Jump to content

Talk:Jerome Frank

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

Requested move

[edit]
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.

The result of the proposal was moved and not moved, respectively. There's consensus that this is a WP:TWODABS situation, so there's no need for a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This is a WP:TWODABS situation, for which I propose that the judge, Jerome Frank, is the primary topic based on multiple points of notability, each of which is more substantial than the sole point of notability asserted for the psychiatrist. He was already a noted legal scholar and philosopher even before he held any executive or judicial office; he thereafter served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and he was a judge of one of the most influential United States Courts of Appeals for fifteen years. The psychiatrist is noted to have written a book that was "influential in his field"; the judge wrote many books, influential in many fields, while making judicial decisions that had an immediate and far reaching impact. See Simon N. Verdun-Jones, The Jurisprudence of Jerome N. Frank - A Study in American Legal Realism, 7 Sydney L. Rev. 180 (1973), stating that "[f]ew jurisprudential writers have aroused such prolonged public controversy as Jerome Frank". Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) bd2412 T 22:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the disambig page would be harmless at the proposed "foo (disambiguation)" title, I acknowledge that it would be superfluous, and I am fine with getting rid of it. Good call. bd2412 T 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Oppose "Frank Jerome is" = 11 for the judge, 3 for the psychiatrist, "Frank Jerome was" = 16 for the judge, 5 for the psychiatrist. These numbers are not up there in the "we should make 1 article ambiguous" zone - anyone interested in either law or psychiatry will not have heard of the Jerome Frank outside their field and will benefit from assistence, consequently per WP:TWODABS we still need the dab page at the base location. This is a WP:TWODABS situation, yes, but one of the more common WP:TWODABS situations, where there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These numbers in books aren't sufficiently weighted to the judge to make ambiguation beneficial. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your metric is a bit off. Jerome Frank" by itself yields (for me) over 300,000 hits, with closer to 20 to 1 favoring the judge, while adding "is" reduces this to about one percent of those returns, and "was" reduces this to about two percent. Switching to Google News searches seems to yield hundreds of times as many articles about the judge as about the psychiatrist. It is important to remember that a disambiguation page is a navigational aid, not an end in and of itself. It makes no sense to have a separate page for navigation when all the navigation that is needed can be accomplished in a hatnote. bd2412 T 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for running [Jerome Frank was] [Jerome Frank is] etc. is to avoid unreliable search tails and also to ensure in-sentence hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, searching without those parameters yields several orders of magnitude more results, and these tend to be on-topic and weigh even more heavily towards the philosopher/judge. Remember, we're talking about a guy who was only one level down from the United States Supreme Court. bd2412 T 01:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Classic two-way DAB situation. While it can be argued that the judge is more notable than the psychiatrist, that's not enough to establish the judge as the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and User:In ictu oculi (sic) but delete the DAB page. The judge is more notable and those seeking him will be saved a visit to an unneeded DAB page. Those seeking the psychiatrist will still have have the exact same number of clicks as now via a prominent hatnote. —  AjaxSmack  01:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the criterion is not just that he is more notable, it's that he has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term (my emphasis). It's not just first past the post, or at least not according to the current guideline. Do you think this notability is substantially greater, or are you suggesting a change in the guideline? No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The lawyer got 1,830 views in the last 90 days, the psychiatrist got 797. Having two sometimes contradictory criteria has resulted in considerable confusion, so I consider the "educational value" criteria an unfortunate addition to the guideline. 41.181.202.192 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TWODABS presuming the lawyer really is the primary topic.

    But even if the lawyer were not the primary topic, I would support per invoking WP:IAR with respect to the primary topic requirement in TWODABS. That is, as long as one use is at the base name, at least people searching for that use with "Jerome Frank" will get to the article they seek right away, while the remainder will be one (hatnote link) click away from the article they seek, just as they would be if they landed on a dab page at Jerome Frank. This improves WP, thus justifying invoking IAR. --B2C 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The nomination comes from down a path we shouldn't go, judging relative worth and deciding who is worthy to carry their name.
The argument based on "primary topic", which is actually a relative measure, is logically and linguistically absurd. Neither person was the "primary topic" for the name "Jerome Frank" by any reasonable real-world use of the words.
Neither are particularly well known outside of their fields. Consequently, it is very likely that someone with some knowledge of Jerome Frank (lawyer) will have no knowledge of Jerome Frank (psychiatrist), and vice versa. Two groups of readers may assume that there is only on Jerome Frank of note. Therefore, having one appear under a undisambiguated title is to do a disservice to readers looking for the other.
The status quo is fine. Anyone seeking information on the lawyer will recognise the name/link/url Jerome Frank (lawyer). Anyone seeking information on the psychiatrist will recognise the name/link/url Jerome Frank (psychiatrist). Both contain a minimum of information to precisely identify. Leaving off the disambiguator will see readers looking for the lesser Jerome landing on the others. Better to have everyone follow a logical search process than to have one group needing to take backward steps.
The "See also ... Frank Jerome Murray (1904-1995), American judge" demonstrates the superiority of DAB pages over hatnotes as navigation aids. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might not have seen this, but I provided a link above to where Jerome Frank was on the cover of Time Magazine. I think that pretty clearly demonstrates being well known outside his field. bd2412 T 16:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did pass over that link without even reading the link url (I assumed it was some clever algorithm based on scanned books or something, my bad). Yes, cover of Time is impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"(lawyer)" does seem inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree. I have substantially expanded the article, and have found numerous books and articles written about this subject which would allow for further expansion (I note in particular this review, which says that Frank's first book "became a best-seller" and that "[f]ew judges who have not served on the highest court of the nation or a state have been the subject of this degree of academic evaluation). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not necessarily convinced that more important people need less precision, but the current disambiguation doesn't quite fit, no alternative is obvious, and given uncertainty, the nom, now the article's major author, deserves kudos. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jerome New Frank

[edit]

If disambiguation is considered in future, Jerome New Frank would be preferable to paranthetical disambiguation.

This guy has legal services named after him! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerome Frank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ware Group"

[edit]

Whittaker Chambers specifically said the group was not part of an espionage operation. Neither Pressman, Abt, Witt nor Kramer were accused of spying, so to call it a spy group, would seem to me to be inaccurate. Jeffkisseloff (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerome_Frank&oldid=1207288987"