Talk:Stanley Green

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stanley Green exhibit, Museum of London, June 2010 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2025

• Stanley Green → Stanley Owen Green
• Stanley Green (disambiguation) → Stanley Green

– Protein Man is not well known outside of London. The historian is far better known internationally (has biographical entries in British and American encyclopedias) and is covered in many more published reference works. If there is a primary it should be the historian. However, I think there is a good argument that there is WP:NOPRIMARY and the disambiguation page should take precedence. It's totally inappropriate to have an obscure UK person as the primary even if it is an FA article. I also note that there are many many more incoming links to the historian page versus only a tiny handful to Protein Man. 4meter4 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agree. Many biographies here have a descriptor to aid in disambiguation where a name has multiple entries. This is no different. Sciencefish (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed: The article about the historian has only existed for a few days, and has not proved especially popular so far. I see no evidence of him being a primary topic (no major awards, no best-selling books, no high academic titles), and he also seems nation- and topic-specific to American musical theatre. If we choose to move the protein man's article, we should use a more generic disambiguation term – not a synonym. We don't use synonyms like that on Wikipedia. Possibly it could just be moved to Protein Man (which already redirects to this article). Otherwise, it should be something like Stanley Green (activist). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I'm fine with either title proposal. We can build a WP:CONSENSUS here on a different title per your comments. If it is moved do you have a preference between the two alternative titles? @Ssilvers do you have a preference on a title for this article given the proposed one is contentious?4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would go with the name that willl be easiest for people to search in the search box to find him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I note that the proposal was changed after I commented on it, so some of my comments may now be hard to interpret. I was commenting on a proposal to rename the article as Stanley Green (Protein Man). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This article is scheduled to be Today's featured article on 31 January 2025. When a consensus is reached, could there be no move of the article from 29 January to 4 February, as this has a knock on effect elsewhere. Before or after those dates is fine, but please not between. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to !vote at the moment (although I may change my mind), but I will say that it's a little disingenuous to say that "Protein Man is not well known outside of London". Obituaries in national newspapers, inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, his possessions held by museums and an article by him in The Sunday Times are indicative that this wasn't such an anonymous figure as is being made out. Just a passing comment for information: no need for any response. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • And yet the article is careful to present him as possessing only "local fame". I choose to believe the article as written, and accept that he is was only well known in a local context. Arguing something different than that is contradicted by what our article says on this person. In contrast, the scholar has multiple sources saying he was one of the most significant theatre historians of the 20th century in a global context in sources from publishers in the UK and America. You have to understand that people outside the UK are more likely to know the theatre historian, and people in the UK may know both or one or the other.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      • To repeat: "Just a passing comment for information: no need for any response". Given I have not voted, I don't have to understand anything, but please stop bludgeoning everyone you disagree with. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think pointing out contradictions in new arguments is bludgeoning the process. You did make a new point and I chose to respond to it. It's a normal part of the WP:CONSENSUS process. But I'll try to avoid repeating myself if someone else cares to make this same point later on. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The WP:BLUDGEON page says "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back". Looking at the thread, you appear to be deep in that territory, having made eleven comments out of the twenty-six in the thread and what looks like well over half the total thread's text. It's time to step back. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair I have made many of my comments in the attempt to satisfy the need to find the best move target. Making essential changes to the nomination to help with a productive outcome took more comments than is typical in a discussion. It's also been challenging with editors ignoring the central argument of the move proposal and engaging in WP:STONEWALLING tactics. Purposefully avoiding a necessary move mandated by WP:GLOBAL/WP:NOTPRIMARY by refusing to engage with those policies in a meaningful way and then distracting everyone with refusals to agree on a move location is a great way to sabotage and stonewall this conversation from ever reaching CONSENSUS. If editors were transparent and came forward with a list of titles they would support we could get traction, but everyone is staying tight lipped in the hopes it will tank the conversation. I'll do my best not to make any repeating opinions in future, but I'm not going to accept accusations of BLUDGEONING when the people crying fowl are working collectively to STONEWALL. Have a great day.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral. The historian is one of the most important theatre writers in the world, who will continue to read by theatre students for as long as live theatre continues to be performed. He is cited as an authority in dozens of Wikipedia articles. The Protein Man was a local and transient phenomenon. The only surprise here is that it took so long for the historian to get an article. As SchroCat says, though, the change should either happen before Jan. 29 or after Feb. 4. [ADD: I am changing my vote to neutral, because the nominator is being unpleasant and impatient, and disregarding WP:BLUDGEON even knowing that a TFA is pending.] -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

