Talk:Arthur Brown (American politician)

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

Date of death[edit]

One of the references gives the date of death as December 12, the other as December 13. Anybody know for sure? -- MisterHand 02:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Day Saint?[edit]

Brown was called the "gentile polygamist", which means he had a mistress and he was non-Mormon. "The 'Gentile Polygamist' is the title of the article on him in Utah Historical Quarterly by Linda Thatcher (Summer 1984). This is why I removed the LDS category as unsourced, knowing that there are sources to the contrary as far as his religious affiliation is concerned. 128.214.205.4 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the note above suggests, there is no evidence of Brown having been LDS. The source cited above mentions that Brown was called by his jilted mistress a gentile (or non-LDS) polygamist. Another hint related to his religion coming from the Utah Historical Quarterly (Volume 52, Number 3, Summer 1984) is that a Unitarian minister was used to simmer the overheated relations between Senator Brown and Mrs Bradley when she was living for a time in Pocatello, Idaho. And, finally, Senator Brown was buried in the Mount Olivet Cemetery in Salt Lake City, one that was used in the early history of the state mostly for the burial of non-Mormons. It is also very conveniently located just mere blocks away from the longstanding Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.5.190 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 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.

No consensus for the mass move. Given the number of variables, including a large number of names having differing issues, and alternative proposals being floated in the discussion, gauging consensus here is a very complex task. The only titles for which consensus to move is clear are Arthur Brown (Utah senator), which I am moving to Arthur Brown (U.S. senator) to avoid the impression that his service was in the state senate, and Isa Mohammed (Nigerian senator) which I am moving to Isa Mohammed (politician). I have also redirected Alexander Campbell (senator) to the disambiguation page, due to there being two people with that name and title. As for the rest, either individual nominations or nominations in smaller groups addressing identical issues may yield a clearer result. bd2412 T 22:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:CONCISE: These fourteen article titles seem to contain unnecessary detail. Please see Talk:Dan Sullivan (American senator) and Talk:George Jones (U.S. senator) for other discussions of that issue. Note that there are 34 other articles that use the proposed disambiguator "(senator)" and 15 other articles that use the proposed disambiguator "(state senator)". Moreover, the use of "(Utah senator)" could mislead the reader into thinking the topic is a state senator rather than a United States Senator. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We usually use "American politician" where there is only one and "[State] politician" where there is only one for that state, whether these individuals are members of federal or state legislatures. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the careful review. You seem to be more familiar with the Wikipedia convention for politicians than I am, and I support your alternative suggestions. Perhaps Bob Johnson (Arkansas state senator) could be further simplified to Bob Johnson (senator), since there are no other Bob Johnsons that are any sort of senator. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Henry A. Wise (American politician) would not be appropriate, since that name is ambiguous with Henry A. Wise, a different American politician that is much more notable. Similarly, Bob Johnson (American politician) does not seem appropriate, since there is also Bob Johnson (Arkansas state representative), a different American politician who is more notable (based on page views). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal by Necrothesp — This follows the usual conventions, providing the WP:CONSISTENCY that this topic area needs. I would suggest that over-precision in disambiguation is unhelpful, for it unnecessarily clutters the following brackets with information that belongs in the body of the article, and impacts our ability to create a regularity across politician biographies. I expect that some of the people that have expressed a preference for 'US senator' as disambiguation would not prefer the use of 'Ukrainian Rada member', 'British member of parliament', 'Japanese Councillor'. Following the 'politician' scheme allows disambiguation that is universally comprehensible and concise across the world, and that's a good thing. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I think that's a tricky case. To say why, there are presently Bob Johnson (Arkansas state representative) and Bob Johnson (Arkansas state senator). If we drop 'state' from one, presumably we should drop state from the other to maintain some sort of logical scheme...however, I don't know if plain 'representative' is acceptable in the way 'senator' might be. American politics are somewhat unfamiliar to me, so feel free to share your opinion on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it does not seem adequate to use "representative". I think readers ought to understand that "senator" is a political position, but a "representative" could be anything from a political officeholder to an attorney, a spokesperson, or a salesperson. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! I guess my point remains true in the hypothetical situation described above, but I just discovered that there is another whole dab page at Robert Johnson (disambiguation) that is distinct from the one at Bob Johnson. It is full of politicians, including some senators – even another senator from Arkansas, and in my personal experience it is very common for people named Robert to be known as Bob. I think those dab pages should probably be merged to avoid the confusion that I suffered. I also wonder whether Robert Johnson (the musician) is really so much more important than all those other people combined. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the Necrothesp proposal, being (politician), then (American politician) then (state politician), then (politician, born xxxx). This is most consistent with other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is significant difference between a state senator and US senator. No state senator has ever become POTUS, but 16 US senators have. For me its either US Senator or American politician, writing senator is allowing ambiguity and raising the profile of a state's senator to that of a US senator.--Politicoindian (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal by Necrothesp per RGloucester. Qualifiers should primarily reflect the name of the country or state or region, not the institution, and shouldn't be more precise than provably necessary. Plenty of politicians have held memberships in two or more deliberative bodies, or two or more offices in general, of roughly comparable notability. The edit wars about specifically which offices to mention and in specifically what order would be fun but the benefit to the project would be zero. Parsimony is the way to go here. Kramler (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISE, either the nom's or Necrothesp's proposal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp's proposal is better, but oppose the David Smith proposal. It is more important to disambiguate with Canadian than house name, senates are not so special cf politicians, and not the same worldwide, and he is first a politician, second a lawyer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 8 October 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.

Requested move 7 August 2023[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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Brown (U.S. senator) → Arthur Brown (American politician) – The current title is unnecessarily role-specific. This proposal was suggested by Necrothesp (and somewhat also by SmokeyJoe) in the previous RM, but may have gotten lost in the shuffle. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. U.S. senator is a better disambiguator. It is more specific with less characters. Politician is very broad. Also, Brown is not remembered for his politic, not according to the current sources, but for holding a specific level political seat. He was not a career politician, but a one-term US senator. As the highest position that he ever held, it is well used to disambiguate. Also, American is an ambiguous word. “Unnecessarily” is a very weak word, despite being a big word. Many good things are unnecessary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NCPDAB encourages using "standard, commonly used tags such as '(musician)' and '(politician)'". It seems to encourage using broader rather than narrower disambiguation terms. For example, we tend to mark American football players with "(American football)" rather than "(end)" or "(tackle)" or "(punter)", even though the position names are more specific with less characters. Except in cases where further disambiguation is needed, of course, such as Bob Bryant (end) and Bob Bryant (tackle). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I take the point on Wikipedia:NCPDAB. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NCPDAB.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Standard disambiguator. "American" is not at all ambiguous. It is the word Wikipedia (and the rest of the world except for the "unnecessarily" pedantic) always uses for someone from the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Senator from Utah was the only political office he held, so this is an exact and appropriate title. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the standard disambiguator. No point in using a different one for him than the one we use for everyone else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2023 (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:Arthur_Brown_(American_politician)&oldid=1206451052"