number of editors. One of the four editors claims there is consensus, and then you make this edit request. And naturally I do not mean this precise edit request; but you were clearly preparing an alternative that would be essentially the same thing. And now you are making unfounded accusations. Some of us believe that HRC is the correct infobox title, and arguments have been made to support that. Others disagree and have made arguments. That's not a situation where one simply claims consensus for some other solution that has barely been discussed. Omnedon (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand completely. Even if the edit had been made, it could have been reversed with two clicks, as you well know. You are going out of your way to make a big stink about nothing, and I'm done helping you do it. Should have known better than to engage you in the first place. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No need for the sniping, Mandruss - if you have followed what has been going on here you should know that it is not as simple as reversing with two clicks. Omnedon is right - there walus, which seems to have been creatively reinterpreted above. Tvoz/talk 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tvoz: Ok, I'm open to correction and enlightenment. Please explain why the edit couldn't have been reversed by anyone disputing the consensus. It's the first time I've seen such a situation. Even if it required another edit request, and that had taken a day or two to get done, the effect would have been that HRC would have appeared in the infobox and first sentence for a day or two. I still fail to see how that would have done significant damage. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the protection - except that the reason it was protected was exactly because edits changing and then undoing the changes were being made that were perceived as edit warring. The goal here is to try to reach actual consensus, and failing that - and in my opinion the move request itself failed to reach consensus but that's not the point I'm arguing - we should go with the status quo, which was having HRC as the head of the infobox, at least. So Omnedon is right that there was no real consensus regarding an "other name" field, even if it were technically possible, and so this edit shouldn't have been attempted. The decision was made to move the article title, and that is all that was discussed at that time. The infobox is something else, and that discussion above has not been concluded, nor does it appear to me that there is consensus to change the infobox from the way it has been for many years. Time will tell, but a declaration that there is consensus for the good faith change you were attempting by a highly involved editor (not you) really doesn't translate well. And by the way, maybe I missed it, but where was it discussed and decided that we should go with "née Rodham"? Tvoz/talk 04:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough (and calm) explanation. I saw a "sounds good" from SmokeyJoe, who I knew to be one of the stronger HRC proponents, agreement from several others, and only one opposed at that time. In a more typical editing environment that would have been enough for a change that wasn't set in stone. As for "née Rodham", that was part of GregKaye's proposed text, and I saw no objection to that and didn't see it as a potentially controversial in any case. Now I see that nothing is uncontroversial when it comes to the Wikipedia article about Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. You're right, I underestimated the "heat level" in this area, and I won't make that mistake again, if I decide to stick around here much longer. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think you did anything so horrid. Yes, I saw NickCT's offer of a compromise as something to be accepted. Working towards a consensus means accepting compromises. HRC in the lede, and HRC in the infobox, even if not on top, is something I can live with for one to two years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think it was horrid either, just don't think it was settled and am wary of "consensus" declarations by anyone who is strongly associated with one side of a controversy, when that declaration favors his or her overall position. Not Mandruss - I do think your action was in good faith, and that's not always found in abundance here. Tvoz/talk 15:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Nor did I think it was "horrid". I thought it was inappropriate and said so. I asked that such an edit request please not be put forward again, and was answered in apparent anger. Some editors (on both sides of contentious issues) do indeed seem to enjoy contentiousness for its own sake. I do not. Let's move on. Omnedon (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurs 49 times in the article.

The first is way down in "Later Arkansas years"
42 are in the 2nd half, from "Writings and recordings".
32 in or below notes and references

"Hillary Rodham Clinton" should occur somewhere above the fold because this form of her name is very frequently used in introductions and quality sources.

Ideally, it should be the title. Failing that, it should be mentioned upfront in the lede sentence, and yes, it should occur somewhere in the infobox.

