Talk:Hilary (name)

Removed

removed

• Hillary was the name of an archbishop of London.

as London does not have an "Archbishop".===Vernon White (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Considering Clinton is quite well known simply by her first name, it seems ridiculous to exclude her from the list. Where does it say "surnames only"? --Tom (talk - email) 21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of given-name holders should be restored (although they should come after the surname-holders). -- JHunterJ 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Surnames only" is the implication given because somebody is failing to understand WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. See this. You'll notice that the POV-pushing is so intense that no effort was even made to ensure that there really is a "Hillary" entry at Wiktionary (which there isn't, which is why I had it going to the "Hilary" entry, and had it going to the "Hilary" entry in the "see also" section). This is plain and simple bad writing, and in a manner that demonstrably indicates an utter lack of comprehension of the meaning of the word consensus. Tomer^talk 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying with that diff above that I removed the links to the people with first names? I did not, but I did add back perhaps the most notable "Hillary" as a small step instead of doing a mass revert. --Tom (talk - email) 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Male/female spelling

Historically, 'Hilary' has been a boy's name and 'Hillary' a girl's name. I'm looking for an online reference for this; if I don't find one I'll have to give a print reference. I'm away from my books at the moment so I can't do it at once. If you look through the pages beginning Hilary and the pages beginning Hillary you'll see a clear pattern, although of course there are exceptions. However, this is a historical fact and the information does belong here, so please don't revert it (again). Thanks81.154.246.173 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2015

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There are several good options for how to handle this. But general agreement is needed and we don't have that currently. It appears that the requester of this move, BD2412, feels that the edits of 65.94.43.89 are an improvement. I don't perceive any current objection to how the IP has changed things, even though BD2412's concerns aren't fully addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Hilary (name) → Hilary – Hilary already redirects here, as does Hilary (disambiguation). There seems to be no reason at all to have "name" in the title. bd2412 T 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - seems extremely logical Red Slash 03:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: the disambiguation page was merged by Special:Contributions/173.3.79.144 but is incorrect in my view, see MOS:DABNAME, and needs to be split again. Once it is split, the disambig page should be at the simple page name. – Fayenatic London 06:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the merger was incorrect. This is a name article, not a disambiguation page, the places should not have been merged here. Further, the edit history at Hilary needs to be kept per WP:MAD so if this is moved, that also needs to be moved. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've WP:BOLDly removed the material that is not about people, and placed it back onto the disambiguation page. If this name article is moved, the disambiguation page will need to be moved to Hilary (disambiguation) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I took the page as I found it. My impression was (and remains) that the primary importance of the term is as a given name, to which other uses are appended. I have no strong objection to the split (or re-split as the case may be), but the situation that I found the page in needed some kind of change. bd2412 T 02:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

WP:RELTIME, vagueness

This edit by me that had a brief explanation in its editsummary was reverted without any explanation by Bookworm857158367. More details include:

• WP:RELTIME
• "some" is a WP:WEASELly, vague word
• the US is not the whole English-speaking world, and the sources appear to refer to the US
• "negative associations" is vague, and as written in the earlier version, leaves the reader guessing as to whether this is related to Clinton becoming first lady or not.

If there are problems with the edit, then please explain them. Boud (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The article cited makes it clear that the negative associations extend from the 1990s to date. Specifying a 2010s date pigeonholes it. The original wording was fine. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that the references put the association with Hilary Clinton as starting in the 1990s and continuing through to the 2010s. This edit should get closer to that, while avoiding reference to "now". See WP:RELTIME for the problem with "now"; you and I might be crushed by asteroids today and never again edit Wikipedia; we would want this article to remain valid despite that unlikely and unfortunate hypothetical event. And "some" is vague.

As for negative associations, it seems to me that the more notable info is the sudden drop. I'll get back to this later to re-check the sources for your point about "negative" associations. While that's an obvious interpretation of the drop in popularity, it's an interpretation of the data, while the drop in popularity is (assuming it's done correctly, and modulo the actual methods used) less open to interpretation. Boud (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

• Hilary Parker blog - blog by a Wikipedia-notable person, in an informal style requiring interpretation of sarcasm and reading between the lines - I'll go ahead and make the bold causal conclusion that it's because that was the year that Bill Clinton was elected, and thus the year Hillary Clinton entered the public sphere and was generally reviled for not wanting to bake cookies. The closest thing to "negative association" in terms of evidence, or personal interpretation by Parker, is fairly summarised in the title, Hilary: the most poisoned baby name in US history. The word "poison" obviously has a negative meaning, but this is used by Parker for a blog, not for a peer-reviewed research article. The style of the blog clearly presents evidence along with interpretation. The word "poison" is Parker's interpretation of the drop in popularity of the name, and doesn't make sense literally - it's clearly a metaphor. Given Parker's assertion of being a feisty feminist, it's unlikely that she sees the drop in popularity as being ethically justified; but this is just my interpretation.
• Wash Post - Wikipedia-notable source, newspaper of record - describes the sudden drop, says nothing about negative associations, except indirectly in the title The Clintons ruined the name 'Hillary', which doesn't really say anything apart from "the Clintons caused the popularity of the name to drop";
• Nameberry - Wikipedia-non-notable source - Whatever your feelings about Mrs. Clinton, her fame now dominates the name, making it feel less baby-ready than it deserves to be. - nothing about negative associations.

Without a source, e.g. based on interviewing parents who might have chosen "Hilary/Hillary" but deliberately chose against it, to find out their reasons, we don't have any sources for "negative associations". Especially in the context of WP:BLP, claiming that people started seeing Hillary Clinton negatively and that that caused them to change decisions on their daughters' names would need a proper WP:RS. A drop in numbers is given in the sources. The interpretation of how Clinton's first ladyship led to parents' decisions is not given in the sources.

In fact, Parker gives a link to the issue of baking cookies, which in a regular research article would probably have got into the broader issue of Hillary Clinton as a feminist symbol seen as threatening to the patriarchy, with a by-product being a sudden drop in babies names Hillary, due either to fathers feeling threatened by equal rights, or mothers feeling uncomfortable diverging from traditional subservient roles. But it's not up to us to make the broader interpretation based on a hint in a blog, e.g. we cannot state ... and dropped in popularity in reaction to Hillary Clinton's insistence on combatting sexist stereotypes, even though reading between the lines, that seems very much Parker's intention. Boud (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME - just to further illustrate WP:RELTIME: We don't have a crystal ball. It could happen that Hillary Doe becomes an incredibly popular film star or online social network star in 2 or 3 years' time, and that in response, US parents overcome whatever reasons they had for not choosing the name Hilary/Hillary for their daughters and there's a new boom in choosing the name. It could also happen that you and I and watchers of this page fail to update it.

I've seen plenty of cases of sociopolitical events that got written in a "now" style on Wikipedia, and 5 or 15 years later incorrectly state the situation "now" because the topic lost popularity in the media, and correspondingly lost in editing popularity. These articles are misleading to the reader. It is only if the reader is sceptical enough and checks the sources' dates that the information is found to be about the past, not the present. If the articles had been written respecting WP:RELTIME, then they would only be incomplete, not misleading. (While there are some exceptions to WP:RELTIME, this article has less than 30 watchers, making an exception difficult to justify, it seems to me.) Boud (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)