Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Matthews (judge)

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

Thomas?

[edit]

Where are we getting "Thomas" from? The Congressional Biographical Directory and American National Biography just call him "Stanley Matthews". john k (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Stanley Matthews" was his name at birth, and Matthews' original papers at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center library contain correspondence addressed to him as "Thos S Matthews". According to a contemporary obituary/eulogy, "Thomas Stanley Matthews was born in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, July 21st, 1824. His first name, used by him during his early boyhood, was dropped when he came to manhood, perhaps for the whimsical reason he gave to Governor Hoadly who had joked him about it, 'My father's name was Thomas and he opened my love letters,' perhaps for less cogent reasons." (Quoted from Stanley Matthews 1824-1889, by Charles Theodore Greve, of the Ohio Bar) Query whether this is worth mentioning in the article. Query further whether the article should be moved to "Stanley Matthews", although we would have to disambiguate (which we probably should do anyway) from Stanley Matthews, the soccer player. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Stanley Matthews (judge) and Stanley Matthews (athlete), or some such, would be the best way to disambiguate. john k (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

The suggestion at the bottom of the last thread (seven years ago!) is well-taken. Any objection to my moving this to Stanley Matthews (Justice)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 September 2018

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear (though I would have gone with just "judge"). bd2412 T 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Matthews (lawyer) → Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice) – Subject's key points of notability are not focused upon his private legal practice, but upon his service as a U.S. senator and a Supreme Court justice. At Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, there are examples such as David Davis (Supreme Court justice) (who also served as a U.S. senator), Henry Baldwin (judge), Thomas Johnson (jurist), Pierce Butler (justice) and William Strong (Pennsylvania judge). If consensus indicates preference for a one-word qualifier, the choice would most likely be among "(judge)", "(jurist)" or "(justice)".     Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in general we avoid multiple disambiguators. "Judge" is fine to disambiguate him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that I noted that this approach would be atypical as the very predicate for my further comments explaining why the circumstances may warrant variation, so I'm not sure what the point of your comment is, given the first clause is redundant on a point already noted and the second clause is nothing more than an assertion about what feels right to you. Furthermore, our preference for one descriptor in parenthetical disambiguation is purely convention (we tend to prefer it as a matter of automatic feeling of simplicity) but there is absolutely zero policy requirement to do so (indeed, our one little bit of WP:TITLE that indirectly addresses the issue, WP:AND, makes it clear that it may be appropriate on occasion) and there are pretty compelling reasons to contemplate it in this case, reasons which you did not address when dismissing the matter with your "it usually looks like this and this is 'fine'" comment. It's not as if "Supreme Court Justice" subsumes the role of "U.S. Senator" in the way we sometimes regard the position of judge subsuming the title of lawyer; in the latter case, both positions are members of a bar and are engaged in basically the same process of the interpretation of law, whereas Senators are legislators (promulgators of the law), not jurists. Nor is it the case that Senator is such a minor title (or more to the point, such a minor part of the subject's notability as a matter of weight) that it can be considered entirely incidental despite the fact that an individual achieved the (perhaps) slightly more prestigious position of Supreme Court justice. Now mind, you, despite my full-throated defense of the notion here, I won't be nonplussed if consensus lands instead on just "Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice)". But I do feel your response was reflexive and under-supported by any rationale that actually engaged with the argument you were dismissing. A drive-by "naaaaaaah" if you will, which is not super useful to discussion. Snow let's rap 23:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know where to start here, so I'll keep it simple. Generally we use "judge" for judges unless they need further disambiguation. We use "politician" for legislators unless they need further disambiguation. We don't use two disambiguators. Disambiguators are just that. They are meant to disambiguate between people of the same name. Given the only other two Stanley Matthews are a footballer and a tennis player, I'm afraid I find your proposals needlessly wordy, and precedent and guidelines certainly back up my assertions. Stanley Matthews (judge) or Stanley Matthews (politician) would both do the job perfectly well, but I suspect he is better known as the former than the latter (and did the job for considerably longer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:28, 15 September 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

missing essential info on confirmation vote

[edit]

The article says he was confirmed 24 to 23 but says nothing about the total number of senators in 1881 and why the total was an odd number. Even more surprising is that even the article US Senate has no info on this topic. I had to search for quite a while to find in List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union that there were 38 states in 1881. So there were 76 senators, but only 47 voted. It's a sign of a possibly very badly written article that it says nothing about this, especially since the exceptionally low confirmation vote is the only reason almost all people look at this article. --Espoo (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2020

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Stanley Matthews (Supreme Court justice) → Stanley Matthews (judge) – On closer investigation, the only reason we have any other article with "Supreme Court justice" as a disambiguator (that being David Davis (Supreme Court justice)) is that there are other judges named "David Davis". Here there is no other judge named "Stanley Matthews", so the more concise convention used in William Paterson (judge), William Johnson (judge), and Henry Baldwin (judge) should be used. BD2412 T 17:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Matthews_(judge)&oldid=1208060688"