He's also important to film studies having written books on musical films as well, and has written on American popular songs/musicians so is linked in pages on singers like Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald. He was also a music critic and wrote the liner notes to hundreds of albums; meaning that he's important to music history as well and not limited to just theatre as was indicated above. He's as an authority and quoted in music album articles and in articles on musicians. He's currently wiki-linked in more than 350 other articles versus about ten to the Protein Man page (some of these shouldn't count as they are dab notes and are not specifically about Protein Man so its really less than 10 articles when factoring in how that would change after an article move of the disambiguation page). There's no comparison between the two in terms of longterm significance and wide impact. The historian is going to remain pertinent, and could potentially be cited/quoted as an authority in hundreds if not thousands of more wikipedia articles related to theatre, film, and music given how many topics he wrote on in the academic literature and in newspapers and magazines.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Doing this just before a FA run is poor timing. The claims of the musical historian seem weak and, in any case, the moves wouldn't directly affect that topic. The proposed name seems poor as explained by BarrelProof. A simple option would be Stanley Owen Green, as per the Dictionary of National Biography. BTW, now I see that there's a place in Cheshire of this name, I may start something for that. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No objection to Protein Man. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I've updated the proposed title per Andrew Davidson's suggestion. I'm finding this conversation frustrating because people are opposing the move based on name choice, but are ignoring the main logic behind the move which is WP:NOPRIMARY. There are multiple targets besides the historian. I've accordingly adopted Stanley Owen Green because it seems logical and non-controversial. Can we please just get this done and quit the bureaucratic nonsense. We don't need to restart a whole new move conversation just because the original title had issues. Lets get the dab page moved back to Stanley Green where it belongs. @162 etc., Andrew Davidson, SchroCat, Sciencefish, Ssilvers, BarrelProof please re-comment.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose move to Stanley Owen Green. Reliable sources do not use his middle name when referring to him. Middle names are not added to article titles strictly for disambiguation purposes. See WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc. This is not helpful. Tell us what you will support (specific title please) rather than making us guess what to retitle the page. It can't stay where it is per WP:NOPRIMARY and we need to agree where to move it to.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article remaining at Stanley Green - I'm not convinced that this is in fact a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. I oppose both Stanley Green (Protein Man) and Stanley Owen Green. 162 etc. (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unbelievable. We have a FA article stating the subject is a local celebrity with locally specific fame to a specific area of London (and not outside that) and you are going to insist he's the primary topic for a global encyclopedia? Your WP:BIAS/WP:POVPUSH is showing. I've tagged the article for WP:POV concerns because of its title as the primary topic by group of editors pushing an agenda over the needs of the encyclopedia at large.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In your zeal to counter what you perceive as people pushing a POV, you may have missed the place up above where 162 said they had "No objection to Protein Man" a half hour before your POV accusation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose moving a featured article of 25 years standing for a one-week old creation. Can revisit later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not just one article. There are many topics on the dab page including place names.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I read the dab page, and didn't see anything there compelling enough to move the dab to primary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan We have a theatre and film historian known globally and a UK activist only known for his work in a single neighborhood in London. How is this not UK-centric bias? Actually its not even UK bias because the article makes it clear he is only known in one specific place in London. How is a hyper-local celebrity only familiar to people in central London taking precedence here over a globally known scholar? Not to mention a place, a song, and other people. It shouldn't.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like the oppose voters and new commenters to discuss policy at WP:GLOBAL/WP:NOTPRIMARY and tell us how keeping the article at the current title is or is not compliant with those policies specifically. All this argument over what to call the page is not the central problem behind the need to make a page move. It's difficult to move this conversation along and build WP:CONSENSUS if commenters are not engaging with the relevant policies, not answering cogent questions related to those policies, not engaging with the language in those policies, and distracting from the core issues by making this discussion about the end title rather than talking about the core problem which is WP:GLOBAL/WP:NOTPRIMARY. Nobody has actually addressed the real issues at the core of the nomination in the oppose camp which is a WP:STONEWALL tactic. Additionally, we have almost two weeks to close this and make a change if necessary so arguments to postpone in relation to FA are a non-issue in reality. Most move discussions only last a week which is well under that timeline.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

