Talk:Keith Hart (wrestler)

Amateur?
Wasn't Keith Hart an Amateur wrestler also? Just wondering. User:MgHoneyBee Mar.25,2006

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Hart (wrestler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121172127/http://www.brethart.info/news.php#ni77 to http://www.brethart.info/news.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Keith Hart (wrestler) → Keith Hart – More than 7x as many views.|Keith_Hart_(anthropologist)|Keith_Hart Unreal7 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Keith Hart the wrestler is much more notable overall than the anthropologist.★Trekker (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly there is greater interest in the wrestler and with only two articles a dab page seems redundant. However, note that a UK Google search strongly favours the anthropologist—there are no hits for the wrestler until halfway down the third page—and perhaps there is an argument for systemic bias with regard to pop culture vs academia. PC78 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, but Wikipedia is not here to combat biases outside of our own borders.★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PC78. There is no primary topic here - when considering long-term significance, an influential and notable anthropologist has an equal claim to a wrestler. This is a good example of why page views are a useful indicator, but should be taken with a pinch of salt. WP:TWODABS says that a disambiguation page is the correct solution here, where no PTOPIC exists. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is another good example of why we should get rid of the historical significance criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's already accounted for more than sufficiently within the usage criteria. The level of a topic's historical significance is reflected in how often it is viewed. If it's frequently the target of research and curiosity due to its historical significance, then the page views will reflect that accordingly. Giving addition totally subjective consideration based on your own opinion about how significantly historically the topic is is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. Users are best served in this case and in all cases when we determine Primary Topic by the usage method. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that may be your opinion, but the current rules are that long-term significance is a vital factor. And rightly so IMHO, as we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of pop culture. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good thing this article is an article and not a dictionary item. Pop culture is no less worthy of being included in Wikipedia if it's notable than anything else.★Trekker (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , ignoring the historical significance criterion is perfectly compliant with primary topic. Heck, you can use whatever criteria you want - the current wording there ("While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these") suggests there are other, apparently undocumented, aspects that could be considered, without hinting what those might be. Apparently, as long as you think something makes the topic "primary", it's fair game. And you can weight each explicit or implicit criteria as much or as little as you want. It can be easily fixed, by having only the usage criteria to consider. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No primary topic. Suggesting that a fake performance wrestler has more long term significance than a senior highly published scientist is absurd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very unbiased comment here. Using insulting terms like "fake" for performance art to diminish what they do.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s right. I diminish the output value of the wrestler compared to the anthropologist. One is low end pop culture, not even matching your link, the other is science. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How sad for you to not be able to lay aside your personal POV to comment on a subject objectively. And being upset that someone make a type, you sure got me! Doesn't make you look bad at all.★Trekker (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have an objective standard here. Wikipedia is an historiographical work that primarily aims to cover the academic topics, starting with history, and including science pretty prominently.  This is not to denigrate sport or popular culture, I am not arguing to force people wanting the wrestler to first go through the anthropologist, but I sure am arguing that it is important to not make people wanting the anthropologist to go through the wrestler.  Note that for all readers, they are better served by a PRECISE title.  The status quo makes it abundantly clear whether you are getting an anthropologist or a wrestler, before you follow a link and download an article.  The only improvement for anyone that I can see is to repudiate WP:MALPLACED, and put Keith Hart at Keith Hart (disambiguation), with Keith Hart redirecting to the disambiguation page.  This would mean that no one gets a disambiguation page by surprise, and it makes it easy to fix mistaken links to the ambiguous Keith Hart
 * "being upset that someone make a type"? did you read a slight.  None was intended.
 * "fake" for performance art? If you want to argue his wrestling as "performance art", I am all in support, that would lead to scholarly secondary source content, and analysis of what exactly he did.  "Fake" is with respect to him being a "wrestler", Wrestling versus the dramatized athletic spectacle, "Professional wrestling". In fact, Keith Hart (wrestler) should be renamed to Keith Hart (professional wrestler).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , "Wikipedia ... primarily aims to cover the academic topics, ..."? Speaking of fakes, that's pure fantasy for which there is no basis. --В²C ☎ 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the following: Wikipedia; Encyclopedia; Knowledge. Then reconsider the concept of long-term significance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (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.