Talk:Robert H. Smith (philanthropist)

Requested move 16 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There seems to be no consensus for any move at all, and even among those who prefer a move, no consensus on a move target. bd2412 T 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Smith (philanthropist) → Robert Hilton Smith – Parenthesis of philanthropy overlooks his role as a builder-developer. There are also other Robert Smiths who have engaged in philanthropy, such as Robert Barr Smith and Robert P. Smith. Using his middle name is also easier to type and shorter, 6 characters versus 16 in (philanthropist), seems silly. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Number 57 12:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Ranze (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use middle names unless they were commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Robert Smith (real estate developer). Per In ictu and Nectrothesp, the proposed name does not work on common name grounds, but using his actual profession might be better than philanthropist given that there are other philanthropists.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Necrosthesp's suggestion; but would prefer the more concise Robert Smith (developer).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support original proposal. Commonly used or not, if we can't accurate disambiguate by a parenthetical suitable term, then "Hilton" should be used at default as a middle name. If not, how about Robert Smith (American businessman) then? George Ho (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, Robert H. Smith might be right as per the Robert H. Smith school of business --- not that this helps due to Robert H. Smith (naval officer). GregKaye 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how "H." is more recognizable than "Hilton". Even "philanthropist" is longer than "Hilton". I'll propose a renaming on that person when this discussion is over. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

George Ho there is a whole business school but only by the H. initial. GregKaye 09:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Parallel to Henry Thornton (British economist, banker, and philanthropist),

William Thornton (American architect, inventor, and public official) and

David Karp (American Web developer and entrepreneur), Britannica titlings,

Suggest Robert Smith (real estate developer and philanthropist). Some people might recognise him in connection to real estate, others in connection to philathropy. If both references are notable, use both. In ictu oculi Ranze Amakuru George Ho Cúchullain GregKaye 09:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with that...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

As per the article text we could alternatively have:

Robert Smith (builder-developer and philanthropist) or

Robert Smith (builder, developer and philanthropist) which, I think, would sufficiently indicate, suggest real-estate. GregKaye 10:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not admit that parenthetical disambiguation won't work as long as consensus is absent? And these suggestions are too long. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

George Ho Why not admit that encyclopadic explanation in an encyclopaedia always works. IMO Wikipedia is obsessed with the minimum standard issue of disambiguation and that we are better off sticking with WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Can you cite any non Wikipedia source to say that the parenthetical disambiguation won't work? Can you cite any non Wikipedia source to say that the suggestions are too long? What backing do you cite within Wikipedia?

1. Robert Smith (philanthropist) is questioned as it focusses on one area of his involvements while ignoring others.
2. Robert Hilton Smith does not work as, according to evidence presented, he is not commonly or recognisably known by this name.
3. Robert Smith (builder, developer and philanthropist) is one example of a title that meets all requirements in regard to people "familiar" either to his development of philanthropic work. It meets requirements of both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE.

I think that we would be better off following the, I think, sensible example of Britannica titling as shown in examples such as:

• John Cowles, Jr. (American newspaper executive and philanthropist)
• John Howard (British philanthropist and social reformer)
• Sir John Marks Templeton (American-born British investor, mutual fund manager, and philanthropist)

GregKaye 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The third one doesn't obviously. See Talk:David Lee (screenwriter). There was a recent discussion with similar suggestion, but I could not remember what it was. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

George Ho That discussion seems to me to have been infused with an assumption that we have to chose between one route of identity clarification or another. Also from my recently complied list of Britannica Johns please also see:

• John Farrow (Australian-born director and writer)
• John Huston (American director, writer, and actor)
• John Sayles (American director, screenwriter, and actor)
• John Singleton (American director and screenwriter)

"Robert Smith", in contrast to the above, is known in at least two potentially very different spheres.
I just want to raise the fact that there are other possible and credible ways of working.
GregKaye 06:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Britannica. Britannica's titling does not compare to Wikipedia's. WP:PRECISION discourages extra precision. WP:COMMONNAMES discourages inaccurate or ambiguous names. Shall you provide more links from Britannica? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are many differences between Wikipedia and Britannica and, IMO, not all of them are good. We can get back to that.

WP:PRECISION begins: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."

Then come text contradictions

First the valid example to Mother Theresa is given as per WP:UCRN (please note that Robert Hilton Smith is not this Robert Smith's commonly recognisable name)

Later we are given the examples of Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) in which the parenthesis is provided purely for the purpose of clarification.

