Talk:Omar Ahmad (politician)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested moves[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 pages, per the discussion below. Consistency is preferable, as is often noted here, but this discussion was unable to determine what format of disambiguator should be used. I suggest taking this up at a central location such as WP:NCP in order to achieve greater clarity on this topic. Dekimasuよ! 00:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Change according to WP:CRITERIA, Consistency. There's a long list of titles in this RM (and not that it matters) but there's a similar number of article titles that contain the text “U.S. Politician”. Relevant articles are United States, Politics of the United States, Federal government of the United States, United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, United States Domestic Policy Council, United States federal executive departments and President of the United States. Category:Government in the United States contains a great many similarly titled articles and sub-categories. “United States” is the commonly used term of reference in relation to the country's politics. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. Are you proposing a move to "(U.S. politician)" as in the lists above, or to "(United States politician)" based on your comment that "United States" is the commonly used term of reference? --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN Sorry that I did not clarify. The current request move request for moves to "Xx Xx (U.S. politician)" titles. I choose to propose this same short form format to parallel its use in a long list of similar articles as is indicated on a Wikipedia search on “U.S. Politician”. The wording "Xx Xx (United States politician)" could alternatively be used if preferred as could "Xx Xx (US politician)". U.S. and US both redirect to United States and all versions might be relevantly used. See search: "U.S." OR "US". It may also be significant to note that the preferred reference of enemies of the United States is "America" Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support "U.S." is shorter, and used in other disambiguation -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. but it should be consistent. Eric Cable | Talk 13:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think "U.S." will be an improvement. However, I would like to request that Tony Young (American politician) be withdrawn from the list. Instead I will rename it Tony Young (politician). It turns out we have no other articles about politicians named Tony Young, so the qualifier is not needed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral after further thinking about it and discussion below. --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no-one objects,

