Jump to content

Talk:Alan Simpson (American politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

i think readers would be interested in the origin of that unusual middle name.Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a brief mention should be made of the controversy over Simpson's "sexual harassment crap" comment during the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? It was much discussed in the press and in literature on both sides of the Anita Hill matter, and is therefore noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.231.34 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"They are listening to enema man and snoopy snoopy poop dogg." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.110.220 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC) "Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..[reply]

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt. To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bulls---" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bulls---, I have a few questions for YOU.

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bulls---, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a b---h.

If you like the way things are in America delete this. If you agree with what a fellow Montana citizen Patty Myers says, PASS IT ON!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.205.77 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The fact that this user ranted on the talk page is absurd, secondly if you were from Wyoming maybe you would understand some of his positions. Not to mention he is one of the only republicans to support marriage equality and reporductive rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.145.141 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "Run-Ins With The Law" Section

[edit]

I have deleted this section due to its obvious irrelevance and NPOV issues. This article is a biography of a living person. It is not productive to include irrelevant, non-notable details about things this person did when he was a teenager, which have absolutely no tie-in to anything else in the rest of the article. If this person continued his reckless behavior in his later life (and was therefore notable because of his reckless behavior), then this section might have a hint of relevance. In particular, if the first sentence of this section, "Simpson led an interesting life as a youth, which undoubtedly helped shape his later career", could be substantiated in any way (i.e. how did it help shape his later career?), then this section would start to have a trace of merit. Additionally, the fact that this section was entirely created and edited by SPA's and anonymous users begs the question of what the motive in including this material is. If you have an argument as to why this material needs to stay in this article, please discuss here before reverting my edits. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp elbows

[edit]

Don't know the guy (I'm not from the 'States) but read some interviews and he seem to have a uniquely straight style; they dubbed him "the guy with the sharp elbow", and truly seem to be. Maybe this is just pov and I couldn't possibly phrase it objectively anyway. So I just have it noted here. :-) Maybe someone want to take a try. --grin ✎ 12:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– I'm really proposing two separate steps here:

  1. moving Alan K. Simpson to Alan Simpson per WP:Commonname
  • A Google news search for the past month brings up over 25 pages with the term "Alan Simpson" (of which only a couple or so seemed to not refer to the senator) and 2 pages with the term "Alan K. Simpson". The same disparity seems to exist in archive searches (I picked 1990 at random, and included the term "Wyoming" just to be safe).
  • The official press release from the White House naming Simpson Co-Chairperson of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (certainly his most notable recent position), which I find to be a good example of the most formal level of coverage, does not use the middle initial.
  • For his credited roles and published work he does not seem to include K.
  1. making the page for this senator the WP:Primary Topic
  • During the (basically) randomly chosen month of March 2011 (I didn't want to pick a recent date when views could be potentially biased by coverage of Simpson associated with the recent election) the senator's page received 18682 views. The closest runner-up from the names on the disambiguation page had only 259 during the same period.
  • The senator's article has over 200 incoming links, while the others don't seem to have more than 10 (if even).
  • Note There seem to be a fair amount of incoming links to the page Galton and Simpson, although this is still at a level much lower than the senator's (and additionally many of these links seem to have come through the "Galton" redirect). Regardless, given that the pair seem to be best known by the current title using only their last names, there's not really any argument that this page would be the "Alan Simpson" primary topic.
  • The third factor pointing to a primary topic, google searches, is discussed above.

