Talk:Richard G. Parker (anthropologist)

Requested move

 * 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 to move the page to a particular title, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard G. Parker (anthropologist) → Richard G. Parker – Parker is not really (just) an anthropologist, he's more of a general health professional. It's simplest to characterize him simply by his middle initial. I want to move to where a redirect currently exists. I thought we nonadmins could move articles on top of redirects, but apparently not. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Presearch (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose : The term is ambiguous with Richard Green Parker, and that is where the redirect pointed until the nominator changed it five minutes before submitting this move request. There seems to be no evidence that the anthropologist is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Richard G. Parker". In fact I don't even see any evidence that this article (which the nominator created just 20 minutes before submitting this move request) should be here on Wikipedia. Please see WP:ACADEMIC. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose and delete restore redirect to Richard Green Parker. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * He's an editor of a journal which is well-established and widely indexed, so by criterion 8 of the page linked above, he's clearly notable (as a third-party editor noticed, and eliminated the wrongly-placed notability template). But while we're at it, do either of you who oppose this move have any brilliant ideas for how to solve the problem that this fellow is much more than an anthropologist, so the current name of the article ("Richard G. Parker (anthropologist)") isn't really optimal? --Presearch (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This book here Beneath the Equator (2014) on its copyright page indicates that the health professional was born in 1956 and has a middle name "Guy". One option for renaming this page might be as "Richard Guy Parker", except it seems he hardly ever is called by that other than on a copyright page. Any opinions about the best way to rename this page, since he doesn't really seem to be mainly an anthropologist? --Presearch (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, he seems to meet criterion #8, although, personally, I would like to see much greater evidence that some third-party sources have discussed him and his work in some depth. Otherwise, it seems likely that the article will always be a stub that's primarily sourced from the subject's own web site. But let's just drop that issue and move on with the article name discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For future reference: Here's a search for 'Richard G. Parker' on Worldcat sorted by relevance. Listing major pubs (e.g., books) will provide some added value to the page. I don't know about other stuff, maybe it will turn up. Haven't looked hard. --Presearch (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary usage? If you want to see who is more widely indexed by the phrase "Richard G. Parker", try doing a Google Search (link) - and the top 4 entries all index the subject of this current page (the Columbia University health professional). The only hit for Richard Green Parker (the 19tt century textbook writer) is the Wikipedia page itself, which is more a reflection of the notability of Wikipedia than of him. Similarly, on Google Books, three of the top 4 hits are for the health professional, and only the 5th and 6th hits - mid 19th century biographical guides to American literature - list the textbook writer - and this is NOT one of his textbooks itself, merely a listing of that textbook, without describing any of the textbook's ideas. Really, let's use our common sense: do we really think that when people at the present time refer to "Richard G. Parker", they're more likely to be referring to an obscure 19th century textbook writer than to an internationally prominent public health professional and journal editor? Of course, it's not as if this is a huge issue and getting it wrong will ruin Wikipedia. But what do you really think? -- Presearch (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Move (by proposer). --Presearch (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "Richard G. Parker (professor)"? Regarding primary usage, both of them seem somewhat obscure, but if we read the article about the historical Parker, he does seem to have produced some works of significant historical interest (e.g., the biography of Jonas Chickering). It's not surprising to see that a web search produces more hits for a recently-active person than for someone who died around 120 years before the web existed. We're supposed to pay attention to long-term historical importance, not just current web popularity. To me, neither of them seems especially dominant in terms of primary topic status, so I redirected Richard G. Parker to the dab page. Incidentally, I suggest to stop trying to always have your remarks indented less than those of other people. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I've never before been accused of one-outsmanship Smile-tpvgames.gif ... there was no intent... --Presearch (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I like "Richard G. Parker (professor)". -- Presearch (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to  per above discussion (my prior "oppose" struck through above). —BarrelProof (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move to  per above discussion (my prior "Support Move" struck through above). --Presearch (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – moving to an ambiguous title is not a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since "Richard G. Parker" is ambiguous, but "Richard G. Parker (professor)" is not ambiguous, I assume that Dicklyou's opposition is only to the former (original proposal), but not to the latter novel proposal. --Presearch (talk)


 * Oppose. "Professor" is just a job title. If this were a Vice President of a company, we would not redirect to "John Doe (Vice President)" either, but to "John Doe (businessman)" or something similar. "Richard Guy Parker" seems to be unambiguous, too. Or otherwise it should be something like "Richard G. Parker (public health professional)". --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point. I've struck out my previous support of "professor". Finding a good name seems surprisingly difficult. At this point, I'm increasingly indifferent between the current imperfect version (... (anthropologist)), which seems a bit narrow, and the full-middle-name version (..."Guy"...), which is seldom how he's called himself, and the "...(public health professional)", which seems cumbersomely long. Simply out of not wanting to put too much energy into a small point, I might even be inclined to leave it as is. But if others prefer one of the two others, that's OK too. --Presearch (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps William Norris (CEO) should be moved then. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should, although I'm not entirely sure to what as yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. How about Richard G. Parker (public health educator)? However, do remember that disambiguation is meant to be just that. We don't have to describe in detail what someone does; we just need enough to distinguish them from someone else of the same name. Definitely against using "professor" as a disambiguator - we use people's job, not their status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2014 (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.

COI
I have removed the COI template because there is no evidence of any such close connection, nor was any supplied when the template was added. Perhaps this shows what can happens when WP editors try to edit too many pages hurridly, and skip from page to page without giving careful attention. --Presearch (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)