Done. The RM may have a bit of a prob as it hasn't got listed on WP:RM as yet. I've left one request for help on a talk page and can make other enquiries as needed. Any ideas? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on the RM page now. As for Tony Young, I think I will go ahead and do it. Seems non-controversial. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consistency beats inconsistency. Shorter is better than longer (two syllables vs. four). "American" introduces a patriotic element that seems out of place in a disambiguator. Claimsworth (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of mincing of words I had considered the potential problem as being more related to nationalism than patriotism. The difference in terminologies relates to reference to "being" American or to "having" origins/location in the U.S. I would hope that healthy patriotism can be supported either way. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We always use "American" as the country disambiguation adjective for the United States. It's used for every other individual or thing who or which needs disambiguating. It's the standard adjective for the United States throughout the world. It is no more "patriotic" or "nationalist" than using "British" or "French" (in fact, I find this a really, really bizarre claim). No need to make an exception for these individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was also puzzled that one person said that using "American" was nationalistic / too patriotic while another said "American" is the term used by America's enemies! Let's not try to read anything into the use of "American" in this context. BTW, for comparison, I found several pages titled "John Doe (British politician)" but none titled "John Doe (U.K. politician)". And personally, when I am naming such an article I call it "John Doe (California politician)". --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. "America" is in fact the common name used to refer to the United States, both by her enemies and by everyone else! It may be news to Americans (I don't know), but few non-Americans would use anything else. Going by the opinions expressed above, presumably "all-American" and "as American as apple pie" are actually insults used by the enemies of the United States? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. In that case, we should rename Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia (American state). Or am I missing something? Claimsworth (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Georgia is one of the United States! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the discussion over nationalism here is related to the argument that the Americas refers to a whole continent, and that various members of the Organization of American states take some issue with the term being only used to refer to the US. That being said, this isn't a reason alone to disregard the fact that America is pretty much most commonly used in English referred to the United States. But this seems like one of those cases where, considering that we are trying to come to a consistent standard, it may be best to choose the option that is both more concise and removes any of this potential ambiguity, even if both versions are technically still be fine. --Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After relistening to those patriotic anthems "The U.S. the Beautiful" and "God Bless the U.S.," I must concede that "U.S." can be pretty patriotic as well. Claimsworth (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per consistency & it's more compact. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems the main thrust for this is to make the disambiguation shorter. Shorter at the expense of accuracy is not a direction we should be going. As to constancy, the current usage is totally in line with the category structure (Category:Politicians by nationality) and other articles like say Peter Baker (British politician). There is no real case made that it any real world situation someone will day US politician over American politician. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consistency argument is that all the disambiguators should be either "(U.S. politician)" or "(American politican)." Why would you think one is more accurate than the other? The British/UK case is not really analogous since Americans don't necessarily know which country "the UK" is. Frankly, I am not a fan of parentheticals. I'd prefer superscripts: Omar Ahmad¹, Omar Ahmad², etc. Claimsworth (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, I agree. I consider "UK politician" to be far the more accurate and favourable term. The term United Kingdom is clearly favourable in that it is inclusive of Northern Ireland. The British Isles don't stretch that far. The UK and the US are the political terms by which our countries are known and, if anything, the UK has got things wrong. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not aware that "British" is the usual, common, and, most importantly, official adjective to refer to anyone or anything from the United Kingdom, not just Great Britain. I am a British citizen. So is someone from Northern Ireland. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to go against this. "UK" or "United Kingdom", on the other hand, are not adjectives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is beginning to look more like a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing wrong with the current usage and it is consistent as pointed out above. The adjectival form used is not a political term, so what ever is intended looks like a change without merit or need. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. The adjectives would be preferable here, and, as Necrothesp and Vegaswikian have pointed out, that is what we do with politicians from other countries, so this effort to increase consistency would actually make things less consistent. If there are objections on grounds of inconsistency with articles with "(US politician)" in the title, those could just as easily be solved by moving all the "(US politician)" articles to "(American politician)". Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Nothing wrong with using the common demonym. The articles listed as supposedly proving this is some kind of consistency issue are irrelevant - we have Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, yet we use (British politician) not (UK politician) is commonly used (e.g. John Harman (British politician)). Number 5 7 16:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the opposers want to stop Wikipedians from using "U.S." as a "country disambiguation adjective" or "common demonym." All I can say is, good luck with that. You can start here: Bobby Scott (U.S. politician), Joe Wilson (U.S. politician), Nick Smith (U.S. politician), Tom Murphy (U.S. politician), John Findlay (U.S. politician), John Banks (U.S. politician), Joseph García (U.S. politician), Joseph Richardson (U.S. politician), John Joseph O'Neill (U.S. politician), John Curtin (U.S. politician), John Barrow (U.S. politician), George Allen (U.S. politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician), Ron Johnson (U.S. politician), John Fleming (U.S. politician), William Wilkins (U.S. politician), David Price (U.S. politician), Tom Price (U.S. politician), Bob Wilson (U.S. politician), Ron Brown (U.S. politician), John Reynolds (U.S. politician), Richard Baker (U.S. politician), Ed Jones (U.S. politician), Jim McGovern (U.S. politician), William Jack (U.S. politician), Roger Williams (U.S. politician), John Kelly (U.S. politician), Jimmy Duncan (U.S. politician), Richard Hudson (U.S. politician), James Wilson (U.S. politician), Malcolm Smith (U.S. politician), Jim Gibbons (U.S. politician), Jim Jordan (U.S. politician), Ed Jenkins (U.S. politician), James Strong (U.S. politician), Chris Collins (U.S. politician), Mike Moore (U.S. politician), John Walsh (U.S. politician), John Dawson (U.S. politician), Jacob Johnson (U.S. politician), Andy Barr (U.S. politician), Philip Key (U.S. politician), Robert Potter (U.S. politician), John Peyton (U.S. politician), David White (U.S. politician), Thomas Gill (U.S. politician), David Davis (U.S. politician), Thomas Cooper (U.S. politician), Thomas Marshall (U.S. politician), Bernard Allen (U.S. politician), William Wall (U.S. politician), George Turner (U.S. politician), Richard Coulter (U.S. politician), Samuel White (U.S. politician), Joseph Burns (U.S. politician), Henry Bennett (U.S. politician), Patrick Walsh (Southern U.S. politician), Robert Clark (U.S. politician), John Richards (U.S. politician), Norman Lamb (U.S. politician), Walter Patterson (U.S. politician), Mark Norris (U.S. politician), William Mason (U.S. politician), James Bailey (U.S. politician), Henry Mitchell (U.S. politician), John Stafford (U.S. politician), Frank Hatton (U.S. politician), Richard Morris (U.S. politician), Morgan Jones (U.S. politician), Samuel F. Miller (U.S. politician), George Forrest (U.S. politician), William Henry Pope (U.S. politician), Richard Adams (U.S. politician), Robert Vogel (U.S. politician), Michael Gallagher (U.S. politician), John Maloney (U.S. politician), Rosemary Brown (U.S. politician), Fred Jordan (U.S. politician), Joseph Sweeney (U.S. politician), John S. Watson (U.S. politician). Claimsworth (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a different topic the main motivation for change relates to national security and the use of terminologies that are less likely to be conducive for attack.