Thanks! -- Yaksar (let's chat) 02:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same tremendous disparity exists with google.co.uk. And you're right, this is the English language Wikipedia, and yet its users and readers seem to still overwhelmingly read the US politician's article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Page view statistics indicate that this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The nominator has amply demonstrated this already, and last month's statistics back it up; 17,936 views for the senator to a total of 408 for the other gentlemen. You can keep your calculators holstered—that's almost 44 times as many views as all other topics combined! That he's not well known in other countries seems like a very poor argument without basis in evidence. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The internet is still strongly US-biased, and the figures just tell us that. The British politician is equally prominent from a global perspective, and the scriptwriter possibly even more prominent than either. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they get negligible amounts of page views? If readers are "biased" towards a certain topic, doesn't it behoove us to make it easier to get there? --BDD (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it's not the readers who are biased.
The figures are so clearly out of step with reality that there must be a systematic problem with them somewhere. And it's not hard to see what it is. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I need new glasses then. It's not like Alan Simpson already redirects here. It got just over 1000 views last month. Unless everyone one of the visits for the other topics came from this dab page, the clear pattern among Wikipedia readers is to seek this topic. Putting nationalism before readers does a great disservice. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot more information on the US politician than on the UK one, but they seem to have a lot in common. I'm not English, BTW, I live in Australia where I was born as were both my parents and all four of my grandparents, so the charge of nationalism here is not just unhelpful and contrary to policy, but laughable. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call it anti-nationalism, then. The only thing contrary to policy here I see is all these WP:FARAWAY arguments. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be cause to question my logic, but not my motives. For the relevant policy see WP:AGF, and WP:NPA says something similar but not nearly so clearly as it did before it was watered down. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, I'm quite puzzled by the oppose votes so far. This page seems to meet all the primary topic requirements. Being well known in the US but not in other countries would be more relevant if the other Alan Simpsons came even close to being as well known in any country, but based on the statistics this is absolutely not the case. I mean sure, maybe Jack_Kennedy_(footballer) may be better known in Scotland than JFK (note: I have no idea if this is true) but we weigh each of our readers equally, and don't give them more or less weight if they're from another country. If 50 percent of a thousand Americans are looking for a specific person and 100% of 6 Canadians are looking for another at the same name, we don't weigh these at equal amounts in an attempt to force a world view. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A well thought out and helpful scenario. Agree that in that scenario, we would not attempt to weight the Canadian data in order to remove bias from the data overall. That's not possible. What we would need to do is look for other data. The statistics you quote cannot give us a world view, the information is just not there. Looking at the oppose and support votes, I think that the pattern is obvious... The support votes accept the statistics uncritically, while the oppose votes reject (rather than attempt to correct) the statistics because of other conflicting data and the possibility of bias in the statistics. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But do we have any way of looking at statistics that show which page would be most popular to the internet users of wikipedia than by looking at internet views here on the site? I mean sure, in an ideal world we could ask every person in every country which Alan Simpson they knew best. But as you all have said above, this is not the American Wikipedia but the English language Wikipedia. Therefore the fact that this English Wikipedia's readers overwhelmingly flock to this Alan Simpsons article should indicate that country of origin is not too relevant here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "conflicting data" has been presented? All I see are opinions. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most important data in this case is the contents of the articles themselves. Andrewa (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying that an article can't be a primary topic unless all others by the same names have no data or are stubs? Because we have fairly clear criteria on what makes a primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we have fairly clear criteria on what makes a primary topic, see WP:PTOPIC. Disagree that this meets them, and note that while web statistics are mentioned there as tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic (emphasis as in the original), significance is listed as one of the two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics.
I certainly don't think that an article can't be a primary topic unless all others by the same names have no data or are stubs. Whether an article is a stub is completely irrelevant; a good stub, particularly, should count equally to a good or even featured article in assessing primary topic (this may not always happen in practice). It's the topic we're discussing, not the article, and some editors have even gone so far as to want to disambiguate the name even when we don't yet have any other articles at all to disambiguate (I'm not suggesting this). But the article is the obvious first stop in learning something about the topic. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what confuses me is what data possibly points to it not being the primary, besides personal anecdotes of "I'm not from America and don't know him".--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for "Galton and Simpson", the screenwriting partnership of which another Alan Simpson is one half, and see how many results you get! The fact they're almost always mentioned together is irrelevant to his personal notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Just more WP:FARAWAY and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is essentially what you're saying about the other Alan Simpsons, is it not? "Look, there's lots about Alan K. Simpson on the internet because there are more Americans to post on the internet, oh and he's currently chairing an important body in the USA, so obviously he's the primary topic", seems to be the basis of your argument. I'm all for primary topics when there is a primary topic, but I honestly don't think there is one here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Yaksar and I are making a primary topic argument. I don't care that he's American or that he chaired a commission, but I do care that he dominates in incoming links, reader traffic, and Google results. To the extent anyone has attempted to address this argument, it's been holding up a person insufficiently notable for his own article. I only care about the numbers. It's clear that some editors want the numbers to say something else, but no one has advanced a compelling reason why these overwhelming numbers should be ignored in this case. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...insufficiently notable for his own article... So I guess you'll be AfDing Alan Simpson (scriptwriter)? Ridiculous. It's not just the numbers that matter, they need to be interpretted. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the amount of traffic is because he's currently chairing a commission in America. That's pure WP:RECENTISM. In a few years time the traffic will no doubt he phenomenally reduced. It's not that the scriptwriter is not notable enough for his own article, but that he and Galton always write together, so are primarily recognised as a partnership. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it. I couldn't take Alan Simpson (scriptwriter) to AfD because it isn't an article! I'd have to use RfD, which of course I wouldn't do. Ok, I used poor phrasing. Galton and Simpson could have their own articles, but they'd be mostly duplicative of each other. You're making claims about that Simpson's notability, but I had never heard of him before. Give me diffs, give me numbers, give me evidence for your positions, not just your opinions. Would it make anyone happier to have a hatnote to the effect of This article is about the American politician. For the British scriptwriter, see Galton and Simpson. For other uses, see Alan Simpson (disambiguation).? --BDD (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Ignoring the poor stringing) OK, I see what you mean, and that does make it a little more complicated and a rather unusual case. But I still think your claim that this person is ...insufficiently notable for his own article... is ridiculous, and that's not just a matter of poor phrasing but misleading rhetoric. It's true they don't have an article at present, and I'm not about to violate WP:POINT by creating one. But it's not a notability issue, it's just that the material we have at present may (arguably) be better organised as it is, see also another reply above. And of course see my vote above, it's not just the scriptwriter, there are several other articles plus one redlink to an Olympian who made the final in 1964 but missed out on a medal by 0.1 seconds (I don't know whether he's the same Alan Simpson who coached for Australia in 2006, but it would be rare for an Olympic finalist to have no other accomplishments). Primary usage means that the topic is more prominent than all others, not just the most prominent, and even that seems in doubt here.
Now, on the matter of diffs... numbers... evidence..., you are now asking for evidence of claims of notability, but again it seems more rhetoric than working towards consensus. There seemed some hope of progress when you said Galton and Simpson could have their own articles. So do we even need to discuss their notability here? You raised the issue, presented no evidence yourself, and now seem to have retreated somewhat but still demand evidence to counter your claim?
You seem to believe that the numerical criteria you quote may be used in isolation to determine the primary usage, and that therefore more statistics must be quoted in order to counter your statistics. That's not what the guidelines say.
And now you also want statistics to counter claims you make with no evidence whatsoever. Really? Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot to respond to. Help me out here. What claim am I making with no evidence whatsoever? In the meantime, I categorically reject the claim that Simpson the screenwriter is insufficiently notable for his own article. I thought I had made that clear before. In fact, I denounce and reject my previous claim. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's consensus I think! At first I thought you had made it clear too, but then you seemed to ask for evidence to back up claims about that Simpson's notability. Why, unless there's some doubt? Can't we just take it that each of the Alan Simpsons about which we currently have articles is notable? I thought you'd said that, but then I had to ask myself, what's he asking for evidence about? And it seemed to include the notability of the scriptwriter. And I don't see why we should bother, nobody has presented much evidence either way but if we have consensus anyway we should just move on.
Or by notability do you mean something to do with primary topic? They're two separate issues, generally, with one logical link that I can see which doesn't concern us here. (In general a primary topic isn't necessarily notable, nor is a notable topic necessarily the primary topic, but if there's a notable topic which is not the primary topic, then that would very strongly suggest that the primary topic is also notable.) Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the latter, and I apologize for not communicating that clearly. When I mentioned "claims of notability," I was referring to relative claims compared to the American politician, not absolute claims of WP:N. So I still think Alan K is the primary topic. Based on the best data available to us, he's more likely than all other people of the name to be searched, so I think we will help more readers by having "Alan Simpson" redirect here or just renaming this article. That said, I really regret that this discussion has gotten so heated, I recognize my culpability in making it so, and I do hope we can figure out some sort of compromise. If Alan Simpson (scriptwriter) or Galton and Simpson becomes a great article with many readers, I'd be very happy for the benefit to them and to the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is simply whether this US Senator is the primary topic for this fairly common name. There seems no hope of even a rough consensus that he is, and while I'm prepared to consider any compromise proposal it's not obvious how to compromise on that particular point, or how to avoid its consequences. And we have had a long debate while you try to convince some of those opposing the move that your particular interpretation of the data is the only correct one, while the guidelines clearly say that it ain't necessarily so.
I'm not after an apology. I have probably been overly assertive at times too, and violated one or two of the Andrew tests. But I do think that notability has a particular meaning in Wikipedia and we should try to keep to it, for the sake of good communication and building valid consensus. I must admit that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does state A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term (my emphasis) but note the enduring, which is very much one of the points of disagreement here. There is no doubt that the US Senator is prominent in the news and on the web right now.
Frankly, Wikipedia would at worst be only a little poorer for taking your interpretation in this particular case. But it would in my opinion be the poorer, and I and others have tried very hard to explain why we think this. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Closing a few hours early per WP:SNOW, since no editor supports the nominator's proposal. Two editors proposed an alternative way of disambiguating this page fro the other uses of the title, but not enough discussion of that idea to judge whether there would be consensus for such a move. So if anyone wants to propose a move to something like Alan Simpson (American politician), feel free to open a new discussion on that proposal ... but the clear consensus is that this is not the primary topic. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Alright, here we go. I'm basically re-proposing the move that was discussed a year ago for this page. Some of it I'm just going to selectively copy and paste from the old proposal. – I'm really proposing two separate steps here:

