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: Move. Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mary Peters (Secretary of Transportation) → ? – Mary Peters (politician) I prefer, but Mary Peters (secretary) is an alternative. Nobody would search for "(Secretary of Transportation)", would they? By the way, I added a hatnote linking to another politician, Mary Ann Peters. George Ho ( talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Mild oppose as proposed. I have a really strong aversion to ambiguous titles unless we're looking at a true WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and if there's another Mary Peters who is a politician with an article, then Mary Peters (politician) can't be it. "Secretary" seems to mislead--without context I would assume it meant, like, an office assistant. Red Slash 03:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support move to Mary Peters (politician). The only Mary Peters here who's a politician. Despite the claim at the top of this article (which I've removed as inaccurate and unnecessary), Mary Ann Peters is a career diplomat, not a politician, so there's no ambiguity. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

How does being an ambassador not make you a politician? George Ho ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Career diplomats are quite clearly not politicians. They are career officials who rise through the ranks of their profession, not political electees or appointees. Are generals politicians? Are civil servants politicians? No, of course they're not. Neither are diplomats. Some ambassadors are political appointees and not career diplomats (more in some countries than others), but it appears that Peters is not one of them, as her article makes clear. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support - there is no ambiguity with Mary Ann Peters for exactly the reason User:Necrothesp mentions: an ambassador might also be a politician, but the role is not in itself political. And contrary to what User:Roman Spinner said when originally moving this page, the role of Secretary of Transportation is a political one; just because she "never campaigned for or held public elective office" she is still a politician according to the definition at Politician because she is "involved in influencing public policy and decision making". So in summary, the proposed title is both as succinct as it needs to be, and as unambiguous.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. As I indicated in my September 2010 edit summary, if "(Secretary of Transportation)" is excessively specific or excessively lengthy as a qualifier, then "(cabinet member)" or "(public official)" may serve as alternative qualifiers which would provide appropriate descriptions without the use of the overly-broad and misleading description "(politician)". If I may quote Necrothesp above, "Are civil servants politicians? No, of course they're not. Neither are diplomats", and suggest his term, "(civil servant)" as still another possible qualifier. Not every cabinet member automatically qualifies to be described as a "(politician)". Some have been academics, others have previously served as jurists. If everyone who is "involved in influencing public policy and decision making" is automatically described as a "(politician)", then judges, military leaders, directors of spy agencies (CIA, MI5), internal police agencies (FBI, NKVD) or space agencies (NASA) would all be described as "politicians". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The difference is, however, that members of the cabinet are political appointees. Do they not become, therefore, politicians by default? In most democracies, judges, military, intelligence and police chiefs are not political appointees (although it is true that America does tend towards political appointments even in these spheres). Peters' activities in Arizona are also overtly political. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mary Peters was, during her period of public service, an American political appointee, and therefore should be compared to other American political appointees. In America, all of those you mentioned (Federal judges, military, intelligence and police chiefs) are political appointees. In some cases, police chiefs, fire commissioners and other public servants compete and advertise themselves in non-partisan elections, while still not being considered politicians, while others (primarily judges, but also members of zoning boards and holders of other minor offices, who are generally considered to be civil servants) run in partisan elections, but are still not considered as politicians, unless they accept a political party leadership role or become publicly known for prominent partisan activity or are officially considered as candidates for legislative offices. As examples of some of the best known politicians and non-politicians, one can point to CIA Director in 1976–77, George H. W. Bush, a former member of Congress and future president, as clearly being a politician, while the recently-resigned director, David Petraeus, clearly is not a politician. Similarly, the most prominent cabinet members, recent Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are clearly politicians, as legislators and presidential candidates, while among their recent predecessors, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were clearly not politicians, but academics, military leaders, diplomats, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, military chiefs are not political appointees ever in America, although appointments to certain positions may be. But promoting someone to general or flag officer rank is not a political decision, but a career progression. I would consider that the other people you mention, in America, are indeed politicians, including judges, sheriffs, district attorneys and anyone else who stands for election. If they stand for election then they are politicians, pure and simple. If they are appointed to a position because of their support for a particular political agenda then they are politicians, pure and simple. Of course Kissinger, Albright, Powell and Rice were politicians. Not originally maybe, but as soon as they accepted an appointment because of their political views and used their appointment to further their own political agenda and the political agenda of the president who appointed them, then they became politicians. There is a huge difference between someone who is appointed to a post to further a political agenda and someone who is appointed to a post simply because they have reached that level in their career. There is therefore no problem in my view using "politician" as a disambiguator in this case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Every candidate for top military rank in America, from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Naval Operations and so forth, is nominated by the President and the Secretary of Defense and subsequently confirmed by Congress. The same is true of all diplomats, including the United Nations Ambassador, deputy ambassadors as well as ambassadors to each nation with which the US maintains diplomatic relations. Similarly the heads of the FBI and the CIA are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, same as Justices of the Supreme Court as well as all Federal judges. Non-political personalities such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice were academics who never campaigned for political office nor did they become involved in political campaigns. Colin Powell spoke out in support of Barack Obama's candidacy, but did not campaign for him. Unlike Britain, where the cabinet is composed entirely of politicians, i.e. elected Members of Parliament, a number of American cabinet members were, and are, apolitical and were not even registered as members of a political party. Since Mary Peters is an American public official, we haven't even moved to a discussion of what constitutes a "(politician)" in other countries, but, suffice it to say, in a number of nations all civil servants are dismissed after a change of government, and replaced by supporters and party members of the new government. By casting so wide a net under the term "(politician)", the meaning becomes so broad that, indeed, every civil servant, general, judge and diplomat falls under such definition. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

There is an enormous difference between being a career professional who is appointed by the head of state as a formality having risen to their position through the ranks of their profession and a cabinet member or other official who is explicitly chosen for their political views. Alleging someone like Condoleezza Rice is apolitical is frankly laughable. Her politics very clearly influenced her role. The fact she never campaigned for election is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support I'm bemused by the suggestion that a Secretary - a member of the Cabinet, after all - is not a politician. Better fulfils the desiderata in WP:AT. More concise, precise enough to be unambiguous (in the absence of other politicians with her name), more natural (as the nom suggests, people are more likely to type this shorter disambiguater in), and more consistent (most politicians who require disambiguation use "politician", rather than a specific office they've held, unless there are multiple politicians who have to be distinguished from each other). Neljack ( talk) 03:25, 15 December 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.