Talk:D. C. Giddings

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dewitt Clinton Giddings → De Witt Clinton Giddings — Subject's official Congressional bio. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000166 Dru of Id (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Article created 9 May 2007 at Dewitt Clinton Giddings. Moved to De Witt C. Giddings on 14 June 2007. Moved back to Dewitt Clinton Giddings on 16 July 2008 per The Handbook Of Texas, which i believe is referring to http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgi05 if there isn't an actual book. This is a situation where conventional Americanised spelling might have been applied to any given source. It is just a guess on my part but the image in the infobox appears to have a generic hand-written label attesting to the person pictured rather than being Mr Giddings' actual signature. Short of having his actual signature of his name in full or his birth certificate or state registry record i would say it is equally as probable that the congressional bio is incorrect as it is that the Texas State Historical Association is incorrect. They could both be wrong and his name actually be DeWitt Clinton Giddings (no space between the e & W). Do you have any other sources that would be less subject to editing and modernisation?
  Also, the intro says he was born in 1832 but the next section and the infobox say he was born in 1827 so something is wrong there too. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Move - The lead is wrong on date of birth. All sources say 1827. Under "What Links Here", this page has already been "De Witt" and is already a re-direct from there, making this a proposed move a second re-direct. His tombstone says "D.C. Giddings". Should we change it to that? How many times does this page have to be moved on nitpicking? This proposed move is overkill, subject to like moves in the future by anyone else who thinks it should be moved around by anyone who prefers a different spelling. Maile66 (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A little nitpicking isn't bad. Ideally it would lead to a definitive source being brought forward. Personal preference shouldn't be the governing factor save for maybe Mr Giddings' preference as it is his own name. If he did indeed go by initials then that makes it more difficult. Ben Gutterly, the first reference in the article today, has DeWitt Clinton Giddings in his book. [1] In "Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Sitting In General Term, From January 1879, to June 1880" it is De Witt C. Giddings.[2] There are plenty of other sources to cite, going every which way possible. Microfilm of the state or county birth registry? Anyone live near Montrose, PA? [3] Something that is not subject to some manual of style or editor's own preference or the typesetter's oversight would bring an end to the nitpicking - unless people claim that the birth registry is where the error lies due to the totality of other sources :P Perhaps someone who lives near Austin would be able to go look at the collection of personal papers and see what he called himself and how is brothers and business contacts wrote his name. [4] Just from the index it would appear that his son was known as Clint but the infobox says his son's name is De Witt. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to create a controversy. Findagrave lists both as DeWitt, though son's marker is in ALLCAPS just to leave us confused ( http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=25319781&PIpi=9751640 ). Amend to proposal to → D.C. Giddings as shown on marker, cover De Witt/DeWitt/Dewitt in article space? BTW, previous move involved sockpuppetry a sockpuppet, FWIW. If no concensus, will withdraw proposal. Dru of Id (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move - The Congressional bioguide is not infallible, and it seems to be the only modern source that renders the name as two words. Other sources are split as to whether it's "Dewitt" or "DeWitt." "DeWitt" would be acceptable, IMO, but not "De Witt". --Orlady (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidently De Witt as a surname has 5 former representatives (one is DeWitt), and former governor of New York DeWitt Clinton's Congressional bio says De Witt (signature is continuous, so clerical/programming separation before capital, perhaps?); the bibliography is a jumble there, too. I did move one's reference on disambiguation page, since it was redirecting (not an attempt to affect this action). Dru of Id (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.