  1. moving Alan K. Simpson to Alan Simpson per WP:Commonname
  • This part seems to have been entirely uncontroversial above. I'd be more than happy to go into detail on it if desired, but all signs from the previous discussion still apply and show the clear Common name for this figure
  1. making the page for this senator the WP:Primary Topic
  • During the previous) month of March 2014 the senator's page received just under 9000 views. The closest runner-up would be the screenwriter Alan Simpson, who is discussed at Galton and Simpson, who was viewed just under 1300 times. That's over 6.5 times less, a substantial amount that usually would not be controversial. Just to be clear I wasn't being biased by recent coverage, I went a year back to last march, and found that the US senator has close to 10 times as many views.
  • The next highest would be the British politician, who seems to usually get under 250 views per month. Not too much room for debate on that one.
  • The senator's article has over 200 incoming links. The screenwriter's page, after subtracting duplicates and links coming in only because of a redirect from a search for Galton, has 92 incoming links, and the other Simpson articles all have a negligible amount.
  • In a google search (making sure to follow the method that eliminates personal search bias, as recommended on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC page) for purely Alan Simpson, the first results all refer to the Senator. The 15th result is for the screenwriter's IMDb page, and then the next few pages of results seem to be 90% or so on the Senator again.
  • According to a google books search, this Alan Simpson is also the overwhelming primary topic of the ones we have pages on. A search for ""alan simpson" wyoming" or even ""alan simpson" wyoming senator" brings up far more than choosing Galton, or Dublin as an addition, for an example, on at least a tenfold scale.
  • Now, I would like to address the issues raised in the previous discussion. There were essentially two different types of oppose !votes.
  1. The first type were either some form of "I've never heard of this guy, but I've heard of the screenwriter." The second were claims that "the other Alan Simpson is well known too."
  • These !votes add nothing helpful to the discussion, unfortunately. Your opinion or expectation means nothing, as rude as it may sound, if you're not backing it up with any of the quantitative information by the metrics proposed on the WP:Primarytopic page. Just as in an AfD one cannot simply say "yeah this guy is notable" with nothing to back it up, we need numbers or data or something more solid.
  1. The second issue was a bit weirder. Some editors argued that moving the Senator to the primary topic would be unfairly America-centric.
  • This is the English Language Wikipedia. Not the American Wikipedia, not the UK Wikipedia, and not the Australian Wikipedia. It's job is to cater to its readers. We do not take into account a reader's nationality when assessing them. Yes, there are probably more readers to the entire site coming from America. But the solution is not to count American readers less, that just doesn't make any sense. The global numbers, not the American ones, show that Alan K. Simpson is the primary. I tried to make a comparison by stating that "I mean sure, maybe Jack_Kennedy_(footballer) may be better known in Scotland than JFK (note: I have no idea if this is true) but we weigh each of our readers equally, and don't give them more or less weight if they're from another country. If 50 percent of a thousand Americans are looking for a specific person and 100% of 6 Canadians are looking for another at the same name, we don't weigh these at equal amounts in an attempt to force a world view."
  • Another argument was made that the results were biased by recentism given Alan K. Simpsons current political role. But the numbers taken at the time of discussion, the numbers from a year before, and the numbers from a year later (today) all say the same thing. Alan K. Simpson is definitely still staying in the news, but if anything this shows his relative long term interest versus the other articles, given that the bulk of his political career (and certainly the most heavily covered part) occurred decades ago Yaksar (let's chat) 06:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Just to bring it up again, and at risk of sounding rude, please remember that your opinion alone is not a helpful argument. You may very well believe that a different topic is just as well known, but if more readers are reading this article, more current and archival is going to this person (when taking all readers from every country into account), you need to give at least some sort of evidence to back it up, not just your hunch.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose - the primary topic in Google Books appears to be Alan Simpson (theatre director), certainly the primary topic for Wikipedia's Irish Users. The "global numbers" argument above would just lead to Australian, Irish, Indian, Canadian readers mis-linking to a dab page. Besides the American politician is known as "Alan K. Simpson" in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you come to that google books conclusion? As far as I can tell, this is not the case, given that the first books entry from a search for Alan Simpson of someone we have an entry on seems to be the senator. But even if it was, do you feel that the google books result is the deciding factor when searches, news, and the desire of Wikipedia's article readers all point the other way? --Yaksar (let's chat) 08:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