Editors have allowed the spinout article Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016 to overly influence this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the lede paragraph. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The thread Talk:Hillary Clinton#Opening sentence has been up for 24 days now without comment or further suggestion being made. Template:Infobox officeholder is available for perusal to enable suggestions to be formulated to enable a coherent presentation of article content that includes the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" variant of Hillary's personal presentation.
Comment The above represents a largely male discussion in regard to the Wikipedia article presentation of a female. During discussion of the successful HRC → HC disucssion (Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request) I did a survey of participation to the discussion based on declarations that editors made on their user page in regard to "male" / "female" gender. I did the same to this discussion and, without much surprise, found that (amongst several declared males) there was only one declared female here. This editor (Мандичка, aka Wikimandia) was also the editor to take the OP to ANI on issues related to perceived "battleground behavior and general uncivility", issues that I personally think have been clearly a great deal of debate on these pages.
Please, please can editors make policy based suggestions. We are dealing with an issue of naming here about which the subject has said extremely little (and with much of the argument being founded totally on WP:OR). Can we please base editing choices on policy and not on rare exceptions to rules? Please. GregKaye 06:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you please, please not pretend that you are somehow above the fray here? Telling another editor, "You are not the pope" is hardly an example of civility. Omnedon (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Omnedon You are implying here that I am pretending that I am somehow above the fray. Please can you either justify this or strike. After a vast amonunt of discussion and after a great period of deliberation SmokeyJoe made the strikingly dismissive and, IMO, incredibly WP:ASSERTive and utterly unsubstantiated, in my view, proclaimation "The community made the wrong decision ..." Following this s/he presented various POV content covering arguments that were similar to/the same as arguments presented in the RM discussion and which did not carry the discussion. In my view this is just another example of unsubstantiated POV pushing. Any genuine debate, if it is interpreted as fray, should be conducted as a fair fight. How does the presentation of absolutes (the presentation of opinion as facts) fit into this? How? The stating of "opinion as fact" is widely condemned and yet arguably battling editors such as RGloucester will present unsubstantiated statements such as "The only correct title is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and that will be the title of this article." "Hillary Clinton" is the designation most widely used for the subject which is the designation that she most publically uses herself. GregKaye 09:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, not to belabor the point, but you keep asserting that HC is the name she uses most publicly, and that just isn't so. This is the breakdown of what she has most often used for herself over the course of her life:
Hillary Rodham – 34 years including when first married (1947–1981)
Hillary Rodham Clinton – 29 years including all the major offices/positions she's held (1983–2006, 2009–2014)
Hillary Clinton – 4 years while in campaigns (1982, 2007–2008, 2015)
Furthermore, in 2014 she or her people indicated HRC would be her preference for the article title here. So using a different infobox header name in order to capture what a person usually self-identifies as seems a reasonable stance to take. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • GragKaye, I think I have stated an opinion, signed by me, that the community got a decision wrong, that is clear, and well-reasoned more than enough times previously. So you don't like my opinion. If you don't understand it, have questions, or wish to debate it, then by all means, ask. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "to capture what a person usually self-identifies", see Hillary's Twitter, Facebook and websites. They present a pretty clean sweep. I totally support presentation of the designation as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but within a context in which it is explained and which doesn't potentially appear as an editing mistake and as an unexplained inconsistency. With article title there may be a call to adopt an IAR approach so as to present name as "Rodham Clinton". In the infobox all we would be doing is to inexplicably present non aligned titles. In recent times she pretty much exclusively uses "Hillary Clinton". In earlier times she used both of the major designations.
Please consider not pushing and WP:SOAPBOXING your opinions. If you think that the three members of the closing panel got it wrong then tell them directly rather. Don't pronounce error elsewhere. Please reread your statement. Please do not push opinion as fact. My name is Greg. GregKaye 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

break (added 7/11/15)

Does anyone besides me think we're just spinning our wheels and creating massive amounts of redundant text, which new arrivals and the closer will have to wade through to determine that it's redundant? I propose that we agree to cease discussion unless a new point or argument, one which warrants discussion, appears in a new !vote. Then, when the time comes (one month?), just let it go to close, accept the result, and move on to the next Hillary battle. Enough is enough, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The strength of an argument is not increased by endless repetition.
  • To allow your opponent the last word is not to concede defeat.
  • If your first or second attempt didn't sway them, it's extremely unlikely the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth will either.

What, then, is the point? The project is not being served here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: After archiving the intervening closed discussions, I have consolidated all of the different sections of argument regarding the infobox into a single continuous section, with subheader levels reflecting the stages of the discussion. This is to keep all of the discussion on this topic together. This will also assist the closer of this discussion in assessing the entire scope of the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So where are we? The infobox should have been frozen as it was, with Hillary Rodham Clinton as the header, pending the outcome of this discussion. It was protected in the middle of the debate, where it stands now. So? Tvoz/talk 06:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Beats me, I just work here. The survey was a month old yesterday. You're right about the status quo ante, but that damage has largely already been done if we can get a closer reasonably soon. How do you get a closer? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Beats me. I posted a request for closure weeks ago, but that idea was shot down by User:Berean Hunter (who seemed intent on making sure his decree of a two week protection lasted the full two weeks) and User:AlbinoFerret (who treated the survey portion of the discussion as the whole discussion for purposes of determining how long this has been going on). Since the argument that sprouted from my initial request seems to have sapped the admin community of any will to act on closing this discussion, I threw my hands up and withdrew my request for closure. Ironically, now there are two six-week-old discussions (including the image discussion below) on one of our highest-profile articles that are ripe for closure. It would be beneficial to resolve these stale discussions without delay, and before they get bot-archived, but there is a vacuum when it comes to the desire to take responsibility for it. bd2412 T 13:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like maybe another request might work better now that the survey is a month old? Re the photo, the actual official survey is only three weeks old. I made a case for an early close (is a closer necessarily needed for something like that?) and got zip in response, including from you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion, and therefore can't participate in the closure. Another request - for both discussions - would probably be well advised. bd2412 T 16:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Calidum: - could you post the link here? Tvoz/talk 01:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course. I requested it here. Calidum T|C 01:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Revert explain