4meter4, please stop being so aggressive and bludgeoning the conversation. I think you should withdraw this move nomination and come back after February 4. I am changing my vote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We aren’t getting anywhere in current atmosphere. It wasn’t my intention to come off as unpleasant/combative. I’m fine tabling this until after the FA runs for the sake of making things smoother. Although frankly I am not likely to bring it up again at all unless someone else chooses to pursue it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please be patient. As suggested below, people are open to a change, just not in the middle of the TFA event. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would not oppose moving Stanley Green to Stanley Green (human billboard) (not to his full name, as that is not his common name), but I'm not convinced it's necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Petty tagging

4meter4, knock it off with the tagging or I'll drop this into ANI and let it be settled there. There is no neutrality issue with the article as is bloody clear to everyone. There's a discussion about the possible change of title: let it run its course without your bludgeoning of !votes you don't like. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat Calm down and be WP:CIVIL. I think the fact that I chose not to revert you was a pretty good inclination that I wasn't planning on pursuing it further. I do think that if there wasn't an FA article involved there wouldn't be a core group of editors acting this way. It is sad that so many people here are not willing to do the normal, ethical, and obvious thing we do under WP:Disambiguation policy. It is frustrating.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm entirely calm, so don't try to be patronising to me and tell me how to behave. I don't care how frustrated you feel: your tagging was pointy and disruptive and if you had reverted again, I would have taken the matter to ANI. Let the move discussion progress without bludgeoning and without more silly tagging please. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And another accusation of unethical behavior for not agreeing with your move _will_ get this moved to ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't patronize me by telling me how to behave. We can disagree about things without having to resort to name calling, and mischaracterizing legitimate WP:POVPUSH concerns as WP:POINTY behavior. Don't tell me editors ignoring policy because that suits their WP:BIAS is ethical. It isn't per policy at WP:GLOBAL. The fact that I'm pointing out a bias issue here shouldn't resort to threats of ANI reporting. It seems like you are making that threat to silence my point of view. That's not ok, and certainly acting against normal code of conduct one would expect from seasoned editors familiar with the WP:CONSENSUS process. I personally think it was inappropriate to remove the tag while the issue is being discussed and prefer the tag be restored, but I'm not going to edit war over it.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you never started a discussion on the neutrality of the article, so please stop claiming the tag was moved during discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I did state why I placed the tag at the time of placement as it is cogent to the move discussion and attitudes expressed there. The titling itself is a POV violation at present because it gives WP:UNDUE visibility in the search process and minimizes likely search targets. Eurocentric/UK bias in this case is structural not content in design. WP:Systemic bias can impact more than just content but can be imbedded in our navigation system as well. In this case it includes how we've chosen to title this page. 4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

*sigh* You know, you are allowed to say that you misunderstood something, you don't need to keep doubling down. Yes, the title of the article may show WP:Systemic bias. No, it does not mean that the WP:Featured article is not written from a WP:Neutral point of view. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we just chalk this up to everyone doing the best they know how under the circumstances? I was trying to alert people to the fact that a real POV issue was happening and that we needed to discuss it. It's not my fault that our only POV tag isn't framed well to alert people to structural bias. Maybe the tag should be altered to address this need and allow for other kinds of conversations, or a different kind of POV tag should be created. I'm honestly not sure what I could have done differently. But I don't need to repeat myself. We're getting to a better place of understanding which is a positive thing. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)