by looking in Google Books without "Dublin", but with "Alan Simpson"/"Dublin" the result is clearer. Mislinking occurs when an editor indicating another Alan Simpson links to a generic name which does not prompt a dab-bot notification because one Alan Simpson has been moved over the dab. The American politician is WP:RECENT because of the Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission. Books are a better guide to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than page views because they are stable and indicate longer term notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your search comes up with 2,640 results. Replacing Dublin with Wyoming brings up over 22,000. As far as I can tell, that's pretty clearly the opposite of what you're claiming. Given that google books does not span only the recent era, it's very clear that the senator is overwhelmingly more of a primary topic versus the theatre director looking at only google books. And the bulk of the books that come up for the senator seem to discuss or refer to him due to his time in the senate, which ended almost 20 years ago.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made my original search using "Alan Simpson was" to pick up narrative references. I stand by the observation that despite the number of Congressional papers in Google Books database in terms of books there is no primary subject for such a common name. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making up criteria as you go along. Using "Alan Simpson was" in the context above, which clearly seems to favor dead subjects or subjects who have since stopped working (and is additionally largely arbitrary and not the standard we use), comes up with the same amount of results as using Wyoming or Senator. And more importantly, a search in google books for "Alan Simpson was" without using any qualifier still brings up the senator as the first result after removing fictional characters. You're changing the criteria as you go along to favor the article you just created, and failing to successfully do so at that, which to be honest just seems deceitful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"alan simpson was" produces A History of Irish Theatre 1601-2000 Page 219, Interactions: Dublin Theatre Festival, 1957-2007 Page 218, The Letters of Brendan Behan Page 66 on the first page, that's 3, the American politician got 2 on the same page. As for the personal attack, that's not likely to persuade me of the merits of your case. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but both of the Senator's links come before the theater director, and the second page has 7 for the senator and one for the theater director. But the very fact that we're delving into the minutiae of the specifically biased criteria you've chosen out, and that we're still on the whole getting more results for the senator at the top is a pretty clear sign of the weakness of your argument. I'd almost like to think you're playing a joke here; you're very clearly an experienced editor who knows how discussions work, but the argument you're trying to make is fairly absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and remember that existence of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for any topic is the exception rather than the rule. To select one person as the topic requires both a substantial majority (66%?) of all references, plus long term encyclopedic significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and following your original claim that google books are the best assessment (and before your weird decision that only sources that use "was" directly after the name should count) it's clear that the number of sources are tenfold, not just 66%.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. Page views are not the sole factor in judging whether a person constitutes the primary topic for a name. There are a variety of other considerations to be taken into account, including some which are "soft", in that they are qualitative rather than quantitative. The desire to combat systemic bias is one of these "soft" considerations. Judgements made on the basis of these considerations are not simply cases of IDONTLIKEIT; they are an effort by editors to acknowledge the full range of human experience, beyond simple statistical analysis. Put frankly, the Senator's search statistics are inflated by reason of his nationality, as well as the relative recentness of his career. In an effort to avoid giving undue weight to the American POV, and in an effort to value print sources equally to electronic ones, I argue that these non-numerical factors suggest this request ought to be denied. Xoloz (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused though, where is there any evidence that these other figures are more primary in their own states or at an international level? You're claiming that Alan Simpson the senator only has