I assume this edit was meant in jest, because there is no conceivable way it could've been anything else. The self-published hate screed of these two people (I'm using the term loosely) is absolutely of no value to this article. Shameful POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, User:Scjessey - we certainly don't want to let any opposing-POV critique of Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secr. of State, by someone with as little standing as that of a former U.S. Vice President, creep into this so carefully-crafted pro-HRC peacock, puff piece, although I hardly think that edit was "meant in jest", or you probably wouldn't be so vitriolically afraid of it. (I'll put you down as a "maybe" on whether or not you're fond of the Cheneys.) --- Professor JR (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm. The article contains plenty of material critical of Mrs. Clinton. But the material has to have some kind of significance, some kind of generality, maybe some recognition from third parties. As with most articles about high-profile public figures, if we were to include every time anybody has said anything about her, the article would explode. --MelanieN (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Or, maybe 'implode'. . . . --- Professor JR (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not I like the former VP is irrelevant, and I'm not "afraid" of it being in the article - it just doesn't belong in this article, or any other for that matter. The salient point here is the fake-hearted Dark Lord and his poisonous offspring have written a partisan, hate-fueled screed that is not a reliable source for anything other than their personal opinions. Their comments aren't even newsworthy, and so there's a lack of reliable secondary sources giving this book any coverage. You surely knew this before you added it to the article, so I can only assume you meant it as a joke. At least I hope you did, because the alternative doesn't make you look good at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure, User:Scjessey, you took time to actually read the book, before passing your "fake-hearted Dark Lord", "poisonous offspring", "hate-fueled screed" sorts of judgments (what a so very thoughtful critique) on it. And, BTW, the New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today and a number of others (which at least some of us would consider "reliable secondary sources giving this book any coverage") have reviewed it, here, here and here, all of which I did in fact read, prior reading the book itself -- yes, I actually read the book. Have you?
As for its not being "even newsworthy" -- you're no doubt correct in asserting that, too -- which must be why virtually every major television network and cable news outlet had the authors on a number of their shows over the Labor Day week-end talking about it. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how the partisan opinions of Dick Cheney are of any value to this article, any more than a Clinton-penned book critiquing Condi Rice would be appropriate for that article. Neither party likes each other, and there are fundamental disagreements on everything from foreign policy to same-sex marriage to the naming of a farking Alaskan mountain. They don't get to see their talking points included in each other's articles. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, User:Tarc, but I don't know -- it might be rather interesting to have the benefit of knowing what Secr. Clinton thinks about Secr. Rice's tenure and accomplishments as Secretary of State. And I see that our Condoleezza Rice Wikipedia article does contain a couple of "partisan opinions" on her tenure at State by such persons, among others, as Senator Barbara Boxer -- as well as criticism from Donald Rumsfeld's book, and by John Bolton and others -- and rather ironically in the context of our discussion here, even a quite harsh critique of Rice by former Vice President Cheney(!) from and earlier book of his. (BTW, since you inexplicably brought up same-sex marriage and an Alaskan mountain(?!) -- Cheney happens to approve of same-sex marriage, and his younger daughter is in one; far as I know, he could care less about "the naming of a farking Alaskan mountain", as you put it.) --- Professor JR (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Professor JR, the point isn't whether the Cheneys or their book are newsworthy. Of course they are, and I assume the book will get an article here. The point is that his criticism of Hillary is not newsworthy; none of the three reviews you linked says anything about her at all. Since she (like Cheney himself) is a constant target of both praise and criticism, such praise or criticism should be included in the article only when it becomes a major thing. There's no point in continuing this discussion; it's clear that there is not consensus to include Cheney's comments. But I would remind everyone, on both sides, that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the content of the article - not to use it as a forum to express our political views. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Professor JR, I don't need to read it because the bit you quoted was more than sufficient to identify it for what it is. Anyway, I think it is time you let this drop, since it is painfully obvious the editors here are unanimously against letting you put this non-neutral garbage in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The point of bringing up mountains and same-sex marriage is to mention topics where there is considerable disagreement between the parties. People write books all the time, but being a book-writer does not necessarily make one's opinions newsworthy. Also, stop pinging people who are currently already engaged in the discussion. We're already here. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. That pinging thing is really irritating, and I believe I've nagged about it previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Think twice before you speak, because your words and influence will plant the seed of either success or failure in the mind of another." — Napoleon Hill
--- Professor JR (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the wise words of Napoleon Dynamite, who once asked, "you gonna eat your tots? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Lately I find M. Bonaparte's "You don't reason with intellectuals. You shoot them." resonates... Tvoz/talk 01:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Professor JR, you do realize that calling this a "so carefully-crafted pro-HRC, peacock, puff piece" - more than once - is insulting and offensive to the editors who have labored for years on it, to keep it neutral, fair, and comprehensive? All it does is make your own biases and POV editing crystal clear. Could you try not attacking other editors and their work? Tvoz/talk 02:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheney is viewed universally as unreliable.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
He would probably feel the same way about you. But we're supposed to be dealing with reliably-sourced facts here. --- Professor JR (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_26&oldid=1136795127"