I am happy to present references to Britannica as I consider that they better meet the, according to Oxford, better meet the titling requrements of an encyclopaedia as: "A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject ..."

The Robert Smith in our current example is a man who certainly had more than one aspect. He had broad "topical scope" and I think that a fair and encyclopaedic route to take would be to present this. GregKaye 07:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't convince me that any other disambiguation is better than "Hilton". Why not Robert H. Smith (billionaire) instead? Oh wait, it's still no better than "Hilton" or any other. Here are obituaries: [1][2][3] --George Ho (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

George Ho It shouldn't be about convincing but presenting arguments. Finally some apparent support for the Hilton suggestion but I think it is wise to note:

• The first reference, from diamondbackonline.com, states: "Michelle Smith has taken over the Robert H. Smith Foundation..." This, I think, is at least a significant part of his legacy.
• The second reference, from the Washington Post, only makes one use of Hilton and that within comments
• The third reference, from philanthropyroundtable.org, is entitled "A Tribute to Robert H. Smith" and has a later paragraph that begins: "Robert Hilton Smith was born into a family of recently immigrated Russian Jews." This seems to me to be a reference to name as given at birth and not to commonly used designations used in life. I could be wrong but I think that there may be a tendency in obituaries to make use of this type of reference. An important issue would be how he was known in life and how he is widely remembered.

Robert H. Smith (billionaire) has some aspect of precision although I don't think that billionaire is commonly used in Wikipedia title parenthesis. Even in the case of the worlds second most wealthy man Britannica presents:

• Bill Gates (American computer programmer, businessman, and philanthropist). Arguably, in this particular case and outside I guess certain African or other villages or locations, Gates is best known for computing and business but, should the Gates article have needed clarification I would have suggested ".. (software developer and philanthropist)". Note though that he is not known as "William Henry Gates" although I am sure that, should he not find a way to invest in immortality, this name may be widely included in obituaries.
• For you to apply WP:NATURAL you need to prove that Robert Hilton Smith is "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". As questionable as it may be, that is the requirement. GregKaye 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This person has been sometimes references, whose notability is marginal but tolerable. There are other Robert Hilton Smiths, but this is only one notable. Herald MailNPR. Actually, in NPR, the surname is Hiltonsmith. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes George Ho but by what name would he be recognisable by? PLEASE see results on:

• ("Robert Smith" OR "Robert H. Smith" OR "Robert Hilton Smith") AND ("builder" OR "developer" OR "real estate" OR "philanthropist" OR "philanthropy") AND (obituary OR Maryland) in News and
• ("Robert Smith" OR "Robert H. Smith" OR "Robert Hilton Smith") AND ("builder" OR "developer" OR "real estate" OR "philanthropist" OR "philanthropy") AND (obituary OR Maryland) in Books

At least in the hand fulls of pages I checked I searched, the name "Hilton" did not even appear. I have seen nothing tolerable.

We can present "Robert Hilton Smith" in the article as a birth/death certificate type reference such as in the obituaries but we can't do use the obscure reference in the title without consistent reliable source reference. No one else has been presented to included "Robert Hilton Smith" in a title. Why should we? GregKaye 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You're the one favoring parenthetical disambiguation. How else will we accurately and concisely distinguish this person? I can call him businessman or a philanthropist. Add an "H." if needed. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I would strongly discourage any sort of (foo and bar) dab. Per WP:DAB, disambiguators should be concise and non-unique. As long as there are redirects from other roles he's notable for, one is sufficient. Philanthropists are almost always people who have been successful in business, so I don't find this qualifier particularly confusing. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also oppose a move to a "(foo and bar)" dab, per BDD. The point of disambiguators is to distinguish the article from others of the same name, not necessarily to give every bit of relevant information about the subject. Robert Smith (developer) does that adequately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Robert Smith (developer). This resolves potential ambiguity with other Robert Smith philanthropists. Robert Smith (developer) appears to be the single option with the broadest support here, and it satisfies all of the policy links listed by everyone. Alsee (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 May 2016

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: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Robert Smith (philanthropist) → Robert H. Smith (philanthropist) – The business school is named after him with an "H". Even this book includes the "H" as his middle initial. He must not be confused with a theologian and a naval officer. Don't worry; this time, I'm not proposing the full middle name. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2016 (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.