coverage because he is American, but is the proof behind this simply that he is an American? And by that logic shouldn't Paul Ryan also not be the primary topic, or Kenneth Clark, since they receive coverage from the people in their own country? Or are you saying that because he is American, even though the numbers we give take the global audience into account and not a national one, we should assume that international readers prefer another article without any data to back it up? Combating system bias is important, I agree, but that does not mean that we assume that international readers have no interest in an American subject when there is no actual evidence to support that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not like other countries don't know he exists. Here's a recent article from the Daily Mail . I'm also seeing a bunch from the BBC and the Guardian, among others.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, you're saying that we should be valuing print sources to avoid giving undue weight, but as discussed above a google books search comparing him to the Irish playwright or the British scriptwriter shows many times more print coverage. And recentism is less of an issue when you see that the books tend to focus on his senate career, which dates back to the end of the 70s.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of a primary topic depends upon a determination of whether the topic "is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic" to be the subject of any given inquiry. "Highly likely" is a subjective term, and it is used for a reason: there is no absolute numerical bar which can be said to guarantee the status. If I wished to be more nuanced, I could simply argue that the numbers you cite in your discussion with In ictu oculi do not meet my understanding of a high-likelihood within the meaning of the term. However, I will be frank: I am basing my assessment on my own sense of how likely I believe it is that a non-American user is searching for this man. You might call this a "hunch"; since I am American, reasonably well-informed about the state of American politics of the 20th and 21st centuries, I call it an "educated guess." Sen. Simpson is well-known to political observers; but, he is *not quite* a household name, even in America. For this reason, I doubt it is "highly likely" that any given non-American editor searching for "Alan Simpson" is looking for this man. If your numerical analysis was more obviously lopsided, it would convince me to overturn my own educated guess, and I'd support the proposal. Instead, the values align roughly with my expectations, given the relative predominance of American searchers.
  • Paul Ryan was the 2012 Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States. This nomination conferred upon him the status of a "household name" in America; and, I suspect, generated much attention overseas, as well as a higher degree of long-term encyclopedic significance. Had Alan Simpson been similarly nominated, I would be inclined to support this request. Xoloz (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're aware that these "numerical factors" are not complex formulas or problems, yes? They're just the numbers that actually back up the claim that he's clearly the most read, researched, and reported of these articles. Is it better to simply state that without providing the figures that back that up? But regardless, what are the factors that do count, and do they actually apply to this article? Because so far no one has proposed anything beyond "I think that the truth is different than what has been shown, even though all information points the other way".--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm kind of confused, could someone help explain something to me? A couple editors have proposed with confidence that the other figures are clearly the more primary topic in other countries, but have stated that while the recommendations on WP:Primarytopic do not show this is the case it should still be assumed. Is the reason this can be assumed that American topics cannot be of interest to international readers? Or that international readers will obviously only care about their own national subjects. Because given that no actual solid information indicates what has been claimed, I'm quite puzzled.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, establishing it is another wp:primarytopic in a different country proves there is no global wp:primarytopic.
  • Oppose As others say, quantitative factors should be not be the sole factor of consideration. As is it is, it does not even reaches the minimum quantity necessary in my opinion, an order of magnitude greater than all other alternatives combined. When adding factors that the dab page has half a dozen links, that it has no "long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" as per wp:primarytopic, and that it comes with its own natural disambiguator in the form of the middle initial "K", there is no reason not to let things be as they are. walk victor falk talk 23:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic here. Either leave as is or move to Alan Simpson (American politician). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2011 prediction of a financial crisis in two years?

