" 

  
 ====How do editors get disrespected and attacked on this page? Let me count the ways.==== 
 : commented regarding perceived mud-slinging here, ""I have run out of fish"" (in reference to: trout).  My final proposal was that the fish get caked in the mud and that with a healthy application of positive flaming and everything would be fine.  I held back on this but sense that the tone of the discussion may be heading for another downturn.  Forgive me if I have been remiss in not including your comments   

 *Your support !vote is ridiculous. Every source on Earth? Did you even bother to read any of the past move requests, or any source? This just shows how systemic bias works, without editors even knowing it. Dave Dial (talk)  to 331dot 
 *You might be surprised to learn that there are actually thousands of English-language printed newspapers around the world, ... bd2412 T  to Dial Dave 
 *... because the reasoning at the intro is dishonest, at best. Dave Dial (talk)  unsubstantiated accusation against all those involved in the move request section of an earlier incarnation of this page. 
 *Yes, and the reason why this move request is so blatantly dishonest is because the same people (you, Calidum and NickCT) were also the main editors from the last move request. And you KNOW that the ngrams and google results were flawed. You KNOW that the results showing ""Hillary Clinton"" -Rodham had many an instance with the name ""Hillary Rodham Clinton"". Yet the results leading off this MR are hidden with caveats like ""since 2014"" and such. You also know there has been no name change, and article title policy advises against moving contentious moves for stable articles. You also know since the last MR that policy has changed to give weight to the BLP subjects preference of their name. Which should make even more difficult to move HRC to HC. And despite all that, have worded the MR in a totally biased manner. Disregarding policy and reality. Dave Dial (talk)  Calling the move request dishonest IMO smacks of calling the people wrote it dishonest.  I wrote more than half of it even on the basis that I am currently neutral and have added my IAR argument in favour of keeping HRC.  However, as I presented on the article talk page """" 
 *... Since you will not acknowledge that the opposing arguments have any value, that pretty much puts paid to any discussion that can be had with you. But that is no surprise; it's your modus operandi. Omnedon (talk)  to Born2Cycle 
 *Well, you would definitely have to ignore policy to move the page from HRC to HC. So I'll give you that. The other stuff is just your opinion and goes against Wikipedia policy. The reason we have Wikipedia policies like the country specific results for titles and self published names is to prevent moves like this. That and the fact that many reliable sources definitely use(just today we have the AP using her correct name 3 times in 1 article, and the SF Chron also) ""Hillary Rodham Clinton(especially books and scholars), there is no policy based reason to move this page. So it's not as if sources have stopped using her correct name. This move is just ridiculous and not policy based at all. Stripping HRC from her family name for no reason seems very sexist. Dave Dial (talk)  to Stephan Schulz 
 *I might've bothered to read it if it were better written.  Pandeist (talk)  to DD2K 
 *... Is that supposed to signify that you are unable to read numbers? bd2412 T  to tarc"