Here's something that I previously wrote at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#United States R US

I'm proposing the above as preferred terms of reference as a friend from the UK and based on the following:

Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America.
The United States only constitutes one of many countries in the Americas and only about one third of the total population.
Amerigo Vespucci was and explorer of South America and the West Indies.
Hawaii is arguably better defined as constituting a part of the United States rather than as representing a part of America.
The primary reference to the country and is the United States. This is fairly well represented through many of the categories and articles connected to Category:Government in the United States and I would personally propose that this reference may be beneficially applied in other topics as per support from WP:UCRN.
The term "United States" conveys a message of unity in specific ownership of a single nation while 50 countries across two continents share the roots of "American" terminologies.

Again, enemies of the United States, that I have heard, tend to fixate on the name America and I think that it would be a step towards peace to withdraw politics from use of this terminology. America is a comparatively ambiguous terminology that may be perceived to have been monopolised by the United States. Enemies of America also tend to indiscriminately select targets from amongst the general population of the American people. Amongst other things, this is something that directly contravenes Islamic law. Islamic terrorists act hypocritically in targeting civilians (innocents is a term used). A move to a consistent use of titles with regard to U.S. political and military topics would, I hope, serve to help highlight that hypocrisy. I am no expert on these things but sources such as http://lettertobaghdadi.com/ may be helpful.

Pinging Necrothesp, Vegaswikian, Egsan Bacon and Number 57.

The mention of the likes of John Harman (British politician) is another fallacy as demonstrated in the context of articles such as demonstrated by John Potts (UK politician). Its just another area of inconsistency in Wikipedia that should rightly be dealt with.

Terminologies on both sides of the Atlantic have failings. America, as a reference to two continents, goes to far. Britain, which does doesn't include Northern Ireland, doesn't go far enough. Both nations have political systems that are best described with US and UK terminologies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of John Harman is not a "fallacy" – you just managed to find an example of a misnamed article. You also don't seem to be aware that "British" refers to the entire United Kingdom, not just people from Great Britain.

I have to say that your "enemies of the US refer to the country as America" reasoning is laughable. Number 5 7 11:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://leaksource.info/2014/09/21/flames-of-war-islamic-state-feature-length-propaganda-recruitment-film/

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not proving any point other than there are misnamed articles out there. If you bothered doing a bit of proper analysis rather than just trying to find exceptions to prove your point, you'd see that (British politician) (17,700 hits) is vastly more widely used than (UK politician) (1,870 hits). Number 5 7 17:29, 11 October 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.