[edit]

In 2011, Simpson predicted a fiscal crisis that could come as early as two years. Today, his opponents point to that claim as a mistaken assertion that caused Congress to pivot toward addressing debt instead of economic growth. Whatever you think of it, it was certainly a significant claim. In response to Simpson's prediction, Jeff Sessions said that "the remarks you have just made are very sobering." This is a major prediction by a public figure--perhaps a signficant source of his influence--which arguably turned out to be wrong or overblown, and that many writers discuss when mentioning Simpson and his declining influence. It's a shame that you won't find it anywhere on this Wikipedia article. It should be added.2601:B:C580:2D9:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jim McGovern (U.S. politician) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2017

[edit]
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: Move. We have consensus here that "Alan K. Simpson" is not in wide enough use to serve as effective disambiguation. It was correctly pointed out that WP:INITS is mostly about including middle initials in general, rather than about using such initials for disambiguation. However, the guideline does recommend avoiding initials "merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person)". As such the question is whether the "K" is commonly used for this person. Most participants believed it is not, and this is supported by the evidence presented. As such, I find consensus for the move. Cúchullain t/c 20:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Alan K. Simpson → Alan Simpson (American politician) – WP:COMMONNAME. Simpson is more commonly known without the middle initial. Examples:

A google search of "alan simpson" "National commission" site:washingtonpost.com returns 79 results, compared to 9 for "alan k simpson" "National commission" site:washingtonpost.com. Also, the Associated Press uses "Alaon Simpson" in articles from 2013 [1], as did CNBC in 2017 [2].

Googling "Alan K. Simpson" site:trib.com (trib.com is the website of the Casper Star-Tribune in Simpson's home state Wyoming) returns 118 results, compared to 342 for "Alan Simpson" site:trib.com.

Furthermore, this name aligns with other similarly named articles like Jim McGovern (American politician) and Mike Lee (American politician), as well as using the common names for members of the US Congress - such as Bernie Sanders (not "Bernard Sanders") or Chuck Schumer (not "Charles Schumer"). Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB. That he may be more commonly known without the middle initial is irrelevant since the proposal is not to move to "Alan Simpson" as primary topic (turned down twice above), but to add an unnecessary artificial parenthetical qualifier when natural disambiguation is available. That he is very commonly known as "Alan K. Simpson" can easily be seen by glancing at the refs and external links in the article, as well as the google results cited in the nom. A natural, neutral common name is normally preferred, even if not the most common. Station1 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:INITS, which is quite clear: Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources....Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised. I don't see evidence that using the middle initial is the most common format of this name in reliable sources. So, we should drop it and use a parenthetical, as is standard WP practice. Dohn joe (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Station1 and "oppose" votes at the concurrent discussion regarding the middle initial at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#Requested move 26 October 2017. A similar discussion (at Talk:Ben Wattenberg#Requested move 4 July 2017) decided that although Ben Wattenberg's pen name on the covers of his books was Ben J. Wattenberg, his common name was Ben Wattenberg, with no other Wikipedia headers bearing that exact name. Here, we have six men named "Alan Simpson" (and one named Allan Simpson). Since Amazon has a link to Simpson's autobiography, we can see that the pen name on the front cover is Alan K. Simpson, which should be considered his WP:COMMONNAME. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:INITS is clear; as Dohn Joe explained above. Either we're going to follow Wikipedia policy or not. If we're following policy, it's clear that his name without the middle initial is more commonly used, and we move the article. Rockypedia (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:INITS says "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Book credits be damned, nobody calls this person "Alan K. Simpson". Also per my vote at that Spencer discussion, where I said that a parenthetical is a far better indicator for a reader that they're at (or headed to) the right or wrong place than an initial that isn't really well known. No matter which Alan Simpson you're looking for, "Alan Simpson (American politician)" is a far better indicator that you're on the right or wrong path than the current title. CityOfSilver 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:INITS. I don't have anything to add to the arguments above, which are in my view sufficient to demonstrate why this proposal should pass. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All the support comments so far are based on WP:INITS, but WP:INITS is not policy. Policy is at WP:Article titles, which supports using the most natural, neutral and concise title. WP:INITS is only part of a larger guideline about titling articles about people; the section about disambiguating comes later on the same page. Reading it to always require parenthetical qualifiers when commonly used initials are available would put it in conflict not only with the basic dab guideline at WP:NCDAB, but also policy and common practice. Station1 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with CityOfSilver's argument that a parenthetical is a far better indicator for a reader that they're at (or headed to) the right or wrong place than an initial that isn't really well known. I doubt if our readers care about the intricacies of INTS vs. WP:Article titles. Besides, he's not usually referred to as Alan K. Simpson. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Requested move 24 March 2018

[edit]
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 at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Alan Simpson (American politician) → Alan Simpson (U.S. politician) – To be in line with the Commonscat, and with many other U.S. politicians. Saippuakauppias ⇄ 02:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Simpson_(American_politician)&oldid=1228672398"